Feds Reverse Approval Of Alcoholic Cocaine

Last week, Palcohol, a powdered form of everybody's favorite legal way to get crunked up and destroy lives, was approved by the FDA. Until somebody found the company's website and noticed that it contained a page enumerating every conceivable way this could go horribly wrong:

What's worse than going to a concert, sporting event, etc. and having to pay $10, $15, $20 for a mixed drink... Take Palcohol into the venue and enjoy a mixed drink for a fraction of the cost.

We have found adding Palcohol to food is so much fun. Sprinkle Palcohol on almost any dish and give it an extra kick. Some of our favorites are the Kamikaze in guacamole, Rum on a BBQ sandwich, Cosmo on a salad and Vodka on eggs in the morning to start your day off right. Experiment. Palcohol is great on so many foods. Remember, you have to add Palcohol AFTER a dish is cooked as the alcohol will burn off if you cook with it...and that defeats the whole purpose.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room….snorting Palcohol. Yes, you can snort it. And you'll get drunk almost instantly because the alcohol will be absorbed so quickly in your nose. Good idea? No. It will mess you up. Use Palcohol responsibly.

Kinda makes Four Loko sound like Aquafina, doesn't it?

Now the FDA has reversed their decision. Don't be too hard on them. They were drunk off some really strong guacamole at the time.

UPDATE 3/12/15: And it's back. FDA now satisfied that powdered alcohol won't bring the ruin of mankind.

How to Lose Friends, Influence, and People

Remember the glory days of George W. Bush, when we were all up in arms about the Patriot Act and its assault on our rights to privacy? Seems quaint now. Privacy is officially an illusion these days, a truth revealed by Edward Snowden. And it's not just Americans that the United States is spying on, it's the whole world--including our closest allies.

Those revelations have understandably made the international community incredibly upset. Bugging Andrea Merkel's phone? Eavesdropping on 60 million Spanish citizens... in a month? Reading the President of Mexico's emails? This is how we treat our friends?

Imagine if your buddies found out you were spying on them. How would they suddenly regard you? No wonder the U.S. was so determined to get Snowden into custody... it's not that he was a traitor, it's that he knew that we had betrayed the trust of those we count on most in the international community. Now that the cat's out of the bag, the question is, will our relationship with our international friends be forever damaged?

You don't undo decades of history is a single swoop, but the relations we've shared with our allies through two world wars and a bevy of international conflicts were already strained by the arrogance of George W. Bush's administration. The revelation that the Obama administration did nothing to stop these surveillance programs from overreaching is a debacle that threatens international cooperation on a host of other issues. How can we expect the world to respect the freedom of individuals when our own government has shown itself to be a bunch of hypocrites?

How can we take China to task for its lockdown on free speech and its abuses of human rights, when our own government has gathered the personal, private information of millions of innocent people? How can we stand as a beacon of hope and freedom to the world when our government has shown a blatant disregard for individual privacy?

We can't defend this. Not on the grounds that we were only targeting terrorists. Leaks have revealed that to be untrue. If you're targeting terrorists, target terrorists. Don't collect millions of phone records and THEN decide who looks like a terrorist.

After 9/11, the international community rallied behind us. For the first time in human history, the majority of the world was on the same side in battle. A battle against international terrorism. These revelations have fractured that. They smack of Cold War-era mistrust. They isolate us from the rest of the world.

Obama claims he had no idea... which doesn't absolve him, and in fact, drops him a few more levels in my esteem. The buck stops with the President, period. For him to claim ignorance over a spying program of this scope and size is either unbelievable or frightening. He's either lying-- which in this case, is a best case scenario-- or he's admitting that our military intelligence complex, given broad powers in the wake of 9/11, has become some Orwellian nightmare... beholden to zero oversight, paranoid even around its friends, and wildly inefficient. Don't defend bugging our allies' phones and scooping up the communications of millions of people-- question whether those resources wouldn't be better spent on people and places we know to be trouble.

The NSA has so far failed to reveal any real intelligence coups these programs have made. The oft-repeated figure of 54 plots thwarted isn't accurate, given statements from those who have reviewed the classified material. More importantly, none of the phone calls or emails gathered by the NSA program from our allies' governments led to the discovery of any terror plots.

In the coming months, Obama has a lot of 'splainin to do. If the United States is to regain respect as an international leader, it must earn back trust. I'm not sure how you do that unless we restore oversight to the intelligence gathering process and repeal the parts of the Patriot Act which give our government the right to spy on people who have never been accused of a crime.

If we seek out the terrorists we know, we'll find the ones we don't. If we look at every innocent person, all we do is waste time, goodwill, and the cooperation of our friends. We're a strong, great nation-- but if we don't change our behavior, we'll end up alone.

Here's hoping wisdom prevails.

A Middle Ground For Gun Control: Gun Safety

A Nevada middle school is the latest tragic scene in a long line of school shootings. In Massachusetts, a 14 year-old is being sought for shooting a beloved teacher and disposing of her body behind in the woods. In Texas, a napping nanny left her gun lying around, and her 5-year-old charge accidentally killed himself with it.

In all these cases, the shooters who pulled the trigger didn't buy their weapons. They simply took them from someone who was careless enough to leave their guns easily accessible.

In the debate over gun control, 2nd-amendment advocates say we don't need more gun laws. They say that everything is working just fine. More gun laws will only punish law-abiding gun owners.

But here's the thing. With no laws mandating gun safety measures, a law-abiding citizen can easily leave their gun vulnerable to misuse by somebody else. Only after that gun is used in a tragedy can they be brought up on any charges. Perhaps if laws were in place that were proactive rather than reactive, those people would have kept their guns better secured.

There are many easy solutions. Easy to implement, that is. At least if the gun lobby actually wants to stop their favorite product from making headlines for killing kids.

1. Require gun locks. Gun advocates argue that gun locks are cumbersome in case of an emergency. Okay, maybe. But requiring gun locks on weapons doesn't stop a gun owner from keeping their weapon unlocked when it's attended to. Need the security of that gun in your nightstand when you're going to bed? Sure, leave the gun unlocked while you're right next to it with your bedroom door closed. But when you leave the house, when your kids are playing near by, when you're out running errands... you have a lock on your gun which makes sure nobody else can use it in your absence.

2. Require gun safety classes. Right now, anyone without a criminal record can purchase a weapon. Okay, great. But there are a ton of idiots out there who... well, will think nothing of leaving a gun lying out while a 5-year-old is around. Requiring a gun safety course before a weapon can be purchased won't weed out all the idiots, but it will do two things. One, it will establish a longer period of contact between a gun purchaser and another party-- possibly enough to raise red flags if it seems that gun purchaser may intend to harm someone. Two, it assures that a gun purchaser has at least been taught basic safety and use of the dangerous product they're buying. Not all of the safety issues surrounding guns are immediately obvious-- for instance, if you hold the gun incorrectly, you're likely to break your finger due to the bolt action/hammer engaging. Or you may just shoot yourself not realizing that there's a bullet in the chamber after removing the ammo clip.

3. Offer incentives to gun companies to add gun safety features. Gun manufacturers have plenty of incentive to make their weapons more accurate, lighter, more deadly. One start-up even makes a gun that doesn't require aiming! The thing is, they don't have similar incentive to add safety features to their guns-- the truth is, people who buy guns buy them FOR safety... they don't worry about anything that makes their gun "safer." Giving gun companies a financial incentive to develop smart triggers and other ways to make sure a gun is only fired by authorized users could change the marketplace in a way that doesn't draw 2nd-amendment advocates' ire.

None of these solutions is a panacea... but they are realistic proposals that don't give gun enthusiasts much to complain about. They're basic safety precautions that don't rise to the level of gun licensing or restriction. Instead, they seek to promote responsible behavior. They won't stop gun violence, not by a longshot... but these policies can reduce the cases of gun violence that use a carelessly secured weapon, which is a goal that both gun control advocates and the gun lobby should be able to agree with.

UPDATE: Some gun owners on Reddit gave me some enlightening responses, which I want to briefly address.

As several commenters pointed out, most guns do come with some kind of lock. However:

"Trigger locks can be defeated with zip ties or a set of car keys. You are angling to create legislation just to create a false sense of security."

Well... a lock that's easily pickable? That's a problem, no? We can't beef these up? Well, no, because...

"Adding "safety features" to guns makes them less safe. It makes them more complicated and difficult to use, which means you are more likely to have a broken(dangerous) gun, or not be able to use it properly(also dangerous)."

The concern here seems to be, if someone breaks into your home, and is standing over your bed, you don't want to have to fiddle with a gun lock. I get that. But what about when you leave the gun at home, unattended? Leaving it unlocked presents a big hazard. Requiring a key to start your automobile doesn't prevent you from driving, and despite how "complicated" a key ignition system is, it rarely malfunctions.

"Could I just point out that each of these cases seem to involve criminal negligence(which as the term "criminal" might indicate, is illegal), and one case is attempted/successful murder?(also illegal) So the law already discourages and punishes this behaviour."

My issue with this argument is, irresponsible gun owners don't expect their guns to be used in a crime. They don't leave their guns unattended despite the possibility of being charged for criminal negligence. The act of being irresponsible with a gun, by itself, is not illegal, so one may think nothing of the possible implications of a possible crime in a possible future. If leaving a gun unattended and unlocked were illegal, then it might get people to think twice. Of course, enforcing that law would be nearly impossible in practice-- which is why I'm not advocating for it. I'm only for putting the onus on gun manufacturers to encourage gun responsibility by making gun locks a mandatory on every gun and pushing for the development of reliable and secure smart triggers. Apple figured out how to use your thumb to turn on your phone, smart triggers shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

 We're beyond the "middle ground" already. Gun owners have been the only ones giving in and compromising since 1934.

Guns are a lot different now than in 1934. A lot, lot different than they were in 1776 also. In order to pull off a mass shooting in 1776, you'd have to have about 12 muskets on you. So its a bit naive to think that as technology develops, the law should stay exactly the same. There are legitimate concerns about how modern advances have transformed our forefathers' shotguns into the modern weapons of today, weapons that have capabilities not designed for sport hunting or self-defense, but for warfare.

"The truth is there are more gun owning parents than pool owning parents but more kids drown every year by a large margin. If this is a humanistic appeal that has nothing to do with personal motivations to control, influence, or inconvenience all members of a hobby then you will be happy to know you can drop this devisive issue and save more lives by legislating pool ownership."

No kid takes a swimming pool to school and kills dozens of kids. Everything has its dangers, yes, but not everything is designed to kill. That's what a gun is. It is designed to kill. We shouldn't pretend otherwise because it's convenient for our argument. A gun is one of the only things with the capability of inflicting mass casualties in a short period of time, much more so than a knife (which requires close proximity and some degree of physical superiority). The other things on that list? Cars, bombs, poisons... things that are all regulated to some degree. It's fair for someone to believe that gun access should be unfettered, but its pretty disingenuous to compare apples to oranges by equating guns with pool ownership.

"Yo, 2003 called, they want their web design back. "

 Burn.

Are The Republicans Sort Of Right About The Debt Ceiling?

No, this is not a Robbie Republican post. And I'm not saying that holding the economy hostage in order to destroy Obamacare is a sound strategy or a goal we should be striving towards. But at the very heart of things, when you get down to it, there is an aggravating factor that's led us down this path, one that nobody has done anything about since the Clinton administration: the insane growth of the national debt and our horribly unbalanced federal budget.

Now, let me be clear. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling does not reduce the national debt. In fact, if the debt ceiling isn't raised, and we default (can't pay our bondholders), then the national debt will actually increase. You don't reduce your credit card debt by refusing to pay your bills, and the government can't reduce it's debt by refusing to pay its bills. We need to borrow, because we have bills to pay, and not enough tax revenue comes in to cover them. If we didn't borrow money, bills don't get paid, our bonds are worth trash, the dollar loses value, and suddenly, the economy takes a tailspin, reducing tax revenues further, because suddenly everyone's out of a job. It's a crazy mess.

This is why we haven't defaulted. This is why we won't EVER default. This is why Boehner and co. are going to agree to raise the debt ceiling again, despite their whole stink about it. Because they realize a default won't do a thing to reduce our debt, and will leave us far, far worse off.

So why the stink every few months? Why the "hostage taking"? Well, at the very least, it's sparking a conversation. And so far, what's come out of that conversation has been positive for Republicans.

As I said back in December, forecasting our nation's future after falling over the "fiscal cliff":

Yes, taxes go up. Yes, defense spending is cut drastically. But both of these issues are temporary, and everyone knows it. It's very, very easy to cut taxes. It's very, very easy to justify defense spending with the global threats America faces. If no deal is struck by January 2nd, taxes will rise and defense budgets will be cut, sure. But by next January 2nd, it's very likely that taxes and defense spending will be restored to somewhere near their current levels.

The other programs? Programs for the poor and middle class? Programs for the arts and sciences? Programs for education? The Democratic desire to restore funding to these initiatives will be met with fierce resistance from the Republican caucus, and the public support behind them will not be strong enough to overcome it.

 Well, folks, we did fall over the fiscal cliff. The sequester did come into effect. And what happened? Exactly what I said would come to pass.  Military and security budgets have slowly been restored, but the other deep cuts, to programs on the Democratic side of the ledger, remain in place.

The debt ceiling threat is not intended to be a threat, because a threat can actually be carried out. What is it then? A protest. A demonstration. It's intended to rally their side in a battle for more cuts to government programs that Republicans hate. One of those programs is Obamacare.

The Republicans are right to protest increasing government debt. In that sense, the debt ceiling holdout, repeated, again and again, keeps the national conversation coming back to the budget. And that alone is not a bad thing. We need a balanced budget. We need to stop owing so much elsewhere. It is time to get something done on that front, after George W. Bush ignored it for 8 years.

Of course, that's where the Republican high ground ends. Because they're unwilling to tackle both sides of the issue--spending AND revenue. You can't just cut government programs suddenly and completely. It'll create a humanitarian disaster within our borders. A single parent family on food stamps won't immediately be able to pick themselves up by their bootstraps-- its not that easy. If it was, they would have done it already. Corporate taxes and the amount millionaires squirrel away are a joke. The rich enjoy enormous benefits of our free, safe, capitalistic society, and unfettered access to the halls of power-- they should pay for that. And I don't mean in the form of campaign contributions. You can't solve the national debt by cutting alone-- the math doesn't add up. It's just like how corporations can't improve their fortunes solely by firing workers or fixing inefficiencies.... eventually, they have to bring in money. The government can't invent the next iPhone... the only way to bring in more money is by raising taxes, preferably on people who will feel the "pain" the least.

So, yay to the Republicans for keeping an eye on the ball, the long term fiscal health of our nation. But unless they start getting realistic, instead of idealistic, we're not going to get anywhere.

The Alarming Second Term of Barack Bush

CNN is struggling to figure out why President Obama's approval rating has dipped among young people.

Gee, what could the youth of America possibly have a problem with? Warrant-less surveillance, drone strikes on American citizens, overzealous federal prosecutors?

That's the Bush-era stuff we thought we'd gotten rid of when we made Obama President. Now he's seemingly embraced and expanded upon these violations of the constitution and America's liberties.

The question comes down to this: Do you trust your government will always use these "tools" in a responsible way without oversight? Okay. Now, imagine the other party is in charge. Do you still trust your government will always use these "tools" in a responsible way without oversight?

Keep in mind, the government is not one, seamless entity: it's comprised of individuals, most of whom we didn't vote for and don't know. Who's to say Jimmy CIA doesn't have a crush on some chick, and taps the hell out of her electronic communications JUST BECAUSE HE CAN? Without oversight, without warrants, anyone can do anything and nobody will ever find out about it.

UPDATE: That's exactly what happened.

This may be a-okay with the older folk, but for younger people, already chafing against their parents monitoring their activities, the specter of being watched by government babysitters for the rest of their lives is not a thrilling idea.

How The Republicans Like To Win

I'm sure there's many good reasons why New Jersey's Governor Christie hates teacher's unions. But its hard to think of any.

It's not that they're overpaid. The pay they receive for the important job they do is terrible.

There's tenure, sure, and that makes them difficult to fire, but tenure exists for a noble reason. The fact is, there are parents out there who really hate facts like science and history, and if a teacher teaches something that is undeniably true but deemed incompatible with certain political or religious beliefs, those parents will seek to get that teacher fired. Schools are supposed to be about teaching facts and critical thinking, so tenure is a way to make sure that politics doesn't put the education of children at risk.

Wait... I think I just answered my own question.

Governor Christie hates tenure so much because it prevents him from replacing unbiased teachers with ones who will brainwash kids into believing that the Republican party is the one favored by God.

I suppose that's a reasonable goal... except it's not. But no matter. I'm sure Governor Christie believes in having a fair debate on the subject, hearing from both sides of the issue, and using facts to bolster his side of the argument.

Except he doesn't.

Because he's a Republican. And Republicans don't use things like facts to sway Americans. They use the politics of personal destruction.

Like this:
Hero teacher's life destroyed.

Because its not good enough to make reasonable appeals for education reform. Republicans don't like to win by making a solid argument. They like to win by bullying people, destroying lives, ripping people to shreds.

Even heroes.

If Superman was a Democrat, the Republicans would push for Kryptonite to be added to the water supply.

Kill, Baby, Kill



Back in the 2008 Presidential Election, Sarah Palin was a big fan of the phrase, "Drill, Baby, Drill." I wonder what her feelings on that are now, given the way the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil disaster is currently destroying the Gulf states for decades, maybe even centuries to come. But Palin isn't in charge, Obama is, and the way he's handled the crisis really makes me question what side he's playing for. A Louisiana resident, Mac Rebennack, said it best, to New York Magazine:

“The thing is a damn crime scene. Who ever heard of the perpetrators getting to run their own crime scene?”

That's my question also. It's clear that pretty much everyone involved with the exploded oil rig cut corners, covered up safety issues, ignored warnings, and was pretty much incompetent. And nothing they've done to try to stop the spill has shown that they've learned their lesson:

-Initial BP estimates stated that the oil well was leaking 1,000 barrels a day. But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that the leak was likely 5,000 barrels. After the video of the leak was released, those estimates shot up... about 10 to 20 times. Certainly looks like BP was trying to downplay the size of the leak. They've repeatedly resisted attempts to allow scientists to more accurately measure the flow of oil. To go with Rebennack's metaphor, this is like a murderer telling the cops they can't examine the victim, but it's okay because the victim isn't really as dead as he seems.

-BP claimed that the chemical they're using to break up the oil in the water is perfectly safe. Biodegradable, non-toxic, absolutely no carcinogens. So of course the Environmental Protection Agency approved it. But there's just one little problem:

Despite [the seller of the dispersant's] claims that Corexit is safe, biodegradable, and free of carcinogens, it happens to contain substances that--you guessed it!--are dangerous, non-biodegradable, and carcinogenic.

This of course, despite the fact that safe chemicals have been around for decades. BP, saying poison is safe does not make it so!

-BP has announced publicly that they can't understand why their stock price is dropping. This actually makes a lot of sense. See, BP expects the government to twiddle their thumbs before making a largely symbolic, hardly punitive action against BP. They expect the financial penalties to be small. Then the company can go about its business, putting this hiccup behind it. Already, since the spill, the government has approved six deep-water wells. BP knows this. And they know that once you've got an addict hooked, even if you kick the shit out of them, they'll keep coming back for more.

So lets review. The government's letting BP cleanup its own crime scene. It's letting them use a toxic chemical to clean the spill, just because BP says it's safe. And to top it off, BP is so confident that the government won't severely punish them, that they're miffed at investors for getting antsy with their stock.

Does this sound like a company that's learned its lesson?

Does it sound as if our government is going to teach it one?

Maybe if the oil washes up on Martha's Vineyard, those who should be taking charge of this mess will finally do something.
--------------------

P.S. Does the name of the oil rig, Deepwater Horizon remind anyone else of these three movies: Deep Rising, Open Water and Event Horizon? No wonder there was a blowout: the whole thing sounded like a horror film.

Apparently The Federal Government Has Never Heard Of Photoshop



Proving that government incompetence exists no matter which party is in charge, Obama officials terrified countless New Yorkers earlier this week when they authorized a photo shoot involving a 747 and two fighter jets flying low over downtown Manhattan.

Initially said to be a military drill, officials later admitted the flyby was done to update their photo records of Air Force One:

Air Force officials estimate that the mission and the photo shoot for the 747 and an accompanying F-16 fighter jet cost $328,835. But they said "the hours would have been flown regardless, and the expenses would have been accrued on a different mission."

An Air Force source told CNN on Tuesday that the White House Military Office planned a photo shoot over various Washington monuments next week, but the shoot has now been canceled.

No word on whether the flight was scheduled to fly low across the Pentagon.

This could have all been avoided had anyone working in the government heard of Adobe Photoshop. Take a photo of Air Force One, then take a photo of the Statue of Liberty. Use Photoshop to meld them together. I did this in 2 minutes, and I didn't even use Photoshop, I used the Paint application included with Windows:


The Government Owes Me $328,835

See, wasn't that cheaper? And less panic-inducing?

Obama's done less than I've hoped for so far (no world peace yet) but he can impress by doing what the Bush administration should have done when someone makes an idiotic decision... fire them.

No one who heard this idea thought, "Gee, I wonder if this will terrify thousands of people and cost a lot of unnecessary money?" Wouldn't that naturally be your first thought when the words, plane, lower Manhattan, flying low, and photo shoot are in the same sentence?

Bush didn't fire the idiots. Obama should. Or at least school these guys on Photoshop.

A Hairy Situation In Jersey

Yeah yeah, I know, I've been away for too long. Work has just become a lot more... well... work lately. But I haven't forgotten about my duty to entertain my faithful reader(s).

The story that brings me back into action is about an issue of vital importance to our nation. No, not the Bernie Madoff thing.

I'm talking about pubic hair:

The Brazilian wax could be ripped from salons if a proposed ban on genital waxing is passed by N.J.’s Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling...

N.J. law is a bit fuzzy when it comes to the hair down there, but according to the state, genital waxing is illegal. Only the face, neck, abdomen, legs and arms of patrons can be stripped...

My initial reaction was, "There's a N.J. Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling?!" Once I swallowed that fact, I became deeply disturbed that the government would dare tell women what to do with their own bodies. This is about freedom of choice, people. Brazilian, a landing strip, or 70's style, no woman should be deprived of the right to sport the foliage of their choosing.



On the New Jersey State Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling website, I found this gem:

The Board is proposing a new rule at N.J.A.C. 13:28-2.7A and is proposing amendments to existing rules N.J.A.C. 13:28-2.10 and 2.11, in order to further define what business activities lawfully may be conducted in licensed cosmetology and hairstyling, manicuring and skin care specialty shops. Specifically, the Board is proposing amendments to its rules concerning the provision of ancillary beautification services in licensed cosmetology and hairstyling shops and licensed skin care specialty shops. Currently, N.J.A.C. 13:28-2.10 permits cosmetology and hairstyling shops to offer to their customers ancillary services that are related to the beautification of the body or the enhancement of personal appearance, but which are not included within the statutory definition of cosmetology and hairstyling services set forth at N.J.S.A. 45:5B-3(j). Such services must be performed in a safe and sanitary manner and by appropriately trained personnel. The Cosmetology and Hairstyling Act, at N.J.S.A. 45:5B-37, permits the provision of such services in shops licensed by the Board, but authorizes the Board to adopt regulations prohibiting such services or placing limitations on the manner in which such services may be offered. The Board may also establish training requirements for persons offering such services. N.J.A.C. 13:28-2.10 currently prohibits the provision of certain ancillary services, such as permanent cosmetic applications, tattooing and body piercing, and imposes training and safety requirements for the provision of others, such as the use of electrolysis for the removal of superfluous hair and skin tanning services. Pursuant to the authority of N.J.S.A. 45:5B-37, the Board is proposing to amend N.J.A.C. 13:28-2.10 to provide specific authorization for cosmetology and hairstyling shops to perform massage services as an ancillary beautification service, and to impose certain training requirements upon persons who will perform such services.

In other, shorter words... "We're making bikini waxing illegal but you'll now be able to get a happy ending and a haircut at the same place."

So this summer, don't be surprised if you see a bunch of well coiffed, happy, well-massaged guys walking around while girls are forced to reveal a little bit too much of their national forest.

Maybe that's why they call Jersey the Garden State.

And Just Like That, There Was No More Elliot Spitzer


"Client 9"

He came into New York politics as a bright shining star, a beacon of hope amid the dirty world of crooked and morally bankrupt government officials. He'd brought corrupt corporations to their knees, prosecuted those who exploited the weak and the down-trodden. Some even believed him to be a future candidate for President. But today, Elliot Spitzer became just another disappointment in the ever-growing cadre of politicians who promised to be different, but ended up being all too familiar.

Elliot Spitzer, reformer, crusader, prostitute-lover.

The New York Times has reported that Spitzer has admitted his involvement in a high-class prostitution ring recently busted up by the feds:

The governor’s travel records show that he was in Washington in mid-February. One of the clients described in court papers arranged to meet with a prostitute who was part of the ring, the Emperors Club VIP on the night of Feb. 13.

Mr. Spitzer appeared on a CNBC television show at 7 a.m. the next morning. Later in the morning, he testified before a Congressional committee.

An affidavit filed in federal court in Manhattan in connection with that case lists six conversations between the man, identified as Client 9, and a booking agent for the Emperors Club.

Yes, the night before appearing in front of a congressional committee, the married father of three decided to get jiggy with a high-priced bimbo.

In recent days, Spitzer appeared ready to meet some of the lofty expectations New York residents had for him. Despite political in-fighting and legislative failures early on in his tenure, he had poised his party to win the state senate for the first time in decades. With a solidly Democratic senate in place, Spitzer would finally have no stumbling blocks standing in the way of his proposed reforms.

Now it seems, it was all for naught. If he is indeed "Client 9" from the Fed's affidavit, then Spitzer will undoubtedly be forced to resign from government. Not to mention, he will face jail time for a crime he once prosectuted others for.

How could someone at such a high level, who knew the consequences of what he was doing, commit such a foolish crime? Then again, haven't several government officials done the same thing? Maybe it's a side-effect of being elected.

The man once called "Elliot Ness" by the press, is in an "Elliot Mess."

Elliot Spitzer, in a statement this afternoon, apologized to his family and the public, stating, "I am disapointed that I failed to live up to the standard I had set for myself."

So are we, Elliot. So are we.

Unpaid Bills To Blame For Blown FBI Wiretaps


No Dial Tone For Deadbeat FBI

Telephone companies cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because the agency neglected to pay its phone bills on time, the Associated Press reported today.

Some of these wiretaps were monitoring suspected terrorists. What's going on here? Is the government running out of money?? Adam's Life delves deeper...

"I kept telling them the check was in the mail," said the agency's communications director, J. Edgar Fakeman, "but I guess they caught on."

The AP reported that "more than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not paid on time." And in one office alone, unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.

"Times have been tough," Fakeman said. "We cancelled our cable service last month. And we've been burning old files to stay warm because the heat's been turned off. We've had to take a second job just to pay the rent for our offices."

The FBI is now waiting tables at a Denny's in nearby College Park, Maryland.


"Would You Like Your Eggs Scrambled Or Subpoenaed?"

"The hours aren't that great, and we have to take two buses to get there, but how else can we afford these D.C. prices?" Fakeman said.

Problems began in January of 2003, when the Department of Homeland Security took over many of the FBI's primary jobs. A few months later, FBI's wife, CIA, packed up the kids and left.

"She wasn't happy with how we were acting after the whole restructuring thing," Fakeman says. "So what if we had a few beers now and then? Or some confiscated smack? She's a dirty whore. I know she's been sleeping with the DEA."

Andrea Ekaf, the FBI's social worker, says that many government agencies are finding themselves in similar situations. "It's not uncommon for a government agency to fall on hard times after a restructuring. Look at NASA. One moment, they're flying to the moon, and the next, they're selling expired freeze-dried ice cream out of the back of an '89 Cadillac DeVille just so they can afford to pay child support."

The AP report comes a mere week after tabloid photos revealed that the FBI was secretly panhandling on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th street in Washington D.C.

"It wasn't panhandling," Fakeman insists. "We needed to make a phone call at the pay phone and all we had were dollar bills. We swear."

No word on whether the FBI will be able to meet its financial obligations in the future, but Fakeman is confident the agency will be able to weather the storm.

"We recently received an e-mail from a friendly stranger in Africa who says he'll give us a million dollars if we send him our bank account information. Apparently, he won the lottery but is unable to claim it due to some obscure Nigerian law," Fakeman says.

"It may just be the bonanza our agency is looking for."

To Catch A Terrorist

The U.S. Military, apparently growing tired of the "hard work" involved in finding insurgents, are attempting to lure curious Iraqis into sniper traps.

Well, when you put it that way, it sounds like the military is doing something wrong...

Crafty soldiers place a box of ammunition, or explosives, in plain sight, along a road or in a park. Then, when an Iraqi sees it, and goes to check it out, they shoot him. Becuase obviously, that person is a terrorist, and not just some Iraqi who's wondering why explosives are just lying around.

"Well, it's the Iraqi's fault. He shouldn't have picked the box up. He should have called the authorities."

Call the authorities? What authorities? The Iraqi police cover their faces because they fear terrorist reprisals.

No trial. No questions. That box gets picked up, BLAM-O! Dead. Then they set the trap and wait for the next one to come by.

Am I the only one who thinks this is counter-productive?

It's the whole, "We can't solve real crimes, so lets make fake ones and arrest those stupid enough to fall for it."

Like "To Catch A Predator." Lack of reporting, scant evidence, and reluctant witnesses mean police can't prosecute many statutory rape cases. Rather than spend the time, effort and money to truly combat the problem through educational programs, stiffer penalities for offenders and the creation of support programs for victims, the police create fake, "sting" operations which entrap stupid and lazy people... many of which wouldn't have committed any crime because in actuality, it would have been very difficult.

The typical horny pervert can't attract an underage teen. You've seen "To Catch A Predator," undoubtedly. How many underage girls are going to want to meet an old guy who sends them a picture of their small penis and says things like "I want to watch you masturbate while I pee on you." Not many. However, the decoys readily agree... creating a fake crime which had little to no chance of happening. Therefore, a person with weak moral fiber who would otherwise jack off alone at home is arrested. While the truly dangerous (statistics say statutory rapists and sexual abusers are usually a family member of the victim) go unpunished.

Now, the typical Iraqi probably can't easily procure explosives (I'm assuming). And the typical terrorist is not going to see a box of explosives and think, "Hey! Free Explosives!" So what the U.S. trap does is ensnare a) really stupid wannabe terrorists, and b) curious, innocent Iraqis who probably want to get a box of explosives off the streets.

Just like "To Catch A Predator," "To Catch A Terrorist" does nothing to actually fight the crime it claims to. It sets up a crime, and then solves it. The result is a pretty picture, but ultimately, a false one. You can hit a homerun pretty easily off a tee... but that's not going to help when someone's throwing you curveballs.

Ok, enough analogies. This is just one more example of why the U.S. is not succeeding in Iraq. The leadership is too focused on appearances and not focused enough on actual progress.

This is not a knock against our soldiers. It's not their fault. It's the fault of a leadership in Washington seeking to placate Congress and right-wing radio. But whatever talking points the Bush Administration may have wrung from the mess of Iraq, they've come at the cost of real success.

It's time to stop setting up stings and time to start doing some real investigation. Where are the explosives coming from? Is there some mystical genie who provides them? Who is carrying out these attacks? Ghosts? Investigate, determine, and then act. A basic, basic rule in law enforcement, which is severely lacking in Iraq.

Then again, the army has never been all that good when it comes to investigating. If we trusted their investigations, we'd still believe Pat Tillman died from a skiing accident in Norway.

[UPDATE 10/3] Speaking of investigations...

Abortion Contortion

One thing politicians love to do is take sides. They love to draw a line in the sand and stand on one side of it. It just makes things easier. Answering yes or no takes a lot less thinking than a rambling, nuanced John-Kerry-type response. By splitting every issue down the middle, no matter how complicated it is, our esteemed electable leaders can win over huge chunks of the populace in one fell swoop. It's hard to convince 50% of the populace... it's far easier to make a general statement that they already agree with and make that your position.

For instance, take abortion.

Politicians only take two stances on this issue:

A) Abortion is immoral and should be illegal.

B) Abortion is a personal choice and should remain legal.

By rallying around one of these two statements, candidates maximize their chances of attracting a large group to their side of the sand.

But the issue of abortion is more complicated than: Abortion is murder vs. abortion is not murder. When you talk about making something illegal, you're talking about creating a punishment to fit the crime. In our legal system, that means community service, a fine, jail, or death. As it turns out, not many abortion protestors have given this much thought:



Of course, this video in itself gives a rather simplistic view. Very few, if any, politicians have offered bills that penalize the woman who seeks an abortion. Their bills tend to punish the doctors. The reasoning is, if no doctors will perform an abortion, then no woman can get one. I'll get back to why this is wrong in a second.

But the reason why I posted the video above is to make the point that none of the women interviewed had given the issue any thought. They sat down on the "NO" side of the abortion sand, set up their beach umbrella and their protest sign, and never thought about what it means to make something illegal. They never thought about the effect such a law would have. Abortion is murder, hence, abortion is wrong. They never once questioned the agenda they signed up for. Is their particular anti-abortion chapter for punishing women or against? They don't know. They never even bothered to ask.

This is what happens when you set up two camps and eliminate the spaces in between. You eliminate critical thinking, and are left with a bunch of talking parrots.

And an America of talking parrots frightens me. It should scare you too.

I have no problem with an abortion protester if they can argue their case intelligently. It's when they fall back on, "God said so," or "Abortion is murder," that I have a problem. Because those lines don't represent any thought. They heard someone else say it. They read it in a pamphlet. They repeated it and got a cracker.

If they took the time to examine the issue, they'd realize that making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortions from happening. Back when abortions were illegal, women still got them, in horrifying ways: throwing themselves down stairs, forcing a clothes hanger up their shoozle, going to dirty mexican clinics. Perhaps pro-choice crusaders should put up those pictures next to the aborted fetuses anti-abortion protesters show. From this video, it seems like most of these protesters don't think an abortion merits death. But if abortion becomes illegal, that's exactly what many women who obtain abortions will recieve.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to be pro-choice. But I am trying to convince everyone to THINK. Illegal means punishment, in more ways than one. Not just for doctors. Illegal means rape victims have to carry a rapist's child for nine months. Illegal means a poor mother has to lose her job and go into debt to bring a baby to term. Illegal DOESN'T mean: The U.S.A. is Abortion FREE and a country God can be proud of. Drugs are illegal too. And punishing the dealers and the users hasn't stopped them.

One final thought. If you want to reduce abortions (which is a realistic and honest goal), then attempt to reduce the societal factors which can lead to that painful decision. Institute programs to help expectant mothers. Increase effective means of sex-education. Raise the minimum wage so people can afford to raise their kids. Pass fair labor laws that provide maternity leave and day care help for families. Fund adoption programs. Improve social services and the foster care system. Promote birth control and family planning. Any number of these would reduce abortions, and do it in a safe, effective way.

But I guess that just takes too much work.


------
P.S. Not that politicians need to play any games. They can just hack the vote.

No Fun In Belmar



College kids, you may want to party elsewhere. The fun police are on patrol in Belmar, New Jersey, and to make sure you're not throwing a party, they're checkin your blog.

A blogger calling himself Belmar Benny sat at his computer recently and predicted what the summer of 2007 would be like at the rental home he shares with his buddies.

"Partying 'till daylight, banging pots and pans together, tossing the kitchen table on the roof, hanging the furniture upside down from the ceiling, waking up the neighborhood with a contraption called The Horn On A Board, smashing glassware over each other's heads," he wrote.

But Belmar officials were reading his blog, promising to counter "Horn On A Board" with "Cop On Your Porch."

Monitoring blogs is the newest tactic in Belmar's effort to keep its rowdy group rentals under control in one of the Jersey shore's last party towns.

The borough's efforts are led by a mayor who patrols the street looking for trouble and backed by fines that can reach into the thousands of dollars. Police officers hand-deliver lists of do's and don't to renters, and a Web site plots troublesome rentals on a map.

Belmar Benny's blog is here. He seems like he's having a good time nonetheless.

Working Hard? Or Hardly Working?

On the day of September 11th, 2001, after spending most of the morning flying from one undisclosed location to the next, hiding, in fear of terrorists, President George W. Bush finally made his first statement. He promised, above all else, "Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts."

That evening, finally back in the Oval Office, Bush set into motion the plan that would eventually become his "War on Terror."

"I've directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

Nearly six years later, has George W. Bush fulfilled his promise? Perhaps that's unfair. It was, indeed, a tall order. So let me instead ask, are we safer today from terror than we were on September 10th, 2001?

WASHINGTON (AP)- U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned.

The conclusion suggests that the network that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

Yes, of course the CIA is nothing but a bunch of communist baby-haters. And the media is their willing concubine. But Bush isn't exactly denying it.

Bin Laden is still at large. Despite all the power at the United States disposal, the ringleader of the organization that attacked us is free. And he is free because of a concious decision by the Bush administration. "I'm not to worried about him," Bush famously said.

What has Bush acheived? He's torn apart Iraq, destroyed America's reputation, and sent thousands of patriotic boys and girls to their deaths. And Al-Queda keeps growing back, every time its tail is cut off. Yet Bush still refuses to go for the head.

I'll never understand how Iraq became responsible for 9-11. How Bin Laden became Saddam. How "winning hearts and minds" turned into sanctioned torture and collateral damage.

But I guess it was all part of that vision George W. Bush had for America while he was flying to Nebraska on September 11th, afraid for his life.

Man In Rainbow Tie Comes Out Against Gays



Presidential candidate Senator Sam Bareback... I mean Brownback, announced today that he is backing a top general's comment that homosexual acts are immoral.

"I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I'm a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this," Brownback said.

So... being a homosexual isn't immoral, but homosexual acts are? That's... clear? In that case, isn't wearing a rainbow colored tie, as Brownback did when he announced his Presidential bid, considered immoral? After all, isn't wearing rainbow colored stuff a "homosexual act?"

"General Pace's recent remarks do not deserve the criticism they have received," Brownback's letter said. "In fact, we applaud General Pace for maintaining a personal commitment to moral principles."

Sure. In a time of war, when we could use the services of every soldier we've got, the nation's top general, without provocation, basically calls some of our soldiers immoral hell spawn who are no better than women who cheat on their husbands. Yeah, that's something that deserves applauding.

The Bush Administration is already working on a new slogan, "Support Our Troops... Except The Gay Ones."

Soldiers dying in Iraq. Afghanistan falling slowly back to Taliban control. Katrina victims still without homes. New Orleans still in ruin. A nuclear threat in Iran. A growing gap between rich and poor. Rampant corporate corruption. Government cronyism.

To Brownback, we must take care of the most important problem first. Those damn gays!!!

Screw the rest! Leave that for the next President to clean up!!

If someone's willing to go through military training, go off to Iraq or Afghanistan and face terrorist bombs and gunfire, I don't care if he's gay, straight, or likes to have tea parties with farm animals. He's a soldier in my book, and doesn't deserve to be denigrated by some general who last faced danger when he choked on a piece of filet mignon at a fancy state dinner.

While it may be easy to argue that an openly gay service member may upset other soldiers and cause disciplinary issues, to say that the military should dismiss anyone deemed "immoral" by the religious right is an argument that has little rational thinking behind it. If a prerequisite for joining the army was to have never committed a "sin" as defined by the bible, there'd be no person in the world fit to serve.

General Pace is free to voice his opinion. But to do it in his capacity as leader of our armed forces was irresponsible and inappropriate. When you're on the job, do you yell and scream that all the gay people should be fired?? Even if that's what you believe? No (hopefully). General Pace shouldn't have either. Especially when those gay people are risking their lives for him and every other American.

But Brownback is even worse. While Pace may have made a slip up, Brownback is actually planning his bigotry out. He's passing his letter around, gathering signatures like the unpopular girl on yearbook day. He's hoping to solidify his place in the hearts of homo-hating voters.

However, the rainbow colored tie makes me pause. It seems an odd choice for someone to wear when they make the most important announcement of their life. Unless... Brownback was trying to send out a secret message. Which I'll leave to you to decipher.

Let's just say I'll be real surprised if Brownback doesn't have a few things stuffed in his closet.

By Gods! The Slippery-Slopers Were Right!!


The Evil Empire

Ok. You told me so. Go ahead. Gloat. You said that the smoking ban was just the beginning. "If they ban smoking, what will they ban next?" you said. Then they banned trans fats. "So what," I still insisted, "Not a big deal." You just shook your head and quoted Natalie Portman from Revenge of the Sith. "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."

I didn't believe you. I'm sorry.

A NY state senator just announced the city's latest foray into the business of controlling our personal health and safety:

Banning iPods and cell phones while crossing the street.

In the interests of my health, I walk back from work every day. It's about 25 city blocks. During that time, not wanting to have my eardrums assaulted by the not-so-delightful sounds of the city, I listen to my iPod. Occassionally, I talk on my cell phone.

Now, I am not an idiot. I look when I cross the street. I suspect most people do. But for some reason (stupidity), some people don't. And these people sometimes get hit by cars (or crazy delivery men speeding on their bicycles). Darwin would say this is a perfect example of natural selection, and we should just let things be. I believe it was he who said, "If the dumb among us refuse to look when they cross the street, then they deserve to be removed from the gene pool." Or maybe that was said by me.

But now, New York State Sen. Carl Kruger (also known as Darth Sidious), wants to make a law that punishes the smart and dumb alike by banning the use of electronic devices while crossing the street. Pedestrians would be punished with a $100 dollar fine if caught listening to Hootie and the Blowfish while crossing Houston Street. $1000 if they're caught listening to Hootie's later solo work (that's REALLY damaging to your health.)

I have no desire to switch off my iPod at every intersection. Or hang up on my ninety-year-old Grandpa because I'm about to step onto the crosswalk. I don't feel I should be punished because a few stupid people chose to stroll into oncoming traffic rather than look up from scrolling through their collection of New Kids On The Block tunes.

You saw this coming. What's next indeed? Why not ban Magnolia cupcakes? Too much sugar is bad for you! Ban Frisbee in Central Park... You could hit someone! Ban Dog Walking? Dogs might attack somebody! Ban the view from the top of the Empire State Building... Someone could jump off! Shouldn't we ban Broadway shows? "CATS" can cause seizures!! Before you know it, every cultural activity, trend and comfort will be stripped from our beloved New York City, leaving only a dire wasteland of increasingly expensive trendy steakhouses, which will serve nothing but prime cuts of grass-fed Japanese tofu.

You tried to warn me this would happen. You tried to tell me that banning "bad" things would lead to banning good things. You tried to tell me Bloomberg was an evil Cyborg from a distant alien planet. I wasn't listening before, I admit, but I certainly will now.

Right after this song.


-----------------------

Write To Rep. Carl Kruger at kruger@senate.state.ny.us and tell him not to ban our iPods!!!!

-----------------------