Thursday, May 17, 2007


Saul Anuzis, the chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, said he's going to try to BAR candidate Ron Paul from future Republican presidential debates because the Texas congressman had the NERVE to suggest that the 9/11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.

Can you believe this asshole? Debates are supposed to encourage dialogue, not stifle it. The whole idea is to let the candidates speak their minds and let the people decide who is crazy. It will set a frightening precedent if this idiot's petition-based move actually succeeds.

Lost in all of this, of course, is the fact that there may have actually been some merit to the point Ron Paul was making. Something few politicians have been willing to acknowledge is that foreign policies can have negative CONSEQUENCES, too, and that one of the consequences of our nation's hegemonist foreign policy of securing access to oil at all costs is terrorism. Osama bin Laden said as much when he targeted us the first time around in '93. They're not targeting us because we love freedom - they're targeting us because our entire economy is dependent upon a natural resource they happen to have in abundance.

If al-qaeda's whole raison d'etre is to strike out at "freedom-loving" people, as has been purported repeatedly by people who really should know better, here's a newsflash: There are MILLIONS of freedom-loving folks in Europe who are a lot closer to the Middle East than we are. No one loves freedom more than the pot-smoking Dutch, but no one's bombing Amsterdam. Terrorists consistently target those nations whose foreign policies facilitate the systematic oppression of the people who live atop the world's oil fields. Meanwhile, the distorted religious beliefs of a handful of zealots affords permission to execute these acts of violence in the name of jihad.

But most of our elected politicians elect to ignore the "blowback" that results when we let oil companies and the military industrial complex dictate foreign policy. They throw their hands up in the air and say, "We were just peacefully minding our own business when they decided to fly airplanes into our buildings." Which isn't entirely untrue considering "our business" happens to be promoting a worldwide military presence for securing access to oil - with particular attention paid to the Middle East.

Ron Paul had it right - and the Conservative establishment can't bear to hear it because they're a bunch of idiots. Glad to read I'm not the only one who thinks so.

The fact is, we NEED to get off of oil ASAP - not because it will be greener to do so, but because our security and economy depend on it. And don't buy the line these administration ass clowns are feeding us about "evil doers." The vast majority of people over there are normal, well-adjusted, well-intended people like you and me who just want to make good lives for themselves and their families. And the sooner we quit poking our sticks around in their nest, the better off we'll all be.

And it's nice to see some mainstream support for Paul for a change instead of the bashfest led by arrogant, ignorant assfaces like Giuliani.

We're treating the symptoms of this illness called Terrorism, not the cause, thanks to a deadly misdiagnosis on the part of our nation's narrow-minded leadership.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007


Have you ever crept along in traffic expecting to come upon a horrible wreck only to discover no such accident ever took place? And then you wonder why the hell traffic is so slow and backed up for no apparent reason. There's a scientific explanation for it which can be studied in the dynamics of compression in closed systems.

This awesome link takes you to a detailed description of how aggressive driving is to blame for much of today's stop-and-go freeway traffic. It also explains how we can combat the rhythmic and frustrating compression of stop-and-go traffic flow by simply slowing down. Check it out - great stuff!


Every once in a while you overhear the strangest things. I love picking up phrases out of thin air, and out of context. For example, on my way to work I passed a couple of women on the street, and one was explaining to the other:

"He said he knew her, but he didn't know that was her gun."

That's all I got - but I felt suddenly immersed in an episode of Law & Order. Good stuff. And then a friend e-mailed me about a co-worker who uttered the phrases, in all seriousness, "I am not going to be a shrinking lily!"

Who says that? In fact, I was so intrigued by the choice of words, I decided to use that line myself today at the office. It promptly received a chorus of "huh?" and "what?" and "pardon?" So I repeated it, slowly. And everyone just turned around and went back to work, nodding their heads in silent agreement that I am completely insane.

Your mission today is to work in the phrase: "I am not going to be shrinking lily" without letting on that it is a joke. An inside joke - between you and a silly monkey with a typewriter.

Now go!