Something Illegal This Way Comes

Every once in a while something far more than asinine occurs within the realm of politics that pushes the boundaries of legality and sanity. The aware citizens then sit back and hope that their representatives will take notice of the blatant disregard for the principles of their government and invalidate the prior decision.

Often, the perceived awareness of one’s representatives never occurs, whether it be consciously or not on their part.

We are currently living through one of those times. The asinine element is a piece of legislation that has pushed past numerous boundaries, and has gone unnoticed by all members of all three branches of the United States government.

The bill is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). It was passed by Congress on September 28, 2006 and signed into law by George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The MCA creates the designation of an “unlawful enemy combatant” and dictates the penalties that such a person would face. The bill is touted as a method to protect the United States from terrorists and foreign aggressors.

Just what is an “unlawful enemy combatant”? The bill states:

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT— (A) The term “unlawful
enemy combatant” means—

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Much debate would be necessary regarding the wording used in this first paragraph, especially the use of “a person.” This does not explicitly exclude American citizens living on American soil from being labeled as an “unlawful enemy combatant” and facing all of the penalties that would apply to such a person. The ramifications of this lack of clarity are astounding, as any of the provisions provided by this bill could then be applied to the average American.

Debate would be necessary, except for an important factor: The MCA is illegal, as it was not passed in accordance with the procedures instilled by the United States Constitution.

The Constitution dictates that the president must sign or veto a bill within 10 days of Congressional passage. Failure to do anything with the bill within those 10 days while Congress is in session leads to the bill becoming law without the president’s signature.

However, if Congress is not in session, as was the case with the MCA, and the president does nothing for 10 days (it took Bush 19 days) then the bill is automatically vetoed.

Vetoed. That’s it. Bush took too long to sign the bill; thus, it is legally dead.

It would appear that all members of the United States government are unaware of this element of the Constitution, as not a single official has spoken out against the legality of the MCA. This is staggering due to the seeming lack of knowledge of the Constitution by our elected officials, and more so because of the ideas that all members of the government now believe to be true and binding law.

Even the members of Congress who voted against the bill have failed to speak up.

Due to the November 2006 elections, the representation in Congress has changed since Bush illegally signed the bill. The Democrats now control both the Senate and the House and spend an awful lot of time speaking about changes that are going to be made. The rhetoric has been cute, but if those Democrats are serious about change, their first priority must be to become informed about the non-law status of the MCA, make the public aware of this, and make the White House stop pretending that the MCA is law.

I realize that the people in Congress may still be tuckered out from post-election victory celebrations and 2008 presidential plans and thus cannot focus on the importance of putting an end to the MCA.

For their sake, and for the sake of all reading, allow me to walk you through some of the scary provisions of this bill.

The MCA, which (as we have already established) can apply to al Qaeda and U.S. citizens alike, sends America back to the pre-Constitution days by removing the right of any accused to habeas corpus. Officially established in 1679, habeas corpus provides all who are accused of a crime the right to confront his accuser and provide counter-evidence on his behalf. The “unlawful enemy combatant” (“unlawful”) loses the right to prove his own innocence or even find out who is accusing him in the first place.

“Unlawfuls” are entitled to detainment and trials, however! Indeed, the MCA allows for the accused to be placed on trial in front of a military tribunal, even if they have not engaged in military attacks against the United States. During these trials, the MCA allows for the government to convict people of crimes based on “secret” evidence that the accused never sees. The government is permitted to use testimony during the trials that was extracted from the accused through torture-based coercion.

Torture, by the way, becomes “legal” thanks to the MCA. Any methods used, as long as the prisoner is not killed, are allowed. (Waterboarding, anyone?) These methods are sure to also be applied to international prisoners as the MCA invalidates the protections provided by the Geneva Conventions. The conventions are a worldwide-accepted set of rules for the humanitarian treatment of prisoners of war during armed conflicts among nations. One basic tenet of the conventions is that one does not torture prisoners!

Returning to the idea of having a trial for the accused “unlawful,” the MCA allows for a trial to begin even before a through investigation of the alleged crime has taken place. In addition, the records of any trials for “unlawful” designees are kept secret from the American public.

This is all, of course, if the accused can be granted a trial in the first place. The MCA removes the right to a speedy trial. Any accused can be locked away indefinitely, without officially being charged with a crime.

There are people reading this now who believe that the MCA could never be applied to them or the American public. Why, these readers undoubtedly wonder, should I be concerned about this bill?

Your concern is essential for, at the very least, your own self-preservation. What good will your cries of “I’m an American citizen” do if you are suddenly scooped off the streets and locked away, deemed an “unlawful enemy combatant”? Who do you expect to come to your defense then?

At the very most, you should be disconcerted that a law of this magnitude has been passed illegally and that the very government charged with protecting your rights granted by the Constitution have been silent to this fact.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is illegal. It has been 84 days since government officials have (willingly or not) been blinded to this fact.

Would You Like Fries with Your Patsy?

The sentencing of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person being tried in the United States for the events of September 11, 2001, is complete; he has been given life in prison. Finally, America has exacted justice upon a key player in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which claimed the lives of 3,000 citizens.

If you believe that, then you haven’t been paying attention.

From the very start, this case has been a three-ring circus, with Moussaoui’s constant outbursts, his having to be removed from the courtroom, and his firing of his own lawyers. Years ago, Moussaoui pledged his allegiance to al-Qaeda, but swore that he had nothing to do with 9/11. At that time, he was being charged with being the “20th hijacker,” who would have been aboard Flight 93, which went down in Pennsylvania.

Then the trial got weird. Moussaoui was no longer the “20th hijacker.” Instead, he was supposed to have hijacked a fifth plane, to be crashed into the White House. As I wrote a year ago, Moussaoui changed his mind once again, at his April 22, 2005 hearing, stating, “I am guilty of a broad conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction to destroy the White House.” Whatever that conspiracy was, it had nothing to do with 9/11. Moussaoui himself said so: "You can't point to me and say that Moussaoui came to U.S. to participate in 9/11," he said at the hearing.

As if your mind wasn’t boggled enough, Moussaoui later signed a statement, pleading guilty to being the “20th hijacker,” effectively ending the trial. The last decision for the jury to face was whether he should face the death penalty or life in prison.

In the only sane decision reached during this entire four-year ordeal, the jury decided not to sentence Moussaoui to death. He instead received six life sentences, to be served concurrently as two life terms.

Moussaoui’s response to the levying of his sentence: “I won.”

What an asinine twit.

Further, after declaring his victory, Moussaoui attempted to revoke his guilty plea, once again reiterating that he had nothing to do with the planning of 9/11. Why did he plead guilty to something that he did not do? For shits and giggles, evidently. Moussaoui said that since he expected to be put to death, he decided to pull some shenanigans on the way to the gurney. “Because,” he said, “everybody used to refer to me as the 20th hijacker and it was a bit of fun.”

But he now has a newfound belief in the American Legal System, having beaten the odds. And thus he believes he can get a fair trail without making the guilty plea.

Of course, his sentence and plea were not nullified, which means that the only person sentenced for planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks may not have had a bloody thing to do with the attacks.

Okay. Stop. Take a breather. Let us flash back to a few years ago.

Does anyone remember George W. Bush’s speech atop the smouldering ruins of the World Trade Center on September 14, 2001? To remind those who may have forgotten, he said, “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” Five years later, the only person to “hear all of us” is an individual of Moroccan descent who may have played the slightest role in 9/11, but certainly was not privy to the planning.

But what about the supposed planners and key agents that the U.S. does have in custody?

In the past years, America has captured and detained Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind, who while on the run managed to become fat and out-of-shape; Ramzi bin al-Shibib, the mover of money for the attacks; and Mohammad al-Katani, who is being referred to as the “20th hijacker.” Please never mind that Zacarias Moussaoui just finished being tried and sentenced for being the “20th hijacker.” There cannot be two “20th hijackers”; I guess Moussaoui and al-Katani get joint custody over the title. Moussaoui gets to be “20th hijacker” every Monday through Wednesday, al-Katani on Thursday through Saturday. They alternate ownership every other Sunday.

Where are the high-profile trials for these men, who are considered top al-Qaeda members, and instrumental in planning the events of September 11? What is the logic behind keeping these men detained for what is now a couple of years in some cases? Unless, of course, there is something to hide. For what it’s worth, Mohammed told his interrogators that Moussaoui was nothing more than a bit-player, with no knowledge of the 9/11 plot.

Instead of useful trials, the American public was forced to endure an atrocious four-year sitcom, featuring an al-Qaeda dingleberry and his wacky supporting cast:

Snicker as Moussaoui is fitted with a stun belt (as reported by MSNBC) in order to keep his outbursts to a minimum and to guide his final admission to being the “20th hijacker.”

Guffaw as Judge Leonie Brinkema struggles to keep order in her court, while readily admitting that Moussaoui’s confession does not make any sense, and does not correspond with the prosecution’s evidence.

Fired one week, back the next. Let out a little snort for the Lawyers!

Be awed by the inflammatory (and irrelevant) testimonies of the 9/11 victims’ relatives about how much they miss their family members. Completely unrelated to the trial of our main character. Enjoy a bonus: the equally-inflammatory black-box recordings from Flight 93. This is equally irrelevant, as our main character never stepped foot on the plane.

Come on, America! Do not settle for this! There are 9/11 plotters in custody and still on the loose, and five years later, only a rambling bit-player faces a trial to prove that “The System Works!”

No. If anything, this trial has made a mockery of the American Criminal Justice System. If a judge doubts the accuracy of a confession, as Brinkema admits that she did, does this judge not have an obligation to make sure that real justice is served? A man has been sentenced for a crime for which there is no evidence tying him to the act, except for his admission of guilt, which he later admitted was an outright lie.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred nearly five years ago (do I need to stress that again?). It is time that the American citizens demand that those responsible, whomever they are, be tried and held accountable for their actions.

Trading Sight for a Hard-On

Originally published on June 12, 2005


The Food and Drug Administration has announced that 38 users of the impotence drug, Viagra, have reported partial vision loss and four users of Cialis – same drug, different name – have reported the same.

If any of these fools are surprised by their symptoms, they obviously never took the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the possible side-effects of ingesting this foreign substance into their bodies.

It is too late for them. However, for the benefit of any reader who may be interested in welcoming Viagra or its twin Cialis into his bloodstream, here is a list of possible side-effects, straight from a Viagra advertisement.

Side effects include: headache, flushing of the face, upset stomach, temporary changes in color vision such as being unable to tell the difference between the green and blue, eyes being more sensitive to light, blurred vision, a multi-hour erection, heart attack, stroke, irregular heart beat and of course death.

The 38 who actually who actually reported their visual-depleting symptoms are certainly not the only ones that are experiencing partial blindness thanks to Viagra. Who knows how many additional cases are out there who haven’t figured out that the pills they are taking are leading to their newfound loss of sight.

The users are willing to trade their sight and risk a plethora of life-altering and life-ending side-effects because woe-is-me, you can’t get yourself an erection so woe-is-me this makes you unable to perform during the act of sexual intercourse so oh-woe-is-me, you must be an inferior, inadequate man.

How ridiculously asinine! To the bearers of this mindset: quit your self-pitying whining and grow a backbone and some self-confidence!

Indeed, impotence happens. The sad fact of reality is that there are some things that certain human beings just cannot do. The man without any legs many dream day and night about running the New York Marathon, but the reality is that he cannot. The same goes for men with impotence – they cannot achieve an erection.

However, the legless man can perform the New York Marathon seated in his wheelchair. Similarly, the impotent man can still please his partner wildly when they are intimate by being inventive.

Sadly, millions of men of healthy age and varied levels of “impotence” have forgotten (or never knew in the first place) how to be quixotic, or at least resourceful.

Without the ability to achieve the erection, it seems that their creativity wanes. They demand the Quick Fix – a little pill that leads to temporary pleasure, rather than working on themselves for long-term satisfaction.

Men are ignoring the social factors that are contributing to the lack of an erection. Turn on the television, load up the Internet, take a walk in a mall, and you will find advertisements selling any number of products, all with sexual overtones. There are huge banners everywhere with near-naked women selling anything from underwear to drain de-cloggers. Sex sells. But this becomes too much sexual stimuli and can numb people to sex. Where a man was once turned on by a clothed woman with an excellent figure, he now barely gives a damn when he sees a fully-nude woman. I know, men, you won’t admit to this happening, thanks to the whole bloody pride problem, but this is a reality.

Viagra, meant for men who medically cannot achieve an erection, has been bastardized so that males from the young age of 17 until elderly 90 are popping these pills. What the magical Quick Fix provides is an unnatural freakshow of 85-year-old men running around with hard-ons and healthy-aged young men experiencing four-hour erections.

Guess what? Sex is more than simple thrust-thrust-thrust and you’re done.

It can be far more stimulating to know that you are pleasing your partner beyond words than to simply get your kicks for 15 minutes (or less). The sexual experience is equally mental as it is physical.

Back when human beings were no more advanced than hedgehogs, sexual intercourse was for one reason: procreation. Primitive man would be walking around, eating a grapefruit, would notice a female, procreate, and then go back to eating the grapefruit, pick bugs out of his hair, or however else primitive man occupied his time.

Since then, humans have developed philosophy and spirituality. Men and women both know that the sex act is, indeed, for procreation, but more than just the act, the intimacy becomes arguably the greatest unity that two human beings can share.

There is a bevy of exceptionally imaginative and uncommon tactics to spice up your relations that your partner will never see coming—little things, nothing overly elaborate, and absolutely not involving buying your way into anything. Get creative on your own mental resources.

Come on, you watched Sesame Street when you were a kid, when they encouraged you to use your imaginations are dream up all sorts of fun things to occupy your time. Utilize those tactics that you learned all those years ago and put them towards some adult-themed pleasure.

As if it weren’t bad enough that men are so pitiful, the female persuasion does not disappoint with its own psychoses. The New York Times reported in the Sunday June 5 issue the lamentation of women who have lost their sexual drive. The women, post-birth, find that their libido has diminished.

It has a fancy name – Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD). Rush! Find a Quick Fix – testosterone creams and gels and other medications, none of which have even been considered by the FDA. Salvation!

Please ignore the fact that it is natural human biology that a woman post-birth be not in “the mood” for sex. Plus, after having multiple children, the drive will – gasp – decrease. But ignore that. Fight biology with medicine!

As with the abuse of Viagra and its brethren by men who are neither impotent or dysfunctional (at least by doctor-supported health standards, which do not account for mental stupidity), it is common sense that perfectly healthy young women who are not pregnant and have never had children are equally using these medications as a substitute for effort. [Dammit, be imaginative!]

Correct me if I am wrong, ladies—but I know that I am not wrong.

Remember what I said earlier about the mental and physical mix? The same applies here. Every ounce of the advice I provided to the men a few paragraphs ago, including each criticism, is applicable to women.

Ignore the television, Internet and media that are telling you what you “should” be doing sexually and what you “want.” Stop working yourself to death to achieve their ideal of “perfection” (which does not really exist) and go by your human instinct instead.

Forget the medicine and strengthen yourself mentally, which will in turn take care of you and your partner during intimacy.The one shining light in the Times article about FSD comes from a woman doctor, Leonore Tiefer, who says:

“You can have a perfectly good sex life even if you don’t have any genitalia if you have a good relationship and you feel good about yourself. A uniform model of sexuality doesn’t exist.”

This woman is absolutely brilliant! Men and women alike, stop crying over yourselves and take notice of Dr. Tiefer’s statement.

Stop being so damned brainwashed into thinking that sex is the end-all “must have.” The reason that men are swallowing Viagra and Cialis and women are using testosterone is due to the unnatural ideas of sex and sexuality that have been embedded into your brains.

The sexual act has become some far-reaching ideal, an obsession placed onto some sort of platter, adorned with the godlike title of SEX. Let us all bow to SEX, do whatever we can to achieve SEX, and a pox upon all who will not worship SEX.

We partake in the sexual experience but are too worked up over “perfect technique” or “kissing correctly,” being a “flawless lover” and “finding the G-spot” that the experience becomes like an Olympic sport, where we are being judged on perfection. How asinine human beings have become.

Now for your homework: Stop thinking! If you have a partner, do something spontaneous with him or her. Don’t think and plan and agonize ahead of time; just do it. If you don’t have a partner, take care of yourself. Go about your day without thinking, run on instinct. We miss so much during the day by consuming ourselves with meaningless agonies and psychoses that are no more difficult than the scenarios we created in our own minds. Stop thinking, and you will notice that situations calling for your own spontaneity make themselves very clear.

Meet the Latest Patsy

Originally published on April 25, 2005


After three and a half years of postponements and decision reversals, the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person who has been charged by the U.S. government in connection with the 9/11 attacks is making its way towards a conclusion. Moussaoui has pleaded guilty.

Except he pleaded guilty for something else entirely.

"I am guilty of a broad conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction to destroy the White House," he was quoted by the New York Times and Washington Post as saying at his hearing on April 22.Hold on one minute. As lovely and wonderful as it is for Moussaoui to admit to some vague notion of planning to blow up the White House, what does this have to do with 9/11? And why is the government taking an admission of planning to do one thing to mean guilt for something else?

We need to flash back to August of 2001, when Moussaoui was detained for wanting to learn to fly a Boeing 747, but not wanting to learn how to land the plane. People at the flight school he was attending became rightfully suspicious, and the United States government had Moussaoui detained. The attacks of September 11 occurred, and by the end of that year, the government had charged Moussaoui with intending to be the 20th hijacker, the unfilled spot of the fifth man of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania.

Not long after, the government accused Ramzi Bin Al-Shabib —also written as Ramzi Binalshabib and Ramzi Bin Alshabib, depending on which form of the news media you read, but why should spelling matter?— of being the 20th hijacker of 9/11, but changed their minds after his capture and now call him the monetary provider for Mohammad Atta, the so-called “ringleader” of the hijackers.

The government then changed its accusation of Moussaoui, saying that he wasn’t going to be the 20th hijacker at all. Instead, he was supposed to be the pilot of a FIFTH plane, which was to smash into the White House!

Never mind that there is just as little evidence (read: none) of this Fifth plane theory than the 20th hijacker theory. In fact, never mind the fifth plane on 9/11 theory. There is no evidence to support it, and the government has settled on the idea that Moussaoui was a part of a plot to use some sort of device at some sort of unspecified time against the White House.

What exactly is Moussaoui guilty of doing, then? It certainly is not being a participant in the events of 9/11. Hell, Moussaoui himself admits as much.

"You can't point to me and say that Moussaoui came to U.S. to participate in 9/11," he said at the hearing.

This is important. Zacarias Moussaoui is on trial for being a part of the 9/11 plot. There isn’t actually any evidence to tie him to 9/11. Moussaoui, he says, was a part of a separate plot. It does not matter what this separate plot was for. This entire trial is about his involvement in 9/11. Evidence that can be admitted into this trial can only be related to the charge of his supposed involvement in 9/11. All other aspects of his life and his activities may be fascinating to listen to, but are irrelevant. Convicting Moussaoui based on an admission of doing something else creates a dangerous precedent.

This is the equivalent of any one of you being arrested for marijuana possession, but having your charge altered while you are in custody to that of murder, being tried for this new charge, and then being found guilty of the murder.

“I am guilty of the possession of marijuana,” you state at your trial. “But I have committed no murder.”

You have admitted guilt, your captors elate. "The fact that the perpetrator participated in this is not in doubt,” they say. “In a chilling admission of guilt, the perpetrator confessed to his/her participation."

You remain adamant about your innocence regarding the murder charge throughout your sentencing hearing, where a jury of your peers calls for the death penalty. You maintain that you did not commit said murder as you are strapped to a table and the death needle enters your arm, its contents expelled into your veins. With your last breath, you wonder how your having marijuana in your possession signed your death warrant.

Think about it.

So while Zacarias Moussaoui is (so he says) guilty of planning to use a “weapon of mass destruction” to decimate the White House, he will continue to be tried and eventually convicted for his involvement in 9/11. Involvement which is non-existent, regardless of the above “chilling admission” quotation, which was adapted from a quote from Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, as provided by the New York Times.

The entire quote, which proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Gonzalez is an asinine twit suffering from an extreme disassociation from reality, reads as follows: "The fact that Moussaoui participated in this terrorist conspiracy is no longer in doubt," he said. "In a chilling admission of guilt, Moussaoui confessed to his participation."

The reality is that if the U.S. government would let Moussaoui call Ramzi Bin Al-Shabib and Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (the so-called mastermind of 9/11), both of whom are in U.S. custody, as witnesses, they would clear his name. Moussaoui has insisted upon this for years now, but the U.S. government refuses to allow them to testify, crying the need for “national security,” whatever that means.

Questions come to mind. Where is the proof of this plot to use “weapons of mass destruction” on the White House, anyhoo? More important, why is the government willing to accept THIS admission? During the circus that has been the past three and a half years, Moussaoui has pled innocent, then later guilty, but then changed his mind about the guilty plea.

Another vital question is why Moussaoui would make this plea at all? He claims to understand that he may face the death penalty and is fully aware that this alternate White House plot that he has pleaded to is being viewed as an admission of guilt related to 9/11. Moussaoui is either bloody stupid, or has been suckered into being the latest government patsy.

Based on his use of the phrase “weapon of mass destruction,” I suspect Moussaoui’s patsy-status. It is excessively doubtful that Moussaoui came upon the use of the talking-head and Bush administration phrase of “weapons of mass destruction” on his own. His “admission of guilt” quote reads like it was scripted; I wonder who fed his lines to him?

I hope Moussaoui is happy with his choice of buying whatever promises he has been guaranteed in exchange for this admission of guilt. Death, in a high-profile case like this one, is inevitable. When Moussaoui dies, the U.S. will proclaim his execution a “victory against terrorism” and that “justice has been brought to the guilty” or “the system or works” or any number of the infinite asinine catchphrases that our leaders dribble robotically.

New York Times and the Insecure Delirium

Originally published on April 15, 2005


This weekend I happened upon the single-most asinine article published all year in any medium. It may very well be the most obscene equine excrement I have ever read in a newspaper.

How shocking —or is it?— that the latest installment of wasteful print filler is found in the New York Times, whose self-proclaimed status of being the “newspaper of record” comes into question with its ever-decreasing standards. The article in question appeared in last week’s Sunday Times, plastered across the front page of the Sunday Styles section.

The topic is "The Man Date," which is apparently the name given when two heterosexual men get together and go places together - dinner, a movie, a museum trip, etc. The writer, Jennifer 8. Lee, (yes, that is the number eight as her middle initial) spoke to "30 to 40" men "around the country" to come to the conclusion that when two men get together for any activity, it's called a "Man Date" and the men are very uncomfortable in the situation, thinking that they will be mistaken for gays.

Apparently there are rules for a "man date" such as drinking wine is fine, but sharing a bottle is a no-no. And then there are the oh-so-discomforting ideas of who should pay. I don’t know about you, but when people say that they are going on a “date,” the implication that comes to mind is that the two are meeting for potentially romantic purposes. Friends don’t get together for “dates.” They “meet up” or “hang out.”

The writer readily admits that the term “man date” is merely a creation from her own squalid universe, albeit one that the New York Times embraces. In this universe, the 10 men quoted are terribly sensitive yet fully representative of the entire male population. It is from these 10 men that the “rules” of a “man date” are based. The “rules” are based on insecure ramblings of a few terrible examples of men. One so-called man makes a statement and—VOILA!—it is an all-encompassing “rule.” There isn’t even a second insecure man citied to make the same pitiful statement. Forget journalistic standards; 8. Lee decides that if one person speaks on a topic, this person’s idea becomes gospel truth.

The credibility of the 10 quoted nitwits is made clear as each speaks on their own personal social phobias, including how one won’t let another man pay for him, another can’t sit directly next to other men (God forbid their bodies should touch), and another who is worried that he will be seen in public…with another man.

Heterosexual women, according to 8. Lee, do not have these insecurity problems about going places together. Since the article does not have any viewpoints from the opposite side —something a good piece of journalism always contains—I have taken up the role to be that voice.

First, saying that women do not have this “problem” is too vague. Are all women secure, all 100% of living beings of the female persuasion? Has the writer talked to 30 to 40 women from “around the country” to be sure of this?

More vital, where are the quotes from the men who are secure in themselves? I want to read the paragraph where one man, replying to questions from the interviewer, looks her in the eye, drops his face into a frown of disgust, and replies simply, “You are an idiot.”

Wait, you might be saying, surely you will give some credit to the writer, as there are quotes from experts in this article. Indeed. Once again proving that so-called experts are laughable dingbats, we get to read the thoughts of two professors, of sociology and business respectively, and a medical psychologist at Johns Hopkins. None addressed 8. Lee’s notion of a “man date.”

As I have a great appreciation for members of the female persuasion, I can unequivocally state that the men on a whole are not represented in 8. Lee’s article and the scenario is based somewhere on the dark side of Bizarro World. I, and all of my male friends over the years, do not suffer from the obvious psychoses of the intervewees. We have lunch and dinner and go places one-on-one all the time and none of the above-mentioned lunacy comes into play. We're all comfortable with ourselves and we eat whatever we want, drink whatever we want, and the opinions of total strangers don't mean a bloody thing. Hell, a friend of mine whom I've known for six years and I have lunch once a week, every week. Just him and I. Sometimes he'll get the bill. Sometimes I do. And other times we split the bill.

Nonetheless, the New York Times prints her one-sided scenario, which would never have received approval in an Intro to Journalism class; there is no reason that the Times should have published this. Did somebody miss a deadline on the actual article meant for the front page? Were the copy editors all on vacation? Did Jennifer 8. Lee forget the basics of journalistic writing?

The last two paragraphs of 8. Lee’s article are utter nonsensical gibberish, attempting to compare a romantic date to a “man date.” She states that a “man date” can be dropped at any point in time if a woman “enters the picture.” This idea is painfully generic, implying that all men will drop their entire lives just to appease women.

In addition, somebody obviously never learned how friendships work. Friendships, for the sake of 8. Lee, are just as valuable, if not more, than a romantic relationship. Thus, friendships and the meeting of friends are to be treated as activities worth devoting one’s full attention to, not just a time-killer.

I am quite confident that no woman wants an insecure dolt who will drop any plans he has with friends just because the woman has called and wants to see him. There is no strength in someone who acts in this way, and the man will come off as pathetic or needy – just like the 10 men quoted in 8. Lee’s article. Women want their men to have their own friends, and friendships that will indeed occupy the man’s time, as a woman’s friends occupy hers. My female readers undoubtedly agree.

To every man quoted in this article and any man or woman who agrees with anything those weak-minded sponges expelled from their mouths without the slightest semblance of thought, I say:

You idiots! You buffoons! You overly-sensitive wussified Americans!

Nowhere else in the world will you find this fervent insecurity about human contact between members of the same sex, particularly between two males. Look at the Italians, the French or the Argentineans and compare them to the drivel in 8. Lee’s article.

Here’s an idea: anyone, man or woman, can spend time with another man or woman without the necessity of a moronic label. Labels only serve as tools of division. Let us all work together to end mindless labeling, and to keep such asinine nonsense out of our respectable news media.

More Gonzo Than Gonzo

Originally published on March 16, 2005


This installment of my column hits particularly close to home – the field of Journalism, my chosen career.

In the past month, examples of the absolute best and the scum-sucking worst of journalism have made headlines in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet.

The worst takes the form of a would-be member White House Press Corps named Jeff Gannon, affiliated with an internet news site known as Talon News. His specialty is taking entire White House press releases and posting them at Talon News, except with his name included. With a writer’s name, these articles must surely be legit news! Gannon’s other specialty was asking questions that any good journalist would consider as easy, or not intended to obtain any new or vital information. Questions asked for questions’ sake. While he might have been written off as simply a lousy journalist, it was his question to George W. Bush that gave Gannon away.

Referring to Democrats, Gannon asked Bush how he planned to deal with people who have “distanced themselves from reality.” This man is an obvious plant, savvy Internet users realized, and they set out to find out more. It turns out that “Jeff Gannon” is not his real name – he is actually James Guckert. Somehow, he was granted a White House press pass over and over again to his false identity, getting past the supposedly-rigorous screening process the White House puts press applicants through.

At the very least, this proves a fatal flaw in the screening process. At worst, this man is an absolutely appalling, additional-blemish-on-the-face-of-journalism, as though journalism needed another with the ongoing parade of White House-paid shills that have been outed this year.

The ever-reliable mainstream media pounced on the story, proclaiming that Gannon/Guckert asked “softball” questions to George W. Bush and Scott McClellan. “Softball” – the media’s playful way of downplaying what a horrid travesty and disgrace this man is to their very own field. The Internet media picked up the slack on this one.

Talon News, it turns out, was owned by a Conservative news outlet and was created only mere days before Gannon/Guckert applied for his first White House press pass. It comes as an unexpected shock that Talon News has folded after Gannon/Guckert’s outing. Gannon is revealed to be a homosexual escort and webmaster of sites that provide such escort services.

This revelation of his personal life by itself is meaningless, but when coupled with the access Gannon received to top-secret documents —he received a copy of the document that revealed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plume; he knew about the “Shock and Awe” attack on Iraq four hours in advance— one needs to question what a call-boy is doing with such prime access to government policy.

Gannon, as he continues to refer to himself, writes on his website as though he is the victim here! He was “too much” for the Democrats so they had to bury him. He did nothing out of the ordinary! Boo-hoo! Are you kidding me? This is the single most asinine thing I have heard all year!


I want to take a breather to take a look at one of the best in the field of Journalism, but even here there is terrible news.Hunter S. Thompson, Doctor of Journalism, creator of “Gonzo” Journalism, died on February 20, official reports being a suicide inflicted by gunshot. If you do not know who he is, look him up. Right now! He helped revolutionize the field of journalism to be more than just reporting the “facts.” Hunter questioned the “facts” and mixed in his opinions and made himself the center of his stories – all violations of the “journalistic standards.”

I cannot work out in my head the constantly-changing circumstances of his passing, which are marred with inconsistencies and troubling happenings. Going by what has been reported since February 20, you need a scorecard to keep up with how Hunter supposedly killed himself.

Associated Press, Feb. 25, says that Hunter was on the phone with his wife, asking her to come home early. The wife says she heard Hunter set down the receiver of the phone and then heard a loud muffled sound, which apparently is the gunshot. She, however, tells Rocky Mountain News that she did not hear any bang. Reports from the Thompson family say that Hunter was physically and mentally fine and gave no signs of wanting to kill himself. Except for the reports from the Thompson family that say that Hunter was talking about suicide constantly due to his failing health. Associated Press, March 2, changes the story altogether. There was no phone call. Instead, Hunter was found dead at his typewriter from the gunshot, the only element of the story that remains. In the typewriter was a piece of stationary from the Fourth Amendment Foundation with a single word, “counselor” typed onto it.

Even the clinically anosmic can attest that this stinks to high hell.

Why? Why the bloody hell couldn’t this be simply a 67-year-old great in his field who simply had enough of this life, and took the Hemmingway route to make his departure from it? Hunter told his friends that he would not be able to get through life if the option of suicide did not exist.

To think that Hunter S. Thompson took the time to sit down at his typewriter, acquire a piece of his special letterhead paper, type the date and then the single word “counselor” and then decided at that point to shoot himself is as absurd as the notion that Gary Webb, author a book connecting the CIA to the trafficking of cocaine into the United States, who also “committed suicide” in December 2004 did so by shooting himself twice. For, as we all know, killing yourself dead one time just isn’t good enough.

If Hunter did not do this himself, then why was he killed? At age 67? What could he possibly be writing about that couldn’t be laughed off by anyone in business or government or wherever as insanity due to his age and drug history?

What indeed.

According to a journalist friend of Hunter’s, Paul William Roberts, Hunter was working on an expose about 9/11, with what he believed was proof that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. He was also writing about the homosexual prostitute sex ring scandal (also involving underage call boys) which started back as far as 1989, and has been covered by the Washington Times.

The night before Hunter’s death, he called Roberts with the fear that he was going to be stopped from publishing these works. “They’re gonna make it look like suicide,” he told Roberts. “I know how these bastards think…”

But I have a hard time thinking that expressing that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by explosives would be enough to get Hunter killed. The explosives notion is widely expressed already, on websites such as whatreallyhappened.com, rense.com or propagandamatrix.com. No, this topic is not enough to bring about HST’s forced death.

This is where Gannon/Guckert returns. Right after Hunter’s passing, Gannon had the unmitigated gall to write a masturbatory self-serving pile of equine excrement about how he will fight on despite his being attacked, which he entitled “Fear and Loathing in the Press Room.” Gannon is gloating, like a little child who thinks he has gotten away with something. Well, Gannon, you have our attention. Now let’s see what we can find out.

It is attentive Internet users who note that Gannon is essentially a homosexual call boy/escort posing as a journalist. This calls back the memory of the aforementioned sex ring from the late 1980s. The modern version, they note, simply are allowed to play journalist now. Is this truth? Or baseless conjecture?

I am not well versed on this topic —yet— so I will not waste my time with ‘maybe’ this and ‘could be’ that. The potential clues, however, are worth the research time.

If Hunter was truly working on revealing this story, his notes must remain. Surely a member of Hunter’s family or one of his friends has found HST’s notes. Surely one of his journalist friends will pick up where HST left off and bring the truth to light. Hell, if nobody will step up then let ME take those notes. There can be no better way to honor this man than to complete the final works that evoked the ultimate Fear and Loathing from… “someone.”


While Hunter wrote these closing words for one journalist in particular, they equally apply to all of you, the active-aware, who embody the true spirit of Journalism:“Walk tall, kick ass, learn to speak Arabic, love music and never forget that you come from a long line of truth-seekers, lovers + warriors.” - HST

Nuclear Weapons are BAD... for SOME

Originally published on February 28, 2005


Last week, Iran suffered an earthquake, which killed more than 400 people and injured nearly 1000. Back in 2003, Iran suffered a massive earthquake that killed about 26,000 people. At the time, the United States was critical of Iran, due to its status as a non-democratic nation. Yet there was compassion and the U.S. provided aid for the survivors for basic necessities and to rebuild.

This year, however, the U.S. is not offering any aid. “Sincere condolences” were offered by George W. Bush, along with “thoughts and prayers.” Then in the next breath, the so-called American president continues to spout his mindless drivel about the need for Iran to cease its program to create a nuclear reactor, as the nation cannot and must not get into the production of nuclear weapons.

Must not create nuclear weapons. How hypocritical. The United States itself quite probably has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the entire world. Why is the U.S. allowed, but the measly country of Iran not?

This is especially quizzical when an even punier nation, Israel, is the only mideastern nation that actually DOES have nuclear weapons. Indeed, Israel is an American ally, whom the United States constantly bends over backwards to appease. This, however, is not a valid excuse for hypocrisy.

I have a great idea. Since Israel actually has the nuclear weapons that America is scared shitless that Iran “might” develop, why doesn’t George W. Bush hold a television conference demanding that Israel disarm its nuclear weapons? When it refuses, let the would-be president start a war with Israel to “make” them disarm. America’s overwhelming nuclear force would wipe out the entire country of Israel, reducing it to a pile of glass. Then Iran will be guaranteed to not build any weapons, as they would not want to suffer a similar fate. Instead, they will use their single nuclear reactor in the entire country for nuclear energy, as the intent has been from the start.

In case you haven’t noticed, America has hordes of these nuclear reactors on its soil, since these plants power much of the daily necessities that American citizens utilize. Iran, the overwhelmingly dangerous country that it is, cannot be allowed to have ONE such reactor on its soil. Why should they be allowed to possibly raise their standards of living?

But no. Let’s take rational thought and throw it out the window. Let’s accuse the Iranians of wanting to develop nuclear weapons when they have never shown such a plan. Then, while the European nations are negotiating for a viable agreement for Iran’s nuclear use, let’s have Bush not join such negotiations, but instead threaten to attack Iran if they do not comply with his demands.

Let’s also ignore that Russia has pledged its support for Iran’s desires for nuclear energy, and has made an agreement to help get the nuclear program started. Do not forget that Russia is another nation that actually does have nuclear weapons. We are getting dangerously close to starting a new conflict with Russia. Bush has the unmitigated gall to take a trip to Russia and question just how democratic the nation is and criticize Russia for its supposedly lacking free press. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The more Bush questions and makes demands of a supposed ally, Russia, the more likely this ally will grow sick of being told what to do and will metaphorically give the U.S. two forceful middle fingers by allying with the object of America’s aggressions.

Such a scenario would only get worse. As I look into my crystal ball, I see that a Russia-Iran alliance would not remain between just the two nations.

One easy addition would be Syria, another object of the Bush Administration’s aggressions. America, in the form of Bush and Condoleeza Rice, demanded that Syria remove its troops from Lebanon. To show that they were serious, the U.S. revoked its ambassador to Syria. Okay, Syria agreed and removed its troops. This is still not good enough, however. Syria still “sponsors terrorism” and has to stop doing that or they get added to America’s hit list. The Russia-Iran alliance will welcome Syria with open arms.

Don’t forget Iraq, whose residents are getting rather tired of having their cities decimated, their residents murdered needlessly, and living their days without power. Iraq had its elections; they have a reasonable army. The United States “liberated” them or whatever occurred. America can go home. If they don’t, then it’s a (continued) occupation.

Recently, Donald Rumsfeld has been crying about China increasing the size of its military. This, he says, could pose a security risk for America. Of course it would be a risk; it is a risk that America might lose footing as the “supreme leader of the free world.” If you read any international news sources, you know that Russia and China have been in talks for forming a military alliance.

The battle lines would then be drawn with the United States-Israel-Britain-Australia vs. Russia-Iran-Iraq-Syria-China. Then, if North Korea truly has the nuclear weapons they claim, they might not choose sides in a war. However, they would drop a nuke on South Korea just for the heck of it. Why not; the world is at war!

Welcome to the final world war where the Christian Fundamentalists shall get their wish; the end of the world will then be upon us.

I hope my crystal ball is defective.

Coddling Children into the Real World

Originally published on February 19, 2005



Yesterday, I was spending time with one of my outrageously intelligent friends, and he brought to my attention a special week that was observed in schools throughout the United States last month.

This holiday season, said my friend, whom I shall refer to as Terrence, was called “No Name-Calling Week.”

I thought Terrence was joking. He assured me and I found to be true that there was nothing humorous about the circumstances behind the latest educational craze.

The “initiative,” as it is referred to, was developed by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. As you are undoubtedly thinking, yes, it is obvious that GLSEN has its own agenda is this “No Name-Calling” week-long festival. However, they have no more of an agenda than when the Catholic League sponsors “Happy Face Paint” day. It is aimed to help a large number of people, while stealthily pushing whatever agenda they have in mind.

“No Name Calling” week apparently happened last year as well, which I was appalled to learn. Last year’s good times involved a writing-music-art contest, which featured 100 students. The student who wrote the winning poem was from Sugar Land, Texas.

That is the actual name of the city. Look it up.

I do not have to read the undoubtedly asinine work, consisting of the output of supreme institutional brainwashing that the 13-year-old contest winner spewed out to know that the entire idea of “No Name-Calling Week” is one big crock of equine excrement.

The Associated Press quoted Jerald Newberry, the director of the National Education Association’s health information network as saying, “People who would criticize this, regardless of who came out with it, are people with bad hearts.”

Hold on there, Mr. Newberry. I am openly criticizing this FantasyWorld Week 2005 and I do not have a bad heart. My purpose here is to bring all of my children to true knowledge, which will lead to understanding and then the ability to co-exist while discarding the asinine elements of existence, such as “Treat Kids Like Third-Class Beings Fest 2005.”

But in the meantime, this moronic Barney-esque forced “Let’s get along” week is not going to do a lick of good. Children do not need to be shrouded from the harsh realities of this world. One such reality is that they will get picked on. Some experience this more than others. Whether it be because of race, sexual orientation, hair color, or the ownership of a superhero lunchbox, certain children will receive the brunt of taunting remarks.

Is the solution, as Mr. Newberry and members of GLSEN, NEA and residents of Candy Land, Texas, suggest, to deceive these children into thinking that all people get along and that taunting will not happen to them?

No! Absolutely not!

Children who are picked on during their school years learn valuable lessons about what it is to live in the real world. These children also learn how to stand up for themselves when confrontations do arise. Does being made fun of hurt? Yes. Does the pain last, sometimes for years after the fact? Sure. But if the child is raised to be a knowledgeable and thus strong person, he or she will chalk up those experiences as a part of life.

However, if children are continually told that everybody always gets along and nobody is anything but nice to each other, once they get out into the real world, they are doomed. Do you expect to see a “No Name Calling” week for college students who don’t fit in at their colleges? Or a “Let’s get along” initiative at the workplace for the “weird” guy who doesn’t socialize and everyone talks about behind his back? Unheard of! In both situations and countless other real-world situations, if people are too sensitive, the reply from their professors, bosses, or other superiors will be, “tough shit. Deal with it.”

Overly sensitive children who will grow up to become over-sensitive wussy adults. Weak adults who will be unable to handle even the smallest unhappiness such as breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend, losing a job or getting lost on the bus. Good lord, no. This is not what the world needs. What kind of responsible parent or institution of learning would not allow a child to experience the world for what it is?

Obviously, the brilliant scholars at GLSEN and NEA. Seriously, I think I should have a sit-down with Mr. Newberry, anyone at GLSEN and NEA who supports this “No Name Calling” idea, and especially the creators of this asinine idea. It is obvious that they never got over the name-calling they experienced as youths, and perhaps still endure to this very day. There, there, folks it is okay. Here, have a lollipop. Maybe then you suckers will shut the hell up, grow up, and let the youth experience the real life you are unable to endure.

Super AIDS vs the Experts

Originally published on February 17, 2005


The news media is abuzz with the finding that there is a new strain of HIV circulating around New York, thanks to a 40-something-year-old gay man who had sex with as many as “hundreds” of partners. The man was also a user of crystal methamphetamine, which the so-called experts believe sped up his HIV to full-blown AIDS in a manner of weeks.

Is it the meth? Is it his biological makeup? Nobody seems to know for sure. What they do know is that “hundreds” of his prior sexual partners must be located, presumably to warn them against having any more sex. One prior partner is cooperating with the so-called experts. Another refuses.

Another case has been found in San Francisco, California, after digging through patients' reasonably current medical files.

Separately, there is the Feb. 2 Associated Press story about two men, also in New York, who were diagnosed with a rare sexually transmitted disease called LGV, which is a form of chlamydia. A total of six people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with this STD, which is highlighted by repugnant symptoms which include lesions on internal organs and scarring of the genitals and the anus.In both cases, it is OBVIOUS that the sickened are not the sole bearers of their newfound diseases. There has been a smattering of cases prior, including cases in Canada and California of the “super-AIDS.” The cases in Canada actually go back to four years ago. In the respective cases of the “rare” and “super” diseases, the handful of men are the only ones who have been “laboratory confirmed” – whatever that phrase means. My guess is that these men’s conditions were so bad that they couldn’t be ignored or hidden from the public. Any rational mind now realizes that for these cases, there is a bevy of other infected people running around who either don’t know that they are infected or just aren’t telling anyone.

Is there any shock here with the “newfound” diseases? No. The “experts” are distraught but not at all surprised. I am equally not shocked, nor surprised. The United States is, after all, the leading nation in the rate of people infected with a sexually transmitted disease. To answer the question formulating in your brains, yes, that means the rate is worse in the United States than the AIDS epidemic in many African countries. Makes you want to run out and have relations with that cute guy or girl you met at the bar, club, grocery store, or randomly on the street, doesn’t it?

The transition from HIV to AIDS, on average, takes anywhere from 7 – 10 years. In some people, it can take months, while in others it can literally take decades to become full-blown AIDS. This means that the man or woman you are sleeping with, if he or she has had any sexual partners in the past 15 years and has never been tested, could very well be the bearer of disease. Do you know for a fact if he or she is clean? You will never look at your partner the same way again!

“Well, the ‘super-AIDS’ and rare STD happened during anal sex, so that’s just gay men,” you say. So you think. Let me draw you a little diagram.

First of all, this is not 30 years ago when AIDS first magically appeared in gay men, where it was just fine to call it the “gay disease.” This world is too advanced, I would hope, to revert to that asinine mindset. But let us start with the gay man in question and his “hundreds” of partners. Obviously, he had sex with other gay men. But he also may have had intercourse with bisexual men, who for the sake of this argument are then infected with the “super-AIDS.” The bisexual men then can pass to the disease to other men during intercourse OR to straight women. Now the straight women pass the AIDS to the straight men. The cycle continues, infecting everyone. Just gay men? Hardly. Stop being ignorant and take care of your own life and health.

Now, if you are daring to cite Robert C. Gallo, a co-discoverer of the AIDS virus, who was quoted by the New York Times saying that the new strain of AIDS is nothing to worry about, you must have such thoughts eliminated immediately. Gallo, another so-called expert is someone with whom I have issues with, but that is a discussion for another day altogether. What I will say is that it is pure arrogance for someone who has dealt with AIDS for so many years to simply write off a strain of the disease as something that does not require concern.

This newfound media attention is not on a new finding, but on a topic that has merely been overlooked by the media and individual people alike.

Experts at the New England Journal of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advise routine HIV tests for everyone who is sexually active. I could not agree more. In fact, any one of you who have partaken in sexual intercourse at any point in the past 10 years and have never been tested for disease ought to run out right now and get tested. You could be one of the estimated 280,000 people who have HIV and don’t even know it. Or, you could have one of the innumerable other STDs out there.

This is all about keeping yourself safe. I do not advocate abstaining from sex completely like religious fundamental yahoos spend countless hours preaching and raving about. I do advocate full disclosure between two would-be partners.

“I can’t ask if someone is clean,” you say. Why the hell not? This is YOUR life, YOUR health. Just ask. If your partner is not willing to prove that he or she is disease-free, then this partner does not care about your well-being. That is intolerable and you should not accept it.

The Times also recently interviewed a current student at my old stomping grounds, Baruch College, who said he had slept with 10 men recently and none of them wanted to use a condom. Whether he ultimately did or did not use the protection, I do not recall. I found myself wracking my brain for some insight as to why someone would not want to use a condom during intercourse with what may very well be a total stranger, not to mention 10 of them. Before you say it, while this example may be a gay man, this scenario undoubtedly occurs just as often in heterosexual sexual encounters.

The lack of knowledge that people have about sexually transmitted diseases astounds me. There are actually people who have the utterly asinine belief that if they get AIDS all they have to do is take a pill and they will get better!