The BEST Comment EVER

I have been following the Israeli Flotillagate, and a friend sent me this article discussing US citizenship, especially in context of the American citizen who was murdered by the Israeli Defense Forces.

As usual, I like to read other readers' comments, and comment #22 written by a "El Cid" made me laugh.

-------------------------Start of Comment-------------------------
Israel’s Interior Minister wants to remove citizenship from the Israeli Arab Knesset (Parliament) representative who was arrested on the flotilla.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai petitioned Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to help him revoke the Israeli citizenship of Israeli Arab MK Hanin Zuabi, who took part in efforts to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza on a flotilla of aid ships earlier this week…

...In recent days,” Yishai wrote to Weinstein on Thursday, “Israel’s citizens have witnessed how an Israeli member of parliament, Hanin Zuabi, headed a group of terrorists who aimed to hurt Israel Defense Forces soldiers, under the protection of her parliamentary immunity.”

Yishai asked Weinstein for his help as the Supreme Court had ruled that an interior minister cannot revoke a person’s citizenship without the written authorization of the attorney general.

“MK Zuabi used her immunity as a cloak to protect her from the law, although she was undoubtedly aware of the activists’ preparations for the attack against IDF troops,” Yishai wrote. “This is a premeditated act of treason, and there is documented proof of this.”

An “attack on IDF troops”.

Similarly, innocent people shot by police are premeditated bullet thieves.
-------------------------End of Comment-------------------------

Lo siento, yo no soy Hispano.

When I went to Cancun with a friend a couple years ago, I was taken aback a little bit when the local folks talked to me in Spanish. Not just a couple here or there, but a lot. Being mistaken for a Hispanic in the United States is one thing, as I attribute it to ignorant people, but to be mistaken likewise in Mexico just tells me that, perhaps, despite my tainted brownish Chinese appearance, I may really look like a fair skinned Hispanic.

Now, why did I bring this up? Imagine this: I go down to Arizona for a little touristy visit, and like a typical American, I bring just my Illinois state ID. No passport, no birth certificate and no certificate of naturalization. Furthermore, I nonchalantly rolled through a stop sign at an intersection instead of coming to a full stop for three seconds as required by most traffic laws. I get pulled over, and am asked for proof of my legal status. Unfortunately, I cannot provide this. So I get arrested without a warrant, and then later transferred to Homeland Security custody, instead of just being cited for traffic violation as usual.

This potential chain reaction started with the fact that I didn't carry on my person proof of legal status in the country, further compounded by the fact that I looked Hispanic. And this all could happen only because of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which amended a few existing Arizona statutes.

Arizona SB 1070 came about following the brutal murder of a third generation Arizona rancher, Robert Krentz near the border on March 27, which heated up the anger and frustration of Arizonans. The Republican senators, in response without looking like they're not doing anything, rushed through the creation of the bill and slammed it through the senate through its Republican majority seats of Senate. All Republicans, save for Carolyn S Allen, voted for the passage of the bill, whereas the Democrats either voted against or abstained. [The senate is made up of 18 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and 3 vacated seats. The vote breakdown was 17 Ayes (all Republicans), 11 Nays (10 Democrats and 1 Republican), and 2 Abstains (both Democrats).]

Please don't get me wrong. Like most Americans, I agree with the fact that this nation has an illegal immigration problem which desperately needs addressing. Furthermore, I am in full support of states taking measures to protect themselves in such regards when the federal government has been unable to address the issue. But, I am not in support of Arizona's new law. Specifically the amendment to Section 2, Title 11, Chapter 7 with the addition to Article 8, where provision B states:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

This provision forces all levels of law enforcement from state to county to city to subdivision to act as immigration officer, a jurisdiction held by the federal government, not anywhere else. The jurisdiction issue is not something I particularly care about, but I do care about the fact that anyone can be detained where "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."

Great! Now what? If you read the entire bill, nowhere did the legislature provide any assistance to law enforcement on the definition of "reasonable suspicion," nor provide any guidelines in understanding so. If I ask you to take a look at two women, one of whom is menstruating, and the other not, would you be able to tell which one is? Likewise, how can you tell the difference between someone who is here legally and one who isn't? Because, Arizona's law basically gave whether "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" as a probable cause. And nowhere in the bill do the Republican lawmakers explain what this "reasonable suspicion" is.

This poorly written and rushed bill is vague in its language, and certainly invites racial profiling as a tool that law enforcements will reluctantly employ in determining who is an illegal alien and who isn't. There is no way around it, given the vagueness of the bill.

Since 1995, there have been several joint programs between the federal and local governments known as 287(g) programs. Such programs were authorized by Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), enacted in 1995. Section 287(g) of this law authorized the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

In essence, 287(g) programs give local law enforcements the same powers as provided by Arizona Senate Bill 1070, with a couple differences: 1) requirement of training on the local law enforcement's part, and 2) the option to question someone of their legal status rests on the local law enforcer, as opposed to required all of the time.

Given that several programs have been created under this provision in federal law for 15 years, many of the participating local law enforcement agencies have advised Arizona Governor Brewer against endorsing SB 1070. Their reasons, which can be backed up by statistics, were: 1) No matter how much training their law enforcers had from the federal government, nearly half of them admitted that determination was so difficult that they ended up unknowingly and unintentionally employing racial profiling practices; 2) Only 9% of the 145,000 people arrested under this program were violent criminals; and 3) The program has a counterproductive effect on people as it creates distrust of law enforcement to the point where no witness, legal or not, is willing to report crimes or help investigators.

The most important thing to note here is that those with experience in similar types of enforcements have warned of racial profiling, a practice deemed unconstitutional in various courts, as it violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [The Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.] Proponents of AZ SB 1070, when discussing the merits of the law, seemed willing to give up such a civil liberty as if the right was not worth anything. Either that or they tend to downplay the severity of such practice. When publicly asked how the state's various law enforcement agencies can avoid racial profiling without the state legislature providing assistance either in language or provision of training dollars in the bill, Governor Brewer simply responded that racial profiling will not happen. As if her word alone is strong enough to prevent some of the most natural human tendencies toward racial bias. (Please don't confuse "racial bias" from a subconscious state of mind to active "racism.")

Another noteworthy point is that proponents of the law seem to buy into the notion created by the fear mongering of Republicans that illegal immigrants are all violent criminals, with the propensity to take a life. And this is further amplified by Conservative media, which just adds fuel to a raging fire. Just watch this incendiary Fox News report on the peoples' reaction to the rancher's murder, which conveniently left out the voices of those in the town hall meeting with an opposing (and cool-headed and objective) point of view:


What's important to realize is that those who commit violent crimes have no boundaries in skin color or even immigration status. I thought we have already learned the lesson from the misconception at the turn of the century when people assumed black people were the culprits behind any given crime when there are no suspects. But now, at the turn of the new century, instead of black people, illegal immigrants are being unfairly targeted and portrayed as violent criminals at large who will do anything and break common sense laws, such as murder.

I fully support states that adopt their own laws to protect its citizens when the federal government seemed unable to do so when it comes to border and immigration issues. So long as the laws are not unconstitutional. But the Arizona law gave an open invitation to racial profiling without constitutional probable cause, and thus lead to violation of the Fourth Amendment. It's not the idea behind the law I am against, but the vagueness of the verbiage and lack of provision to protect the civil rights of all people that I am truly against.

The United States was founded and based on civil rights, which Americans are so damn proud of because no other country can rival it even today. In the Declaration of Independence, it is stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." We further stated in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." And we spelled out what these unalienable rights and blessings of liberty are, in the form of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.

Of so many laws pertaining to immigration enacted and adopted by many states in 2010 alone, the Arizona state law is the only one that not only draws criticism, but takes away a civil right protected by the United States Constitution by means of legalized racial profiling. The law does nothing more than make a mockery of our Constitution. For that, I cannot fully support or agree with how Arizonans chose to protect themselves from illegal immigration problems.

You know what one of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once wrote? "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That's Thinking Forward

Planning. At the place where I work, planning occurs everyday. Planning is a good thing. But sometimes, those who do the planning (obviously not yours truly) are just plain stupid. They plan for the obvious, and leave craters of holes everywhere. But let's not talk about work. Let's talk about Arizona.

Back in 2004's general election, Proposition 200 was approved by a majority of voters. Proposition 200 basically is law that spells out that when someone is registering to vote for the first time or in a different county, or merely casting a vote (if registered), he or she is required to provide specific documents of identification along with proof of citizenship. Seems harmless, doesn't it? Sounds like a good law for the voting system, doesn't it?

But what the hell do you do for those people who were born before birth certificates were issued? And those people who never left the country in their lifetime, which meant not having a passport? Well, that's exactly what happened to Shirley Preiss, of Surprise, AZ.

Shirley Preiss had been voting in every presidential election since 1932, and has never missed a single election. But this time around, she was stripped of her right to vote!!! The reasons? She was born in 1910, before birth certificates were issued as standard document. She never had a passport because she never left the country in her life. She no longer have a driver's license because of her inability to drive due to age. And to make matters worse, the school she attended as a young child no longer exist, so she couldn't get any kind of academic records.

Shirley Preiss is screwed!!!

Now, although this is a pretty freaking sad thing, consider what State Representative Russell Pearce (Republican), who was responsible for Proposition 200, had to say: "To get a movie, you have to prove who you are. To go rent a car, you have to prove who you are. That's part of life."

What the... Sure, leave it to the f*cking Republicans who hate the very idea of minority rights to enact laws so stringent that it leaves certain legit people out in the cold. If the Arizona governor cannot intervene in this matter, I wonder what will US Senator John McCain (Republican) has to say about this, considering he is the presumptive Republican nominee for this year's presidential election, representing the very Arizona state.

Have I told you how much I hate stupid people for planning without forethought? Yeah, I hate that very, very much.

February 5: My First National Vote (sort of)

It is February 5, 2008 today, and right before I left for work, I went down to my local precinct's polling station and voted. This is a historic and momentous event for me because today marked the first time I have ever exercised my most basic civic privilege as a citizen of the United States of America, as far as participating in the federal election process. (This despite the fact that I strongly believe that the election process is totally f**ked up with so many layers fault. But more on that later.)











Truth be told, I actually voted for the first time back in November 7, 2006. But the ballot was for all things local. I could have voted on a national level back in 2004, but unfortunately, due to delays in paperwork processing (specifically my FBI and CIA background checks), my verbal approval for citizenship wasn't given until some time in the middle of October of 2004. This was a problem for a couple reasons:
1) Verbal congratulations on the part of the INS Officer does not indicate I am a citizen on that date, but that I had to wait until I attend and complete the next available Naturalization Oath Ceremony,
2) The Naturalization Oath Ceremonies for October and November were full, so I had to wait till December which was well past the November 2 election date, and
3) Even if the October Naturalization Oath Ceremony was available, apparently there is a law that bars you from voting if you have not registered to vote by 30 days before Election Day.

So yeah, I am excited that I took my first step towards voting in a national election process. And this time around it matters more, because when it was Walker Bush versus John Kerry, I thought it would be bad for either one to take office. Well, technically, somebody like John Kerry might still be an inch better than Walker Bush. But that's beside the point.

Even though it was exciting that I participated in the beginnings of a national presidential election process, I was quite unhappy with the modern primary/caucus process. Before the 1970's, each state's major political party (which is only the Democrats or Republicans) had their own internal process of selecting a party nominee to compete in the presidential race. Then Iowa simply had to mess that up for the rest of the country. They basically included regular folks in the party nominee nomination. Actually, this is all fine, but if you're going to involve people outside the party members, then the national parties should have dictated that the caucuses and primaries be held on the same day for all states.

But nooo... The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee had to dictate each and every state party on when they can have their primary or caucus held. Think of a national headquarter that controls each state's regional office. So because of this staggered system, they have created a giant monster.

First, because of this staggering system, small states like Iowa and New Hampshire got the privilege to shape up the nominee lineup. If a candidate did not get the party nomination from one of those early states, he may be compelled to drop out of the race. Why? Because the national media covers Iowa and New Hampshire with such ferocity that it in fact persuades voters in other states! Just imagine a headline like this on national morning news of January 4, 2008: "Edwards came in second in the Iowa Democratic Caucus!" Now imagine a headline like this on national morning news of January 9, 2008: "Edwards came in third in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary!" You got to believe that such headlines will subconsciously plant in the minds of other voters in the remaining states that maybe John Edwards is a loser! Heck, even this mental game plays into each and every candidate's minds as each caucus and primary continues day after day!

Sure, you can argue that each nominee have hired professional pollsters that will gauge potential voters in other states, but how aren't such polls on later states more of a measurement on the effects of the results from the first few caucuses and primaries rather than a measurement of whether voters will want to vote for him because of his beliefs and ideas?

If all states are forced to have their primaries and caucuses on the same day, we wouldn't have all these candidates dropping out, like John Edwards from the Democratic Party. For example, because of the staggering process, John Edwards decided to drop out on January 30 based on just a few early caucuses and primaries, right before the huge 24 state primaries and caucuses! And California, a big state with a huge number of delegates, has not even been decided on!!! If every state has their primaries and caucuses on the same day, and assuming that John Edwards won California with the same results of the current primaries and caucuses that occurred before February 5, 2008, there is a pretty good chance that he might still be in the race! But because he voluntarily dropped out, now California and Illinois have less candidates to nominate for the presidential race!

To me, that is all a crock of sh*t. After studying each major candidate's stand on issues and proposed policies, I have come to agree most with Chris Dodd. But because he had dropped out on January 3, 2008 right after losing the Iowa Caucus, I now can't get a chance to even nominate him in Illinois! Based on the extensive issues and positions each candidate stood in, here is my order of how much I agree with each candidate:
FIRST: Chris Dodd
SECOND: (tied) John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich
THIRD: Joe Bidden
FOURTH: Hillary Clinton
FIFTH: Mike Gravel
SIXTH: (tied) Barack Obama and Bill Richardson.

But thanks to both Iowa and New Hampshire, they have single handedly eliminated my top nominee! And this morning, I had to choose between the remaining candidates of Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Barack Obama. All of whom I agreed the least with when it comes to issues and proposed policies!

So yes, I was happy that I voted today, but at the same time had a bittersweet feeling with the process. Much like how much I hate Lake Shore Drive because of the many pot holes it has, but I am forced to drive on it because I had no other choice. Dammit!!!

If you would like to see which candidate you most agree with, feel free to check out my spreadsheets for both the Democratic candidates and Republican candidates.

Basically, for each issue or policy, you highlight the box in green if you agree with the candidate's position 100%. If you totally disagree, you highlight the box in red. If you're indifferent to the position or cannot agree with everything a candidate proposes, you highlight it in yellow. (For example, I may agree with the position of having a single payer healthcare system, but I may disagree with how a specific candidate wants to fund such policy. In that case it would be yellow.) Then you tally up all the greens, and weigh it against the tally of the reds, and use the tally of the yellows as a deciding point. This is so much more accurate than those stupid websites like votechooser.com, because they only select a few issues, and over-generalize a candidate's position.

Have fun with it! You might even be surprised to see who you agree with the most! (The spreadsheets are compiled from CNN.com's profiles of each candidate.)

Americans and the Environment

This is by no means a reflection of all Americans, but a good majority of us.

Except for me. =)

Having grown up in a developing country before settling in the United States, I have witnessed what life is like for the majority of people, who are below middle class, yet not exactly poor. It is pretty good and content. For the majority of Americans, they fall into the middle class group.

This middle class group makes me sick for the most part. Along with the rich. I know categorically I belong in the middle class group, but I am simply different. And weird, to boot. American middle class is obsessed with money and bragging rights. They have a strong desire to make it up to the rich category. Little do they know, those in the upper class are simultaneously getting richer. For example, the top few richest people are no longer millionaires, but billionaires! That is a far cry from what the benchmark was a decade ago when I was in college.

Anyway, this writing is not an in-depth look at the American middle class, but just an aspect of it. This is about the environment and cars. Yes, cars. Leave it to yours truly to somehow tie all his conversations and writings to one of his passionate topics (politics, environment, cars, comedy, girls and sex).

You see, the majority of the middle class Americans love to have things to show off. In this day and age where being green is not only cool and hip but also a status symbol, these people have gone hybrid crazy. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I commend them for making such efforts in buying vehicles equipped with hybrid engines. I think that is totally good; so good that I even chastise myself for driving a Land Rover. But I give myself a break in knowing the facts that a) it is the smallest compact SUV from Land Rover, b) I rarely drive it, and c) I rely on the Chicago Transit Authority's bus and subway trains a lot.

Herein lays the problem. When Honda and Toyota brought the Insight and Echo, respectively, to the United States eons ago, everybody wanted one. But they were small, and not exactly comfortable for the long-haul drives. For the next generation, the same two companies revamped their efforts in pushing hybrid technologies. Honda began adding hybrid trims into their existing line-ups, while Toyota initially went the opposite direction. Toyota instead created the next Echo, the Prius. It is distinct, and unique from the rest of the regular line-up. It wasn't much later till Toyota decided to add hybrid trims into their existing line-ups like Honda's approach.

Ever since this renewed push by these two companies, the Toyota Prius remains one of the most popular vehicles, outselling Honda's hybrid vehicles. The marketing and sales top brass at Honda were quite upset that Toyota was selling more hybrids than Honda, despite the fact that Honda was and still is the leading automobile company in the United States in terms of having the lowest emissions vehicles in their entire lineup!

A study revealed that the majority of hybrid buyers want to stand out and show off their pride in being green. Owning a car like the Honda Accord or Civic, or a Toyota Camry with the hybrid engines wasn't cool enough. It didn't scream, "Look at me, I'm eco-friendly!" Of course, only detail-oriented car buffs like me can tell you right away in a glance if that Honda Accord is a hybrid or a regular V6 engine. Because of that, Honda decided to revamp their approach in marketing their future hybrid vehicles, like making bigger badges indicating a model's hybrid engine under the hood as well as having slightly different styling cues to differentiate itself from the regular engine version of the same model. Likewise, Toyota is planning to capitalize the Prius name by turning its Prius model into a Prius line of vehicles with different models.

Again, this is all good. I can not care less* about how these automobile companies strategize to sell more vehicles. What really bothers me is why do automobile manufacturers have to change their strategies to match the decision making process of the majority of middle class buyers, the biggest demographic population in purchasing hybrid cars? The answer is simple: they want something to show it off! They want it for the bragging rights! Yet they're not asking their legislators to vote in favor of rejoining the Kyoto Treaty, or demanding laws be enacted to lower the average miles per gallon standards from manufacturers.

I look at the European Union, and think Wow, they are so much advanced and smarter than we are! Not only do they consider the miles per gallon (or really kilometers per litre), but they also look at another factor which is more important which many Americans don't even consider (save for the automobile executives worried about their bottom lines): the amount of carbon dioxide produced per distance driven. It's like people wanting a car with a biggest tank, but neglecting to think about the efficiency side of the equation. (For example, larger tanks do you no good if your engine guzzles gas at a faster rate.)

The European Union is so far advanced in law making that they have set a target limit of 130 grams per kilometer by 2012 for vehicles. Some countries even have frameworks in which to push demand for cleaner cars. For example, the United Kingdom currently will not levy any tax on owners of vehicles that produce less than 100 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer, and any car emitting more than 225 grams per kilometer will be levied about $420 a year in emission tax.

So what does this all mean? For your reference, a Jaguar X-Type 2.0 produces considerably more than 225 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. It has a fairly common engine with similar specifications as the average car (American trucks and SUVs excluded) driven in the United States.

So what other vehicles currently out in the market produce less than 100 grams per kilometer? Well, the Honda Insight and a few other diesel powered Smart cars!

Now, I'm not saying that the majority of middle class Americans are stupid or ignorant. I truly believe that this is a reflection of poor public education, as well as a lethargic government that we have had for decades. While the European Union nations have long had clean diesel powered vehicles which Americans seem to hate, they are also drawing up laws on how to incentize (yes, I just created that word) buyers and nudge auto manufacturers into producing cars that not only have higher mileage efficiency, but consider the more important factor of the amount of greenhouse gas emitted per distance driven. Meanwhile, our own government is doing little to even put a dent on curbing our greenhouse gas pollution. We're not part of the Kyoto Treaty; we have a law demanding automobile vehicles to have a a minimum average miles per gallon level that is not only a joke, but full of loopholes that it cannot even hold water; and a tiny incentive in tax credit if you buy a designated hybrid vehicle.

Sigh. This all simply just makes me sick. And we leave it to foreign companies like Honda and Toyota to blaze the trail in bringing hybrid cars to the United States. How long did it take Ford to take that strategy? Only after more than a half decade later! And not only that, but people in general need to start thinking for themselves, get smarter, and nudge their legislators into enacting tougher laws.

It is no wonder the Big Three are not really all that powerful and profitable anymore. Moreover, the new Big Three is no longer an all American club after Toyota surpassed the former number three's market share.

* Here's a pet peeve of mine. I get slightly irritated when people say "I can care less" when they want to stress how much they don't care about something. Really, the expression is "I cannot care less." Think about it. Just like how people always say, "Nobody isn't here." Grr...

I Want to Ride a Slut!

Sure, you can say I am male, and therefore think of sex every six waking seconds of my life as some studies suggest. But realistically, I don't think of sex every six seconds. Maybe every eight is more accurate. ;-)

But seriously. Yesterday, when I was driving to Green Lake to squeeze in my eight mile run, I heard on the radio about the prospect of Seattleites soon having the opportunity to ride a slut. Naturally, given the fact that I'm here in Seattle, I have caught the itching bug too. But I'm not sure if my dream will ever come to fruition.

Now, before you get all worried about my health and wellbeing, I should let you know that the slut everyone wants to ride to the ground does not come with any STD's. Or at least I am crossing my fingers. But then again, the fact that you can catch genital herpes from toilet seats will give rise to the dangers associated with riding a slut.

Anyway, why might I want to ride a slut? Well, for one, sluts are easy. On top of that, not only is a slut easy, it is also convenient and good for the environment! Unfortunately for some Seattle neighborhood officials, their lack of knowledge in the urban dictionary was costly.

Still not sure what I am talking about? Read all about the neighborhood slut here. =)

Fewer Asses of Evil

I woke up this morning (uhm, noon) to some really good news when I turned on my television to CNN Headline news and browsed to News.Google.com on my computer.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned! That jackass finally resigned! Hallelujah! There is a God!!! =)

But seriously though... First, Donald Rumsfeld resigned on November 8, 2006. Next, the Wall Street Journal published on August 13 an interview with Karl Rove that revealed his intended resignation at the end of this month. And now? After mounting pressure from both Democrats and Republicans calling for his resignation, Alberto Gonzales finally resigned today, August 27, 2007!

You really know that he is a piece of shit when even Republican conservatives wrote in the National Review back on March 28:
"We have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability. Nor has his conduct at any stage of this controversy gained our confidence."

Oops!

Dubya today spoke out today after "reluctantly" accepting Gonzales' resignation, calling him a man of "integrity, decency and principle." Dubya also blamed the onset of the resignation "after months of unfair treatment." This is what the man who can't even pronounce the word nuclear have to say:
"It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."

Uhm, exsqueeze me? What about the good name of many innocent people accidentally detained forever at Guantanamo Bay as a result of Gonzales' fine interpretation of the law? I'm not saying all detainees at Guantanamo Bay are innocent, but there is enough innocent people caught in this nasty dragnet that it is proof that it was all a bad idea with horrible planning!

How can you call someone a man of "integrity, decency and principle" when he was fundamentally central in blowing away the principle of checks and balances in the United States government by creating the most controversial legal framework ever seen to date for which the Executive branch can abuse its powers?

If Gonzales is truly "talented and honorable," then why do legal scholars and philosophers view Gonzales as a rogue cowboy ass-raping the Constitution? Maybe these old timing scholars and philosophers are less talented than the young and inexperienced Gonzales?

If Gonzales was so good at doing his job, how is it possible that he only has support from the White House, but not even some key Republicans? Does that even make sense?

More importantly, how is it possible for Gonzales who was supposedly good at his job, the position of the Attorney General which is politically in the stratosphere in the realms of the Judiciary branch that demands so much responsibilities, recall so little? In fact, Gonzales said either "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" over 100 times during his Congressional testimony! And for some of his critical claims during testimony to be later refuted or contradicted by the United States Department of Justice Director of Public Affairs Monica Goodling (now resigned), former Deputy Attorney General James B Comey, and FBI Director Robert S Mueller III.



Oops, I did it again!

Good riddance today of a piece of trash. Now we just need to clean up the rest of the garbage. Translation: Dick Cheney and George Walker Bush. Till then, we still have a few Asses of Evil left in this government.

But honestly, it is a sad thing to see Alberto Gonzales resign. He said today, "I often remind our fellow citizens that we live in the greatest country in the world, and that I have lived the American dream. Even my worst days as attorney general have been better than my father's best days." For a Hispanic American to go so high in the political food chain, he had the great opportunity to show minorities that there is no political ceiling when you do well. But Gonzales just had to squander that opportunity.

What a shame... What a shame...

My Mayor!

Note: This is a mobile blog!




Well! While I was having breakfast at Pauline's, I noticed that Chicago Mayor Daley was there too having a business discussion with the local Alderman and other parties. I think this was the closest I've ever been to my mayor! Right in the next room!

Solution to Our Overcrowded Prison Problem...

Hey, instead of feeding our incarcerated three square meals a day, providing them entertainment, all of which have a higher standard of living than a lot of law-abiding folks down on their luck, why not put them to good use?

I mean, they can still continue churning out license plates for us, but come on, how hard is that? And what value does that really provide us, other than some piece of metal that is strapped to our beloved vehicles? Why not get them to do something that will entertain us?

That's right! One idea may be to have the incarcerated perform roles in popular Broadway shows, thus bringing down the cost of tickets.

Another alternative? Follow the lead set by Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center in Cebu, Philippines! Check out what they were able to accomplish below!



Obviously, we'd have to spend about a quarter of a penny extra in resources per prisoner to ensure that no sharpened toothbrushes get smuggled into rehearsals. =)

And what I really want to know is, the prisoner playing the role of Michael Jackson looks like a really tough goonie. How the hell did they convince him to strut and dance?!? It's like asking a rough, weathered biker dude to sing My Little Pony at a karaoke bar...

Where's the Principle?!?

I really don't get this. We Americans worry a bunch with this notion of "freedom," especially that of other nations. All while disrespecting the balance of the different types of sovereign rule that exist in the world. Surely, do we really want to convert all nations in the world into a democratic rule? Is it really the only way to rule sovereignty, and simply the best?

There is this organization founded by prominent Americans, including Eleanor Roosevelt, in 1941, called Freedom House, which publishes an annual Map of Freedom. It is more or less a report card that a bunch of ethnocentric think-tankers put together grading other nations based on an ethnocentric approach to the definition of "free." Sounds noble at first, doesn't it?

Well, undoubtedly you will see one of the headlines in today's edition (Monday, July 23, 2007) of USA Today that Americans are now worried about the newly elected Prime Minister of Turkey. Apparently we are concerned that Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan may have an Islamic agenda against the mostly secular, pro-Western rule since adopted by Turkey national founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1923. Really! And this concerns us because?!?

It seems like a lot of Americans are simply jaded at the notion of freedom and democracy. We say one thing, and act differently. We want other nations to be more secular, yet our own nation is heavily influenced by Christians, an overwhelming majority. When I hear politicians mention the words "family values," all I can imagine is a pandering for votes from the religious Christians. We are against theocracies, especially those involving Islam. What if Turkey was to adopt a theocracy based on strict Christianity? Would we have been against it? I doubt it. Personally, I think this is just an extension of the centuries-long holy war between Christians and Muslims, only that it is modified to fit the modern political climate.

Seriously... And we call ourselves a good democratic government? Our government is so heavily based on a two party system, even though it is unofficially so. Our national mandates all boil down to either pro-GOP or pro-Democrat. How polarizing. Green party? Or any other? Ha ha, good luck with influencing any kind of public policy with such an alignment.

Consider this. Not that many years ago, Americans fought to break away from the tyrannical rule of the English, all in the name of democracy and freedom. Cool. I like that. But the resulting United States government will not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, because it wants to appease to the communist Chinese so that we can make money in their emerging, hot market. Never mind the fact that Taiwan's government was the original Chinese democratic body kicked out of China by then emerging Communists!

As Taiwan battles for freedom and democracy, China continues to make threats against us that if we were to recognize Taiwan as an independent, democratic state, then there will be repercussions. And as Americans, we actually listen and dance our public policies around this? Whatever happened to the policy of not negotiating with staunch opponents? We stand for democracy, but when it comes to potentially making lots of money, screw democracy. Screw the basic principles we were founded on.

Wow. And yet, we managed to continue criticizing other governments. Isn't that just plain shady, if not fucked up? Our government is the biggest flip-flopper there is!!! The point of all this? Whenever I read something like today's USA Today headline, it irks the crap out of me. It elicits the same reaction from me as when a convicted pedophile criticizes other countries for not have strong enough laws to protect their little children from sexual predators. Rather hypocritical, huh?

Riddle Me This

Alternate Title: Today Dubya said something stupid. Again.

How many times have you seen George Walker Bush claim that he is a patriot? After all, he did sent our troops to Afghanistan (good) and Iraq (bad) to fight a war he claims to defend our rights and freedom. Pretty patriotic, you would think, right? Even when this clown dons denim, cowboy hat and boots, and a big buckle, it conveys the very image of a patriotic American. You can't get any more American than that.

But then, what exactly was there to defend our nation from Iraq? To defend oneself, one needs the presence of an imminent aggressor. Saddam and his regime were in a totally different part of the globe. They didn't have any way of disseminating terror to the United States; their longest distance missile could barely leave the Middle Eastern region. But Dubya continued to claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, despite the fact that we already had good intel from head of United Nations inspectors Hans Blix. After all, the United States government contributed funding to the UN, which also created the massive inspection team. The UN team had conducted 731 inspections from November 2002 and March 2003, and stated that no evidence of chemical and biological weapons stockpiles exist, or that there was any active weapons programs! Dubya's response? Like an unruly teenage girl, he simply said something along the lines of: Whatever.

So we sent in our troops, invaded Iraq, fucked up their rather decent and peaceful country (as compared to Iran and other nations in that region), and destabilized the region. As if what the "Western Nations" did to Palestine and created the clusterfuck that is now known as Israel weren't enough. With our thumbs sticking at the UN inspectors while we escorted them out of Iraq, we sent in our own "better" inspectors team headed by David Kay with possibly bigger and more advanced magnifying glasses than the tools that were at the UN's disposal. All after we invaded Iraq. Talk about shoot first then ask questions later.

Meanwhile, Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly criticized the war and accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraqi weapons so that Dubya has the justification needed to go to war. A funny thing happened next, as shortly thereafter, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie Plame's identity was leaked as a CIA operative. Backlash from the White House? Ambassador Wilson definitely thought so. This was so scandalous that even Dubya himself said he wanted to know the whole truth on how such a treasonous act could have happened, not to mention putting an American's life in danger as well as risking the operations of the CIA! Dubya swore that if the leak came from within the White House, he will fire anyone who leaked the information.

Time went by, and guess what... Weapons inspector David Kay finally concluded: "We were all wrong," in regards to the allegations we have made against the Iraqi regime. All wrong?!? Wait a minute... Everyone was wrong, EXCEPT for the UN weapons inspectors! How dare he claim that we were ALL wrong?!? Then the finger pointing began, and it all boiled down to bad intel, or funnier yet, no real, credible, HUMAN intel. Wait another minute... Weren't the UN inspectors humans? Weren't they actually present in Iraq? Yet we ignored them. Worse yet, Dick Cheney even threatened Hans Blix before the UN inspector began his round of inspections: "We will not hesitate to discredit you." Sounds to me like we have a very trigger-happy person in the White House. Why else would someone threaten to discredit another before they begin their work?!?

So all the backlash at leaking Valerie Plame's name was a total waste at a ridiculously high price of a life and our national security. But that did not stop the judicial system to assign Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into the whole CIA leak scandal. And after two years of investigation, the truth finally came out as to who leaked Valerie Plame's identity: White House Advisor Karl Rove, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. They all admitted to leaking the name to reporters. All of who are important enough to maintain our national security. They leaked the information so freely as if they were sharing their grandma's not-so-secret recipe! A matter of national security, an act of treason, and nothing happens. What's funnier is that the only person charged in this whole scandal was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, not for the act of leaking, but obstruction of justice!

And the story gets even funnier... For lying to special investigators in the matter of treason and national security, Scooter was fined $250,000 and sentenced to jail for 30 months. That's barely anything, considering the weight of the matter. Yet, our old American patriotic pal, defender of American rights and freedom, commuted the jail sentence, while saying that he still respects the grand jury and the judicial process. Isn't that the same thing as when your mom told you that she loved you and yet continued spanking you, even harder as she said that? Or similarly, a bad guy raping a woman while telling her, "I love you, and I don't want to hurt you." Wow...

Here is where the confusion is, my friends. If patriotic Dubya is willing to spend billions upon billions of our hard-earned money to go into war in Iraq under pretense, to defend our rights and freedom, then how the hell did he go from:
1. Pledging to fire whoever leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name, to
2. Only willing to fire someone who "committed a crime" (meaning someone who is charged and found guilty of a crime), to
3. Taking a wait and see till the full investigation concludes before doing anything, despite the truth trickling out bit by bit as investigation wore on, to
4. Totally dismissing the whole scandal by saying today, "It's run its course; now we're going to move on." With no further action.

Riddle me this... Exactly how patriotic is Dubya, who won the re-election (or should I say, real first election) against John Kerry while labeling him a flip-flopper, when he was initially all about firing anyone in his administration found to have breached our national security, today decided to call the whole scandal old news and want to just "move on?" Are responsibility and accountability to our country qualities of patriotism? Maybe I just don't know what the hell a patriot truly is then.

Update 2007.08.27:

Walker Bush vs Chairman Leahy

Senator Patrick Leahy (D, Vermont), co-Chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Judiciary Committee, got the socially equivalent of the middle finger from Dubya today, in response to subpeanas issued this month by said committee to the White House, former White House director of political affairs Sara Taylor and former counsel to Bush Harriet Miers. The subpeanas were sought for the investigation of the firings of several U.S. attorneys last year.

Although I am very politically minded and opinionated, I have thus far stayed quiet about this. Anyone with any bit of intelligence can see that Dubya and his croonies screwed up big time over this. It is definitely no secret that every new president will pick up the rug at the Department of Justice and shake it a little. This is quite normal, much like how cooks at the White House routinely change with the incoming of a new president (with the exception of the current head chef, who have served three presidents, I believe).

What was very unusual about last year's firing of U.S. attorneys was the fact that the Justice shake-up happened well into Dubya's second term. And then the White House camp claimed that such activity was "normal" and totally within the presidency's power as other presidents in the past has done so. But they failed to acknowledge that no president has ever done this well into his presidency! And let us not forget about how Gonzales lied for not being involved. For Christ's sake, even Dubya's own Grand Old Party is pressuring for Gonzales's resignation!

You gotta know how badly you fucked up when your own party is calling foul at you, right? And of course, Dubya made matters worse today when he pretty much flipped off the Congressional Judiciary Committee. What's the saying goes? If you are already involved in a crime, and when asked to provide testimony, you are pretty much almost admitting some kind of wrongdoing when invoking the Fifth Amendment. (Of course, the only exception here is when an undercover law enforcement agent is brought to court as a witness under the presumption that he is using the false identity; he absolutely have to invoke the Fifth Amendment because while under oath, he cannot even answer to the first question of stating his real name, and if he uses his false identification, it would have been purjury.)

Now, having said all that, Senator Leahy had this to respond to the White House's flippage: "This White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred." Well said, I must add. So now, we may potentially see a lenghty court showdown. And I hope that the White House loses, because for otherwise this would set a precedence for future presidents to think that they can abuse their powers and that they are above the law. And I for one will not have any of that shit!

Here is the full text of the White House response to the subpeanas:

June 28, 2007

Dear Chairman Leahy and Chairman Conyers:

On June 13, 2007, the White House received two subpoenas from your Committees requesting documents relating to the replacement of United States Attorneys, calling for the documents to be produced by June 28, 2007. I write at the direction of the President to advise and inform you that the President has decided to assert Executive Privilege and therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents. In addition, Chairman Leahy subpoenaed documents from former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs Sara M. Taylor, with the same return date of June 28, 2007. Chairman Conyers has subpoenaed documents from former Counsel to the President Harriet E. Miers, with a return date of July 12, 2007. Counsel for Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers have been informed of the President's decision to assert Executive Privilege and have been asked to relay to Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers a direction from the President not to produce any documents.

With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation. We had hoped this matter could conclude with your Committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke Executive Privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.

At the outset of this controversy, the President attempted to chart a course of cooperation. It was his intent that Congress receives information in a manner that accommodated Presidential prerogatives. The Department of Justice, for its part, has produced or made available for review more than 8,500 pages of documents, including scores of documents containing communications with White House personnel. In addition, the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General's former Chief of Staff, former White House Liaison, and other senior Department officials have testified in public hearings and, in some instances, submitted to interviews with Committee staff. As a result, your Committees have received an extraordinary amount of information regarding the U.S. Attorney replacement issue by way of accommodation.

In keeping with the established tradition of Congress and the Executive Branch working together to accommodate each others' interests, the President was willing to go even further in response to your inquiries. At his direction, we proposed and offered to provide you with documents containing communications between the White House and Department of Justice regarding the request for the resignation of the U.S. Attorneys in question, as well as documents containing communications on the same subject between the White House staff and third parties, including Congress. We also offered to make available for interviews the President's former Counsel; current Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor; Deputy Counsel; former Director of Political Affairs; and a Special Assistant to the President in the Office of Political Affairs.

The President's offer reflected his desire to cooperate and accommodate.

It was designed to provide your Committees with additional documents, and the rare opportunity to participate in interviews and question close advisors to the President about the matters under inquiry. With the benefit not only of the enormous amount of information you received from the Department of Justice, but also additional White House documents, you would have been able to further inquire about these matters.

To be sure, the President's offer also took care to protect fundamental interests of the Presidency and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Specifically, the President was not willing to provide your Committees with documents revealing internal White House communications or to accede to your desire for senior advisors to testify at public hearings. The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock Presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch. Presidents would not be able to fulfill their responsibilities if their advisors on fear of being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify or having their documents produced to Congress were reluctant to communicate openly and honestly in the course of rendering advice and reaching decisions. These confidentiality interests are especially strong in situations like the present controversy, where the inquiry seeks information relating to the President's powers to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys - authority granted exclusively to the President by the Constitution.

The principles at stake here are of the utmost importance and find meaningful parallels in any number of other settings. For example, Messrs. Chairmen, I am sure you would wish to protect the confidentiality of deliberations between Members of Congress and their staff. So, too, do I believe that most judges would be quick to stress the importance to their decision-making processes of maintaining the confidentiality of their deliberations with their colleagues and law clerks. So, too, here: for the Presidency to operate consistent with the Constitution's design, Presidents must be able to depend upon their advisors and other Executive Branch officials speaking candidly and without inhibition while deliberating and working to advise the President. The doctrine of Executive Privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the President's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications. I refer you to the attached opinion from the Acting Attorney General to the President, discussing this in further detail as well as informing him as to the appropriateness of an assertion of Executive Privilege in these circumstances.

Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your Committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas. Put differently, there is no demonstration that the documents and information you seek by subpoena are critically important to any legislative initiatives that you may be pursuing or intending to pursue.

By contrast, the President has frequently, plainly, and completely explained that his position, and now his decision, is rooted in a need to protect the institution of the Presidency. The President's assertion of Executive Privilege is not designed to shield information in a particular situation, but to help protect the ability of Presidents to ensure that decisions reflect and benefit from the exchange of informed and diverse viewpoints and open and frank deliberations. Issuing subpoenas and seeking to compel the disclosure of information in lieu of accepting the President's reasonable offer of accommodation has led to confrontation.

Consistent with the analysis of the Acting Attorney General, the President is satisfied that the testimony sought from Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers is subject to a valid claim of Executive Privilege and is prepared to assert the Privilege with respect to that testimony if the matter cannot be resolved. However, the President has further instructed me to confirm that while unwilling to submit to subpoenas compelling the production of documents and testimony, in the absence of any subpoenas he continues to be willing to provide you with information as previously offered. In short, the President requests that your inquiry proceed in a balanced manner, respectful of important constitutional principles of both institutions, rather than through confrontation. It is hoped you will reconsider your present position, accept the President's offer, and bring closure to this controversy so we may all return to more productive activity on behalf of the Nation.

Respectfully yours,

Fred F. Fielding

Sopranos Spoof!

I’ve always thought that Hillary Rodham Clinton was a dry woman, but someone in her camp was able to push an idea and get Hillary’s buy-in. Specifically, the way the Clinton campaign will announce the winner of their campaign theme song.

Well... A winner has been selected. It is Celine Dion’s You and I. Kind of lame, if you ask me. But the video used as a prelude to the announcement was quite funny, albeit its cheesiness and low quality frame switching from shot to shot. Go to Hillary Clinton’s campaign website and click play on the video underneath “AND THE WINNER IS...”

I’m still on the fence on whether it is funny and/or clever, or downright lame altogether. Who would’ve thought of tying a mobster popular culture into a presidential bid campaign? But one thing’s for sure though: Both Bill and Hillary should stick to their day jobs if they ever want to entertain thoughts of going into the acting business.

Or you can check out the YouTube below:

A Sad World We Live In

So earlier on Monday morning, I woke up as usual and plopped in front of my television set and watched CNN Headline News with breakfast in tow. It was the first day of the work week, so I was not in a hurry to leave for work, as I had worked on Saturday.

After a quick commercial break, the news reported the death of Italian designer Gianfranco Ferre. CNN Headline News dedicated about a good 45 seconds to the story, even went so far as sharing which celebrities are loyal customers (i.e. Oprah). For Headline News, 45 seconds is considered pretty extensive coverage.

This, of course, is no big deal, until I realized that the little headlines ticker on the bottom of the screen simultaneously had this scroll by during said 45 second coverage of Ferre’s death: Sheik Jamal al-Din Abdul Karim al-Dabban, Iraq's top Sunni Arab religious leader, died Sunday of a heart attack at 68, an official said; he was seen as a moderate who did not play a significant role in the Iraqi insurgency. AP

Of the deaths that were considered newsworthy, I was shocked that the death of an Italian fashion designer was given more extensive coverage, whereas the death of a rather significant person in the history-in-the-making of Iraq was given a few seconds of scroll time. And what was worse is that in the entire hour, which had four cycles of “repeating” headline news, Christi Paul and Mike Galanos did not mention anything about the Sheik’s death, much less the reporting of a gaffe in which American forces accidentally arrested him in 2006!

You know we now live in a sad world of irrelevancy when a respected news channel dedicated to providing news 24/7 barely mentioned the death of an important religious cleric, but reported extensively on the death of some famous design icon. And Wayne Wiedman’s traveling cat.

Sigh...

You Better Burn That Tampon!!!

What really tickles me fancy red is the Christian right. People from this group generally tend to be wealthy and quite hypocritical. If you look at the popular Christians who have the ability to influence public policy, they are extremely wealthy and prefer laws or policies that will help them stay rich. {Read: Always pushing for lower taxes for the wealthy.} Not that I am envious of their wealth, but I do believe that the wealthy should be able to contribute to the betterment of society at large, not just themselves. {Read: John leans towards socialism in the political spectrum.}

Then there is the hypocrisy. Prime examples of our time? (1) Ted Haggart having a steady male prostitute and pot, while preaching that homosexuality is wrong and influencing public policy surrounding it. (2) Rush Limbaugh fighting tooth and nail to stay out of jail for his illegal Oxycodin addiction, after years of repeatedly preaching that illegal drug users should be sent away to jail. (3) Bill O'Reilly, who I consider an extreme right-wing conservative pretending to be independent, and his sick, sexual fantasies involving loofah. C'mon! Don't get me wrong; everyone has a skeleton or two in their closet, myself not excluded.

What really bothers me about Christians and their doctrines dolled out left and right is the hypocrisy that wraps around the crap they sometimes preach. {That is not to say that I disagree with all their preaching.} How many Christians have you come to know personally, including preachers who claimed to have graduated from some yada yada seminary, who actually consume shellfish like shrimp, lobster, scallops, and the likes on a regular basis? Quite a lot, I'd imagine. Hmm... Interesting how the Bible explicitly states that it is a sin to eat shellfish.

Why don't churches preach that men (or boys) who masturbate and waste their semen are subjected to eternal damnation, and that if semen were to leave the body (except in sex between married man and woman), he must get rid of his clothes and bathe with water, and be declared unclean and untouchable by a woman (or girl) till the next evening? Likewise, why don't churches preach that women (or girls) be deemed unclean and untouchable by a man (or boy) during the seven days of her menstrual discharge, and that she must burn her menstrual cloth (or tampon or pad in today's world)? Holy crap! I think I shook hands with a female executive, and now I wonder if she was on the rags or not, because I may be totally unclean!

To me, it seems like Christians pick and choose their sins. Isn't it in the Bible that states that all sins are sins, and that God does not declare one sin to be greater than another?

And why the hell is John going on and on about this?

What got my panty all scrunched up was the fact that these very Christians are "mobilizing" their brain-washed troops to oppose and fight a hate crimes bill that just passed the House of Representatives. With that, our idiot of a president Dubya is vowing to veto the bill should it reach the White House to be signed into law. Basically, this bill extends the coverage of victims of hate crimes to include those with sexual orientation and gender identity or disability. {Funny how Dubya is starting to get into a veto frenzy as soon as the Democrats won the Congress. So much for trying to go through two terms without a single veto.}

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not gay and particularly fancy of gay practices, although I at times do enjoy a little bit of girl-on-girl action, if you know what I mean. But I don't believe in dictating how others should live their happy lives. And I also believe that all people, gay or not, "are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If a black person's rights are infringed upon because of his skin color, it is perfectly okay to go after those attackers under the hate crimes law. But what I don't understand is why we can't apply the same legal obligation when hate crimes are committed against those people who happen to gay.

Are these Christian evangelists trying to teach that hate is wrong, with the exception of hating gay people? Seriously! How f**ked up is that point of view? Why can't these haters just love one another, just like what Jesus taught? Who are we to judge other people? I guess I'm going to the depths of hell because I routinely wear clothes made with mixed fibers, especially when I run or participate in sports. Damn! In that case, I guess I better swing by Red Lobster® for their unlimited shrimp dinners before I kick the bucket just for good measure.

Apple's New i-Product!!!

Possibly a Dull Drum New York Marathon?

Marathon. It is not an easy sport to compete in, either professionally or recreationally. It is 26.2 miles, or 42.195 kilometres. It is a test of human endurance. Anyone who can finish it no matter the time achieved deserves to be called a winner. At least that's in my point of view.

So far in my lifetime, I have only done one marathon. I did horrendously with 5:59:24, when I had a goal of 4:30. To my credit, I did not train for two months leading up to the Phoenix Marathon while nursing a foot injury from running in New York City in October. I mean, I was still on pace to finish in my goal time up through mile 17, but it went downhill fast afterwards when I kept on getting sharp shooting pains in my right knee.

For the P.F. Chang's Rock 'n' Roll Marathon of 2006, I brought my craptastic iPod Nano, which I did not know had an extremely short battery life until about half an hour into the race. For the rest of the five and a half hours of the race, I was bored to death. I learned quickly how important music can be for recreational runners like me. Not only did I have to deal with boredom, but motivation was lacking. I needed some upbeat tunes to keep me rolling. After all, I am not an elite athlete where a six ounce electronic gadget strapped to my arm not only will weigh me down, but disturb the aerodynamic airflow of my body!

Anyway, I've got my heart set to run three of the world's most renowned marathons before I die: Chicago, New York City and Boston. I've registered for the Chicago Marathon of 2007. The New York City Marathon is hard to get into, as it is not only limited to 37,000 participants, but a lottery system is employed. At least it is still easier than the Boston Marathon, which you have to qualify for by your time in a sanctioned marathon race. So after Chicago this year, I will be setting my eyes on doing the New York Marathon.

But now I am debating whether or not I will even consider participating in the New York Marathon for 2008 and beyond. It all depends on a piece of legislature being introduced by New York State Senator Carl Kruger. His proposed law? A ban on the use of electronic handheld devices such as BlackBerries and iPods while crossing streets in major cities; and if caught, a fine of $100 will be assessed. Granted, this proposed law is to protect pedestrians crossing major streets while oblivious to the world surrounding him or her, which I totally understand. Besides running on public trails, I tend to have no desire to wear earphones in public mostly because I can't stand being unable to hear what's going on in the world around me.

If this law becomes effective, then I certainly won't be able to endure running the New York Marathon without music. I know, this is a bit silly, considering that the law may not apply to race courses on closed roads, but still, you and I don't know the specifics of the proposed law, nor do we know how the legislature will be interpreted should it become law.

So yeah, the New York Marathon may have a slight possibility that it will be a dull drum one for us recreational runners. =)

The Sick Hidden Cost of War

Not many people realize that not only do our enemies employ propaganda, but our very own red, white and blue does so too. War is dirty. War is also costly, as an official estimate may peg it to end up in the two trillion dollars range. To get the public buy-off on war, we keep several details out, like images of gore from the media, or the number of friendly fires that occur. The propaganda being mounted on us is not only the romantic overtures that the Iraqi War is just, but an attempt to self censor to certain details so that we may still maintain a rosy picture of war.

Well, it seems like the whole debacle surrounding the truth behind how Pat Tillman died in Iraq did not teach the Pentagon and the Bush Administration any lesson. It turned out today that the United States and the United Kingdom seemed to have attempted to cover up the truth surrounding the death of L/Cpl Matty Hull, who died almost four years ago.

Granted, L/Cpl Matty Hull is not a celebrity like Pat Tillman. But still, don't you think that Hull's family deserved the truth? Apparently the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence told the family little information, despite having received a video from the Pentagon that chronicled the whole costly screw up. And to make matters worse, this piece of video was deemed classified information, even though there wasn't much to indicate any top secret or sensitive information.

It took a British tabloid to obtain the leaked video to blow the whole thing open. Can you imagine, if you're a member of Hull's family, to finally learn the truth nearly four years later from the tabloid, of all sources? This is infuriating! It turned out that two United States pilots accidentally attacked on a British convoy in Iraq, resulting in L/Cpl Hull's death!

Don't get me wrong, as I am not faulting our Air Force pilots, because accidents do happen in war. But what really upsets me the most is the frequency with which our government perform the classic under rug swept move. How dare they do something like this, when a family in mourning deserves to know the truth? The Pentagon, as clearly well as the Ministry of Defence, should have done the right thing from the start. And now they have this public relations nightmare to deal with.

You can read more about this incident on New York Times' The Lede blog on the subject. You can also watch the leaked video, in two parts, below, along with the full transcript.

To Hell With Florida!

In general, I'm a pretty mellow guy. As an adult, I don't get mad or angry easily over the small or big things in life. I always try to look at the bigger picture, and look from the perspective of the other side. It is this very trait that makes some of my own friends think at times that I'm not 100 percent with them when they have personal conflicts. Worse yet, they would think that I'm trying to argue against their point, when I am merely suggesting to look from a broader point of view.

Well, not today. I am royally pissed. While having my routine lunch at work with my laptop, I started reading the news. Yes, I admit, I'm a news junkie. But what I read today was so upsetting that not only did it anger me, it rocked and saddened me to the core. I lost my appetite instantly. Then I wept a little. After my coworker asked what was wrong, I wiped away a tear and became furious.

What the f**king hell is wrong with Florida?!? Don't get me wrong. I have friends and coworkers who live there. But what the hell is wrong with the politicians, law enforcement agents, and those involved in public policy? SERIOUSLY?!? First, you have the public officials who don't know how to count ballots. Second, you have the judicial system screw us over with said ballot counting incident. (Remember the presidential election of 2000?) Third, you have the Terri Schiavo clusterf**k, which was a private matter turned national debacle involving religion and politicians, which eventually cost us money and time in Congress. Then you have Mark Foley, a Republican Representative from Florida who was the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, and who also happened to be the central sexual predator on congressional pages. And finally, this.

Here is a quick rundown of events from our friendly state down there:
A young teen made some bad decisions and got involved with some felony crimes in 2003.
Due to some confusion, the bail stemming from the felony crimes were not paid, but said teenager thought the legal matter was resolved.
The justice system didn't know how to mark the case due to non-payment of bail, so the matter was recorded technically incorrectly as "failure to appear."
This past weekend, years after her felony crimes, the young woman went to a parade. While walking back to her car, a man grabbed and brutally raped her.
The young woman reported the violent crime to the police after she left the crime scene and returned to her car.
Police officers took her to a clinic to be examined. The nurse prescribed the young woman emergency contraceptive medication and provided a hotline for crisis intervention.
The police officers then asked the young woman to accompany them to assist in locating the scene of the crime to collect further evidence.
While en route, police officers learned of the young woman's past warrant.
After conferring with an acting sergeant, the police officers decided to haul the young woman to jail.
It is universally accepted that all jail inmates have to relinquish all personal artifacts, like wallet, jewelry, medicine, etc. While in jail, the jail nurse decided not to release the second dose of the emergency contraceptive medication to the rape victim, citing his/her own religious beliefs.
Because it is their policy to only allow collect calls to be made from the jail, the victim was not able to call the crisis prevention hotline for rape victims.
The rape victim remained in jail for two days, before the top brass finally learned of the situation through the media.

Let's leave religion out of this discussion. We can argue forever about the morality behind emergency contraceptives, regardless of what you and I or anybody else believe in. Let's talk about ethics here.

What infuriated me the most were three factors. One, the jail nurse overstepped his/her boundaries and forced his/her personal beliefs on others. The nurse had no right whatsoever to do so, especially when emergency contraceptive medication is not deemed illegal in the state of Florida. All he/she had to do was remove him/herself from that situation and let someone else with an objective, unbiased moral point of view do the work. This is also the very reason why I sometimes have a problem with missionaries. I don't necessarily disagree with mission work in general, but I definitely disagree with shoving one's own beliefs down others' throats while threatening eternal hell and diminishing another's culture and tradition as a good method of spreading God's Word.

Second, how stupid does one have to be to not realize that perhaps bending the rules in regards to the phone call policy when a traumatized rape victim perhaps need to seek counseling? If the jail warden did not want to be responsible for making exceptions, then all he/she had to do was voice his/her concerns to a superior, and move it up the chain. To be a police officer, you need to have a high school diploma or equivalent. Even a ninth grader has the sense to realize that a victim of a violent crime not only needs compassion, but understanding and perhaps a little bit of exception in special and extreme circumstances.

Finally, how heartless and compassionless do you have to be to throw a traumatized victim of a violent crime in jail? Whatever happened to common sense? Is any of the police officers or the acting sergeant so callous to the point that they feel like they no longer need to be concerned with the emotional and spiritual well being of the victim? For Christ's sake, the warrant was only $4,585! Chump change compared to the cost they now may face if this poor woman decides to commit suicide, or worse, if this incident sets a precedent for future victims to not report violent crimes because they have a few skeletons in their closet. Not to mention the potential amount of money the police department will want to settle should a lawsuit be filed.

My solution to Florida? Let's just start teaching our kids to draw the American flag with 49 stars. If there is no fault line between Florida and Georgia/Alabama, then let's just create an artificial earthquake to split Florida off into the ocean. Seeing how many Cubans love to go there, I wouldn't be opposed to Florida breaking and floating on to rest next to Cuba. Or we can just blow the damn place up and make Florida a nuclear wasteland. Neither option is exactly great, but I would prefer that all my friends and coworkers move out of there first, and after the Chicago Bears win the Super Bowl, before such drastic measures be implemented. I'm going to propose another possible solution should my friends not want to move out of Florida. Take away Florida's statehood, divide the land into two, and integrate the land into Georgia and Alabama respectively.

Then we won't have all these idiocies from Florida running amok in regards to public policy...


Below is a copy of the news article as reported by Valerie Kalfrin at the Tampa Tribune for my archival purposes should they remove it after a certain period of time in the future.

Paradegoer Reports Rape, Jailed On Warrant
By VALERIE KALFRIN The Tampa Tribune

Published: Jan 30, 2007

TAMPA - A 21-year-old woman told police Saturday that a man grabbed her off Howard Avenue and raped her behind a building during the Gasparilla festivities.

But officers investigating the case arrested her after learning she had an outstanding warrant from her teenage years for failure to pay restitution.

She spent the next two nights in jail.

Police are reviewing their policies after the arrest, which one victim's advocate said could have "a chilling effect" on the rape investigation, the woman's well-being and the desire of future victims to contact police.

The woman's family is outraged.

"We're incensed. Everyone is just beside themselves," her mother, 47, said at 5:20 p.m. Monday, moments before escorting her daughter from Orient Road Jail.

The Tampa Tribune is not identifying the woman or her family because police are investigating a sex crime.

"You've got to make sure you throw somebody in jail on a four-year-old felony warrant after they've been brutally raped?" the mother said. "It was a failure to take the actual dynamics into play."

Her daughter did not speak to reporters.

Adding to the mother's ire is her claim that a jail nurse prevented her daughter from taking a second dose of emergency contraception prescribed by a nurse at a clinic as part of a rape examination. The jail nurse, said the mother and the victim's attorney, denied the medication for religious reasons.

Hillsborough County sheriff's spokeswoman Debbie Carter could not comment about that allegation or anything else about the woman's medical situation because of the federal health information privacy act. However, she said all medications are confiscated from inmates upon their arrival until they are verified.

Policy Refers To Misdemeanors
The police department in 2002 issued a legal opinion under then-Police Chief Bennie Holder that advised against arresting victims of violent crime on outstanding misdemeanor warrants.

"The goal of the policy is to avoid further traumatizing the victim of a serious crime," Assistant City Attorney Kirby Rainsberger wrote at the time. Officers should use discretion to balance "the severity of the injury suffered by the victim compared to the seriousness of the crime specified in the warrant," he wrote.

The policy does not advise whether police should arrest crime victims wanted on felony charges.

"It's rare in police work that someone isn't arrested on a felony warrant, but you always want to have compassion for a victim," police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said Monday. "This may be a case where we need to revise our policy."

Police supervisors did not learn the woman's circumstances until early Monday, after inquiries from the media and the woman's attorney, Virlyn "Vic" Moore III of Venice. At that point, police worked with Circuit Judge Walter Heinrich to grant her bail: $4,585 that a Sarasota County court said was unpaid in a 2003 auto theft and burglary case, McElroy said.

Moore disputed that the money was unpaid, calling it a "technical violation." The woman thought the matter had been resolved, he said.

The woman told police she went to Gasparilla on Saturday with friends but left about 1:30 p.m. She said she was walking north on Howard Avenue, back to her car parked at the University of Tampa, when a man grabbed her near Swann Avenue, dragged her behind a building and raped her.

McElroy said the rape was reported at 3:40 p.m., once the woman had returned to her car and told a friend.

Generally, in rape cases in which a victim does not suffer extensive injuries, it is standard procedure for officers to take the victim to a clinic to be examined by a nurse, McElroy said. If the victim is not at the original scene, officers will ask the victim to accompany them there to look for additional evidence, she said.

In this case, officers took the woman to a clinic on Busch Boulevard, where a nurse examined her and provided her with the 24-hour hot line for the crisis center, McElroy said. On weekdays, victim advocates from the police department provide referrals for counseling, McElroy said.

The woman did not have the opportunity to call the hot line, her mother and attorney said. As a jail inmate, she was allowed only to make collect calls. "She did not have any crisis intervention. Zero. None," her mother said.

Routine Check Revealed Warrant
McElroy said the woman tried to show police where the rape occurred but had trouble finding the location because it was dark. While en route, police learned through a routine check that she was wanted. Jail records show that the woman was booked into Orient Road Jail on Saturday for "failure to appear" on two felony warrants: grand theft auto and burglary. In fact, McElroy said, the "failure to appear" was recorded because of the alleged nonpayment.

Unsure of how to proceed, police drove the woman to a gas station at Howard Avenue and Kennedy Boulevard to consult with an acting sergeant, who determined the woman should be arrested, McElroy said.

The woman's mother said she received a phone call about 9 p.m. Saturday from a female officer saying her daughter "was raped today at 2, but her name came up on a bulletin and I have to take her to jail."

In her opinion, the mother said, "The rape investigation has come to a screeching halt."

McElroy disagreed, saying that officers referred their report to the detective division. A detective tried to find potential witnesses Sunday but was unsuccessful, she said. The detective did not try to speak to the woman in jail Sunday because there were no "time-sensitive leads," McElroy said.

Bonnie Bucqueroux, a victims' advocate and coordinator of the Victims and the Media Program at the Michigan State University School of Journalism, said the handling of the situation could have "a chilling effect" on this case and others.

"This is one of those cases where they made the wrong call," she said. "Spending two days in jail … certainly adds to the trauma she endured. … Why would victims who had any concerns about any dealings in their past come forward?"

Reporter Valerie Kalfrin can be reached at vkalfrin@tampatrib.com or (813) 259-7800.

Sex Battles!

Today was like no other day. Prominent public figures share a common skill with me: Open mouth, insert foot.

First, you have the the Health Minister of Japan Hakuo Yanakisawa referring to women as "birth machines." Next thing you know, you have Senator Hillary Clinton making this sarcastic and rhetoric comment in Iowa on her campaign trail, "What in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men?"

Can't boys and girls just get along and play nice? =)


In other news...

Did any of you listen to Coach Lovie Smith's Sunday press conference right after the Bears arrived in Miami? Especially the part where the coach answered a question about Line Backer Brian Urlacher? Listen to the press conference, and pay close attention to minute marker 13:19. (Just drag your mouse to that vicinity in the timescale.)

If I was Brian Urlacher, I think I would have felt a little dirty after how Lovie described him in that kind of voice. "Six percent body fat!" Shiver! I think Lovie would make a great man date auctioneer! LOL