...or is it truly galling when a villain does something worthwhile?

Like all the neocons I know, I like the world in black and white.
I want to believe that everyone associated with the Bush administration including the gardener at the Crawford Ranch, is a dirty rotten scoundrel. They have mismanaged foreign and domestic policy to the point where it will take decades to repair. They slept through the summer of 2001 then blamed predecessors for the lapses. They attacked a country who's primary crime was that they shared a religious affiliation with our enemy. And that was just in the first term.

There is a whole host of characters to dislike in Washington, but one of the sneakiest is Paul Wolfowitz. From his Rasputian perch as deputy Secretary of Defense behind Curious George, he was the principal architect of the misguided invasion of Iraq.

Shortly after the President won a second term he nominated Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank. There is no doubt that Mr. Wolfowitz has the academic chops to do this job. His impressive resume includes study at the University of Chicago, teaching post at several prominent universities and several important positions at the State Department. Nevertheless his appointment to the World Bank was not universally applauded. Unlike his former boss in the White House, Paul is a divider not a uniter.

Since assuming his new post Wolfowitz has kept a low profile. Nevertheless, his administration has been notable in that the World Bank has engineered the shocking notion of withholding funds from countries whose corrupt leaders divert most of the cash to their own Swiss accounts.

Nothing annoys Americans more than the thought of sending our money to "presidents" and strongmen in Asia and Africa who then use it to finance their families villas in France. We are a generous people but we have long suspected that most of our largess is being wasted in countries where the population continues to suffer and the leaders continue to shop on Rodeo Drive.

Wolfowitz is trying to put a stop to this and it's pretty hard to find fault. (God knows, I've tried) What's amazing is the resistance that his policies are meeting from other members of the Bank. Apparently, requiring the leader of a third world country to actually spend IMF/World Bank funds on the projects for which the money was approved is a novel concept. Why are we surprised when the plight of people in Namibia or Guinea never changes in spite of the millions we send in aid. Sally Struthers does a better job of helping.

The charter of the World Bank is to provide funds to ameliorate poverty around the globe, but most of the dictators that get checks from the Bank don't look like they've missed too many meals lately. Forced regime change is a bad idea whether coming from Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz. Countries will have to figure it out for themselves. We should not, however, provide the money to keep oppressive leaders in power, even if they support current Bush policy.

Therefore, much as it pains me to say it, congratulations to Paul Wolfowitz and keep up the good work. I hope that Frank Rich can forgive me.

...or should the city of New York let me clog my arteries should I so chose.

Once again your favorite chronicler of world events (me) finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. The city of New York is proposing to ban the use of cooking oils that contain artificial trans fats. As we all know, trans fats clog your arteries and increase your proclivity for a heart attack. The nasty stuff is used in a lot of tasty stuff but surfaces mostly in things like fried chicken and french fries. Substitutes are available but the taste just isn't quite the same.

I do not fear for the livelihood of the 20,000 or so restauranteurs in the Big Apple. Visions of New Yorkers walking or swimming to New Jersey to get a trans fat fix do not haunt my dreams. Upon sober reflection (do men really reflect on anything besides sports when they're sober?) I guess that the city of New York is only thinking of the welfare of its citizens. (Although if they really cared they'd ban bike messengers) Who needs a bunch of over-weight Manattanites littering the streets clutching their chests? What will the tourists think?

The core issue here is the tender subject of "banning".

We are big "banners" in America. Back in the 50's, cities like Boston had a reputation for banning music. (Remember, "They're Coming to Take Me Away"?) Leaded gas is banned; so was saccharine. In 1919 we banned the "manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors"(Talk about your sober reflection!). The XVIII Amendment alone should make us very cautious about banning things. It took thirteen years and a depression (my father's) before we were allowed to have a legal drink. Yikes!

Still, the prohibition of some things has been good for us. No cigarette smoking in public places has both public health and business liability overtones. Cell phone use is being restricted (thank God!). Violent video games are being kept away from young children. Chicago has banned foie gras. I guess the "hog butcher to the world" draws the line at force-feeding geese. If we want to ban something shouldn't we be looking at Hummers?

Where to draw the line? How much big brotherism will we tolerate in the name of, "it's for your own good"? I'm aware that McDonald's fries are bad for me but should government, however well-intentioned, prevent me from eating them? Wouldn't a printed warning on Col. Saunders chicken legs be enough?

There are real concerns about where this will all lead. When governments were trying to ban smoking, commercials ran on the radio that suggested, "What's next, french fries?" We laughed then but the question is still valid. If trans fats are outlawed, what about t-bone steaks? Au gratin potatoes? Will we ration the amount of animal fat the average American can purchase? I'm sorry madam but our records indicate that you have exceeded your rump roast quota for the month. May we suggest the brussels sprouts?

This noise may play well in New York but I wouldn't try it in Austin. I can see the bumper stickers now, "They'll take my Porterhouse when they pry it from my cold dead hands".

My attitude is purely self serving. I am a committed salt junkie. I'd put salt in coffee if it didn't revolt my wife. I am fearful of a time when my government, earnestly seeking to stabilize my blood pressure, will attempt to limit my saline consumption. My bumper sticker will declare, "Salt doesn't kill people, partially hydrogenated soybean oil kills people."

Thank you New York but for the time being, I support everyman's right to clog his arteries with trans fats. Until America gets serious about banning the private ownership of hand guns, I can't work up much concern over "death by Happy Meal".

Now, please pass the salt.

...or should Uncle Sam have rebuilt the schools and hospitals of New Orleans before the Super Dome?

The Louisiana Super Dome (better known last September as the Motel from Hell) reopened Monday night. The building sports a new roof, a new field and all new floors. The previous tenants apparently treated the place like they were The Who.(This rock group could have been called "Katrina and the Homeless") The cost of this rehab was $185 million.

It's just possible that I'm being a big wet blanket but $185 million would have bought a lot of lumber to rebuild the homes in the lower ninth ward. Actually, $185 million would have moved a lot of garbage that's still lying around in heaps all over New Orleans poor neighborhoods. Hospitals that were the last hope of the weakest of New Orleans citizens are still in the same condition as they were in September of '05

According to ESPN, (the network that gushed for four hours about how wonderful it was that football was returning to New Orleans) $114 million of the restoration was paid for by FEMA. That would be the same FEMA that couldn't find New Orleans on a map during the worst storm in the city's history then couldn't find the Convention Center for three days. That second part should have been easy. The Convention Center was the building where all those poor black people were screaming for help. George W. couldn't hear them from Air Force One, either.

Well, they were screaming in the Super Dome again Monday Night but this time it was to cheer for the Saints, who, came marching in and mopped the new floors with the Atlanta Falcons.

I know, football is great fun and the Super Dome is used for other events that bring spenders to the Big Easy but I couldn't help feeling just a little queasy watching film of those diligent workmen putting the finishing touches on the luxury sky boxes. After all we wouldn't want to disappoint the high rollers who might miss the kickoff on Monday night. As the ESPN cameras panned the crowd, how many of the 73,000 fans in attendance on Monday Night do you think were former residents of the devastated neighborhoods? The only way that the survivors of the storm saw the big reopening was on a TV in a bar in Houston.

The actual breakdown of the construction cost was; $114 million from FIMA, $13 million from the state of Louisiana (That would be a state where 21% of the population over 19 does not have a high school diploma), $41 million from a bond issue and $13 million from the NFL. The National Football League's contribution works out to about 7% of the total or about $400,000 per team. My impression is that NFL owners make more than $400,000 selling styrofoam fingers that say, "We're #1".

by the way, how come there was no insurance on the SuperDome?

There are several possible reasons for the reconstruction of a sports facility over the restoration of the city's infrastructure and all of them smell as bad as the Super Dome after the storm.

The Saints ownership made it quite clear that if "their" stadium wasn't rebuilt or replaced, (and damn fast), they would relocate the team to a city that was more accommodating. Mayor Naigan needed to get the building finished or risk losing his team.

The administration in Washington, having thoroughly botched the relief effort in New Orleans during and after Katrina, needed some symbol to establish that something was being done to restore the Crescent City. It's a lot cheaper to rebuild one ball park than to replace the levees and rebuild the thousands of homes that were destroyed especially if you are distracted by a foolish war in the Middle East.

My money is on the "Rove Effect". The way Karl sees it, there's no hurry moving all of those Democratic voters back into New Orleans. They're not hurting anyone in Texas or Arkansas. By rebuilding the Super Dome, the Bush gang makes a big PR splash on TV and accommodates all those Republican donors that occupy the luxury boxes. Ya got to love these guys.

Anyway the Saints won, Tony Kornheiser got to wax-on (endlessly) about hope, and America got a "feel-good moment on a Monday night. Who cares if thousands of still-displaced people are left wondering when it will be their turn to get their homes back. At least Reggie Bush has a new house.

...should the Pope stop apologizing.

It has been more than two weeks since Pope Benedict XVI spoke at the University in Regensburg. In that time several interesting things have occurred:

Muslims around the world, have expressed their displeasure at being portrayed as "evil and inhuman" by doing what Muslims always do, take to the streets in violent protest.

The Vatican has released three different forms of apology; none saying, "I'm sorry".

Every editorial writer short of St. Augustine has sprinted to their lap tops to opine on the Pope's speech. Most are favorable.

This is a train wreck from which we cannot look away.

Before we can evaluate this issue (like the Pope cares what I think), a few cogent facts need addressing.

If Benedict XVI had intended to take a swipe at Islam, he would hardly have chosen an obscure forum like his address in Regensburg. The Pope has a more sophisticated communications set-up than MTV. I doubt that he was trying to slip a papal zinger into an otherwise mundane speech. We will have to take him at his word; namely that he was attempting to begin an dialogue on the incompatibility of violence and the worship of God. His choice of an opening quote was perhaps unfortunate, not inaccurate.

The Pope does not need defending. He is not the first person to notice that the Muslim religion has been bent and twisted to justify violence. If the Pope read the same Qur'on that I have, he probably noticed that there is no mention of car bombings. All of the religious perversions of history are man-made. The worship of God can be molded into some very un-Godlike acts.

The Holy See need go no further than its own history to discover the harm that overzealousness can wrought. His own predecessor, Urban II unleashed the First Crusade in 1085 and, for three hundred years and beyond, the papacy preached war against the Muslims. More recently, God and Christianity have been used by the KKK to justify their antics since the Civil War. They even use the cross as a symbol.

The interesting aspect of this tempest is that it took the leader of the Catholic Church to shine a torch on a universal truth, namely that Christianity has evolved, Islam has not. Islam, as it is being preached in the Middle East, is the direct cause of thousands of deaths a year and they appear proud of it. They still cut the hands off thieves. Honor killing is still practiced. No one in the Muslim world, (at least no one with a voice) is using the Qur'an to make a case for peace and brotherhood.

Muslims demand respect but how can any civilized society respect a culture that issues death warrant against authors. How can citizens of free societies even understand countries where baton-wielding religious police roam the streets enforcing dress codes. Some may say that this represents only a small part of Islam but where are the voices of moderation? Where is the Imam that preaches tolerance?

The Western world is getting tired of tip-toeing around the easily offended followers of Muhammad. Arab leaders (and most of the trouble is with Arab countries) use any pretext to reinforce the paranoia of their populations. We may admonish the Pope for the appropriateness of his remarks in Germany but we should never question their underlying truth.

George W. Bush not withstanding, most Americans do not want to occupy the Middle East. We are all perfectly content to turn away as Muslims kill Muslims in sectarian conflicts that we barely understand.

Ours is a free and open society. We welcome anyone who wishes to weave their culture into ours. (Unless you're Pat Buchanan) However, if you continue to use your religion as an excuse for confrontation and violence you will find us a powerful enemy. Do not make the same mistake that the Japanese made.

As for Benedict XVI, I'm with the Pope on this one. I'll try not to let it happen too often.

...or are you all sick to death of crawling to Hugo Chavez and Prince Abdullah for a cup of oil?

Every married person in the world has had this experience:
Your wife/husband rants and raves about how inconsiderate and uncaring their mother is and, in an attempt at solidarity, you agree that, yes, now that you bring it up, your mother is an inconsiderate, uncaring crone. Then, faster than you can say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you find yourself being reminded at some length what a creep you are and how mom is a saint. Your mother, on the other hand...

I feel very much the same way about George W Bush. He is the president of my country. I get to call him simple-minded and ineffectual. I get to point out that Millard Fillmore will have a more lasting legacy than he. However when Hugo Chavez wants a piece of George, he's got to go through me to first.

I have to assume that most Americans take great umbrage at having their President (even this president) called "Satan" and "bully". (Cheney? Maybe.) Wars have been fought over less. (like over mysterious WMDs) Chavez even suggested that George was in need of a psychiatrist. Ouch!

Well, my belligerent friends, drop the pikes, put the family rifle back over the fireplace. There will be no call to arms today.

Can it be that we have lost the will to defend our honor? Perish the thought. What we have lost is the ability to stand up to two-bit, windbags from countries that we could normally squash before lunch. And why is that? Say it with me, Chavez has OIL.

As for Iran, why would we pay any attention to the ravings of a weasel in a Members Only jacket rather than turning his country into overflow parking for Turkey...because Iran has OIL.

It would be wonderful to blame George W. Bush for American dependence on foreign oil sources but he's just the most recent bartender in an America, drunk on cheap gas.

Jimmy Carter had the top job when the oil got shut off and it wasn't a pretty picture. Those long gas lines should have been a wake-up call that we had better do something to cut the umbilical cord to the Middle East. No such luck. The Arabs turned the spigots back on and Carter was called a defeatist for suggesting that we have to change the way we consume products that we don't produce.

Well, that was 1979 and, in case your math skills are rusty 27 years have passed. Look around and tell me what we have learned. NADA. We don't hear much about OPEC any more but they're still out there. New players are in the game but we are still the suckers getting fleeced. As soon as the Russians figure out a way to tap their vast petroleum resources, they will become a major world supplier and then we can look forward to taking abuse from them at the UN also

Is there any American that doesn't believe that, with serious,committed leadership, we could have radically reduced our dependence on oil by now. Hell, we got to the moon in nine years. Congress forced the car companies to install seat belts, emission converters and air bags. Why couldn't we have forced a change in fuel consumption. Brazil managed it. If all it takes is a dictator, now would be the perfect time.

If George W. Bush is to blame for anything (and he usually is) it's for doing absolutely nothing to change this sorry situation. The administration has just released it's, "Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan". Pulllleeease! The proposal has a "100 year planning horizon". How about a 100 day planning horizon. The administration rolled out this -244-page fig-leaf just to silence the Republicans that wandered into Al Gore's movie by accident. It has no teeth and in two months no one, including the author's mother, will remember it ever existed.

We are already getting our asses kicked by Japanese car companies so what do we have to lose? Let's make cars in America that are so fuel efficient we never have to kiss another foreign derriere again. Give Americans a reason to buy American.

Sadly, "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves." Look around the parking lot of your suburban supermarket and tell me who's fault this is. We love our big cars and SUV's. We tell ourselves that it's a safety issue for our families but that's a crock. If safety was such a big deal, the Checker Car Company would still be in business. You want safety- own a Volvo and drive less. If you own a Hummer, you should be ashamed of yourself.

This is America and we don't like being told what to do. That's fine but the next time your president takes a pie in the face from some tin pot dictator at the UN, remember, we provided the whip cream.

...or are huggable politicians becoming harder to find.

You may like and admire certain Democrats or Republicans. You may approve of their policies, you may even admire the men and women who stand tall in the face of adversity but, let's face it, how many would you like to rush up and hug? Most of them would have frightened Steve Erwin.

Hillary? I think not. Dick Cheney? You'd get frostbite. Don Rumsfeld? Agggggh! George W.? There's not enough substance to hug. McCain? Maybe. Powell? For sure.

The reason for this exercise in affection is that I have found a man running for office that, all of you would love to run up and throw your arms around. His name is James H. Webb, Jr. and he's running for the Senate in Virginia. He is running as a Democrat but, before you Republicans reflexively withhold your love, hear me out.

Unless you are a political geek, you may not be getting daily briefings on the race for the Senate in Virginia. The basics are; Webb is running against the incumbent, George Allen. Allen is the son of the famous football coach of the same name. The details of the race are available anywhere and I won't bore you with them here.

The appealing thing about Jim Webb is that he appears to be slightly embarrassed by the entire political process. Imagine that? Although he has a resume that would make any candidate drool, Webb doesn't like to talk about himself. ( In case you missed that or, assumed that it was a typo, I'll say it again, Webb is a politician that doesn't like to talk about himself.) Do you want to hug him yet? OK. Here's more.

It's unfortunate that Webb is so shy because he has a lot to talk about. Highlights include:

Naval Academy graduate

Service with the Marines in Vietnam. Awarded (are you ready swift-boaters?) The Navy
Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and, two purple hearts. WOW!

Georgetown Law

Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Quit rather than agree to the reduction of Naval forces commensurate with a budget cut.

Six Best selling books (that's wrote not read)

and, last but hardly least,

He has a son serving as a Marine Lance Corporal currently in Iraq.

This guy is a Republican dream, so why is he running as a Democrat? Most of it has to do with the war in Iraq. He feels (as do an increasing number of thinking Americans) that the Bush people have, incorrectly and unwisely, linked the war on terror to the invasion of Iraq.

That's OK but the real huggable part is in his delivery. He actually seems a little put off when forced to talk about his accomplishments and qualifications. It's a slightly mumbled, aw shucks style that no political consultant would ever condone. Discussion of his son's military service is off limits. He was even quoted during a debate in Northern Virginia recently as stating, (my hand to God!) that winning the job as Senator, "won't rate very high on my agenda". Go figure?

It gets better. At a recent campaign stop, he and his wife were introduced to the crowd by (you can't make this stuff up) his ex-wife. Any man who can negotiate that truce is a guy I want at the peace table. His driver is a platoon mate from Nam who lost an arm in the war.

The disciples of Karl Rove have made it their mission to uncover any possible mud to throw on Democrats in 2006. (This may be the only campaign promise that these guys have ever delivered on.) They didn't have to go far to smear Jim Webb. In 1979 Webb wrote a magazine article stating, among other things, that women should not be allowed in combat. The gist is that if women must serve in the military, they should stay as far away from the feba (forward edge of the battle area) as possible.

There is hardly any way around this steaming pile of bilge. True, it was 27 years ago. (You remember 1979; Saddam Hussein was just coming to power and Don Rumsfeld was first in line to kiss his ass.) Nevertheless, Webb has had to learn the, "that was then, this is now", political two-step to explain the unexplainable. We'll have to wait until Nov. to see how that worked out for him.

Virginia is one of those bi-polar states that is changing the political landscape of America today. However, unlike New York, Pennsylvania, and other states where urban centers compete with rural hinterlands, Virginia has one foot in the South and the other in suburbia. The well educated populations of Fairfax and Loudoun Counties of Northern Virginia as well as new citizens in Richmond have put Virginia in-play as a battleground state. If you have a red neck in Virginia there's a good chance you got it at the golf course.

The race for senator between Webb and Allen is a dead heat at this moment. Voters in Virginia, as well as many other parts of America will, hopefully send a clear message about how they feel the country is being run. Every PTA member can tell you that nothing brings parent participation like a badly run school. However, regardless of the marks that Americans award George W. and his congressional class in the upcoming grading period, I encourage you to journey to Virginia and physically embrace the Democratic candidate for Senator. After all, Virginia is for Lovers!

...or are you trying to pick a side in the "Benedict vs Muhammad" main event?

Touchy! Touchy! Muslims are taking to the streets faster than Mets fans after a World Series victory (and with as much destructive force). If the American CIA could communicate across a room as well as the Muslims do around the world, Bin Laden would have been toast ten years ago. Quicker than you can say, "Ali's your uncle", the entire Islamic world is alerted, energized and rioting about the newest insult to Muhammad. No mere Danish cartoonist this time.


In case you have been meditating and not reading the papers, Pope Benedict XVI caused a stir last week by introducing his speech at Germany's Regensburg University with a quote from Manuel II Palaiologos. (He couldn't just quote Bob Dylan like everybody else?) The quote goes like this, " Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

To be fair, Manuel II had an axe to grind (sorry!). During his entire reign, (1391 - 1425) he was forced to deal with the Ottoman Turks. That kind of tension can make anyone edgy. He might be forgiven for his attitude toward the Islamic community.

We will ignore, for the moment, the Christian/Catholic attempt to convert the world by the sword during both the Crusades and the colonization of South America. Let he who is without sin cast the first scimitar.

Anyway, why Benedict XVI would dig up this 600 year old chestnut and use it to preface a speech purportedly fostering inter-faith dialogue is a mystery. Whatever happened to "Good evening ladies and germs".

Having stepped into this rather large pile of camel droppings, the response from both sides has been almost comical. Naturally, all of Islam is offended. (If Islam would spend less time being offended and more time building economic stability in their countries, everyone would be better off.) Turkish leaders were especially vocal. No one would normally care what anyone in Turkey thought about anything except that Benedict is due to visit there in November. Vatican concerns that the Pope's hotel reservation was in jeopardy proved unfounded. He's still going but his tour of the taffy factory is cancelled.

The Vatican has been back-peddling since the speech was made public.

First they said that Muslims heard it wrong. That went over like a wet bernoose. Then they said that the quote did not represent the Pope's attitude on Islam. That made even less sense. If the Pontiff wanted to quote someone who's views were contrary to his, why not quote Barney Franks.

Finally, to insure that he wasn't going to end up on the fattwah short list, the Pope himself apologized, sort of, last Sunday. It was one of those, "if I offended anyone, I'm sorry" kind of apologies that have been made popular by people like Terrell Owens. That fell a little short of the "What the hell was I thinking?" kind of apology but it appears to have gotten the job done. Muslims are now free to return to protesting Danish cartoonists or whatever else they can find to take their minds off actually improving their lot in life.

As to our Pontiff:

Benedict chose his papal name out of respect for Benedict XV who reigned as Pope during WWI. That Benedict made it a strict papal policy to remain neutral in all matters of world politics. He even proposed a seven point peace plan to end the war. Regrettably, his plan was two years too early.

The point is that the Pope should probably not use his considerable influence to create conflict between 1.1 billion Catholics and 1.3 billion Muslims. In the future, he should stick to the standards, "In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Amen. Boy, I just flew in from the Vatican and are my arms tired." Rim shot!

...or are the Salem witch trials about to begin again in Guantanamo?

Now before you write me off as just another looney liberal (you wouldn't be the first), hear me out.

The front page of The Wall Street Journal today carried the story of a woman in Connecticut who is petitioning to have her maternal ancestor cleared of the witchcraft charges that got her hanged in 1662. It seems that Mary Sanford was charged with "familiarity with Satan". (Don Rumsfeld should be grateful that he didn't live in New England in the 17th century).

There's a whole column here about the Puritans and the delights of living in a theocracy in colonial America but I'll save it for Thanksgiving.

The question before the court today however, is how did our forefathers manage to find enough evidence to try, convict and hang about 40 or so people (mostly women) in the early days of New England's history?

Answer. You were accused by someone else. And why would someone accuse you of a crime that was, even by the standards of the day, fairly specious? Easy. Witnesses were tortured until they "confessed" and gave up someone else.

We now fast forward to 2006. The United States is holding several hundred Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo, Cuba. Many have been in captivity since just after Sept. 11, 2001. (For the benefit of you Republicans, that's five years.) I suspect that the Bush administration was hoping that they would all either die of natural causes or throw a little Jim Jones kool-aid party and save America the trouble of deciding what to do with them.

No such luck. They are all still sitting there, praying to Mecca five times a day and reading old copies of Reader's Digest (I'll take the kool-aid, thank you).

World pressure is forcing George W and the rest of his band of imperialists to do something, anything. Even "Dead-eye" Dick Cheney knows that if we keep citizens of other countries locked-up forever, our allies will feel the need to protest.

The administration is terrified of open trails because then the circumstances of the prisoner's apprehension and incarceration would become public. Stories of men being swept off the streets of Frankfort or Istanbul and flown to Cairo for a little tete-a-tete with a few gentlemen who seem to have misplaced their copy of the Geneva Conventions, would be all over the front page of The New York Times. CIA operatives could be liable for civil or even criminal action. Echoes of "I was just following orders" would be ringing down the halls of courthouses everywhere.

What to do? What to do?

Hey, how about we get Congress to green-light tribunals instead of trials. Defendants don't get to see the evidence against them and all testimony, regardless of who was tortured to get it, is admissible. Oh, and it will all be done in secret. Brilliant!

This is an end-run that would have done Vince Lombardi proud. Skirting both the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, the Bush gang has proposed legislation creating a justice system that would make Saddam blush. And as an added bonus, they want a get-out-of-jail-free card for everyone in the CIA who has participated or will participate in any phase of these proceedings. Wow! What's next? The repeal of the fifth commandment?

Unfortunately for old George, his timing is way off. (Where is Karl Rove anyway?) The Congress (actually, it's the Senate) finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. Although the Republicans still have a majority, some of them are fighting for their lives (and their seats) back home. Still others (hold on to your hats, folks) actually have a conscience about condoning this disaster.

Way back in the fall of 2001 this bill would have sailed through Congress without opposition (and without anyone actually reading it). However, this is 2006 and, as the death toll of Americans in Iraq is quickly approaching the death toll in the Towers, attention is being paid. Lawmakers will be forced to run on their records and many of them are desperately trying to create space between themselves and the Executive branch.

Happily, the charge to defeat this bill is being led by a Republican; and no ordinary Republican. John McCain thinks that this legislation is bad business and he has allies, including Sen. Warner of Virginia and Sen. Graham of South Carolina (none of whom are up for reelection in 2006). Colin Powell, who has manfully avoided criticism of the administration in which he served, has written a letter to Congress opposing the Bush cabal. Expect to hear more from Colin soon.

In no danger of being "swift-boated", McCain is making life miserable for George & Co. in the armed services committee. He has an alternate plan which, at least, affords the accused the right to question the evidence used against him and how it was obtained. Although not drafted by the ACLU, the McCain bill at least acknowledges that the Geneva Conventions exist. The full Senate will get the McCain bill and, because the House has approved the Bush plan, the fur will begin to fly shortly.

I guess we should be grateful that the Bush folks at least acknowledged that a little buy-in from the legislative branch would be a good thing. However, based on their experience this week, it's a mistake they are not likely to repeat. Better to ask forgiveness than permission, right George?


What I will never understand is, how Americans can wear out their arms waving the flag and bragging about our constant defense of freedom, but, when the going gets tough, start chipping away at the very freedoms we profess to defend. You don't get to throw the Marquis of Queensbury rules overboard just because you get your nose bloodied.

If the prisoners in Guantanamo are guilty of anything (aside from just being Muslims) then we should have a trial and find out. The government's position that we would compromise our intelligence sources in a public trial is a crock. If our intel was so good, how did we get in this mess in the first place? Quo erat demonstrandum.

Case dismissed.

...or is watching people play poker on TV about the dumbest form of entertainment there is?

Please, America, don't let the French find out we're doing this. I can't tolerate being laughed at by a culture that thinks Jerry Lewis is a genius.

Once again, some boy-executive in New York stood up in a meeting and began his presentation, " Look. Americans are dumb enough to watch people bathing with scorpions and ice skating with Eric Estrada. How about a televised card game." What a Guinness moment...Brilliant.

The next step was crucial. What game to televise?

Black jack? No; too much math. Save that for Sesame Street.

Canasta? Wrong demographic.

Whist. Too complicated. (Who the hell plays Whist anymore?)

Bridge. No good. Bridge players don't watch TV...they play bridge.

Pinochle. Too ethnic.

I've got it ...Poker. It has everything. Drama, colorful characters, funny hats, and rules that even George Bush could understand. Who in America can think of poker and not conjure images of the wild west; Bill Hickock holding aces and eights; Billy the Kid squeezing those five cards as he examines each one. In "The Sting", what game did Paul Newman use to hook Robert Shaw...Poker.

And let's not forget, just like reality shows, this s**t is cheap. For less money than Mel Brooks gets for a walk-on on "Two and a-half Men", ESPN or TNT can produce hours of glorious entertainment. Players (most of whom you would cross the street to avoid) are playing Texas Hold-um for more cash than they scored from their last three Seven-Eleven hold ups.

And let's not forget the spin-offs; "Celebrity Poker" ( These are the "celebrities who's agents couldn't get them a gig on "Cooking with the Stars") and "The World Series of Poker" (I guess all the players get a bat). Stay tuned for "The McCaulay Culkin Pre-Teen Poker Challenge", "The Nichole Richie Anorexia Open" and of course, "Congressional Strip Poker" If a congressman loses a hand he's required to fulfill one campaign pledge. (Talk about incentive!)

As a confirmed, confessed "Law & Order" junkie I am in a poor position to pass judgement on the viewing habits of my fellow Americans, but people please... a card game? Even shut-ins can chose to watch, "Pimp My Ride".

For the rest of you, go for a walk, read a book, start a fight, write a blog, or better yet, just turn the TV off. You can still sit in front of it if you feel you must.

or wait...

How about you call up a few friends, get some beer and pretzels, (potato chips grease up the deck) and actually play poker. I guarantee you will have a better time and, who knows Torc, you might win a buck.

OK, so who didn't ante?

...or is the concept of prayer in school just more misdirection?

A good friend of mine in Florida (congratulations on the Katherine Harris nomination, dopes), barrages my email with right-wing tripe about many subjects near and dear to the hearts of neocons everywhere;

Immigration (send 'em all back)
Godlessness Democrats (hope they burn in hell)
Flag burning (they're again' it)

and the ever-popular, prayer in school.

Somewhere back in the dark days of the Warren Court (actually in 1962), a decision was handed down in Engel v Vitale to the effect that the State of New York, and by extension, all 50 states, could not compel the recitation of a prayer in public schools. The prayer went like this

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."

Now who could possibly object to that?

My interest at the time (I was 15) cleaved more toward my then recent discovery of girls (who knew?), so I am a poor chronicler of the public reaction at the time. I suspect it was negative. Billy Graham, Cardinal Spellman and Norman Vincent Peale all called for Earl Warren to be tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Just another example of America going to hell in a handcart.

The court's decision was not unanimous and many of the arguments used by Mr. Justice Stewart in his dissent are still trumpeted today. He pointed out that the Supreme Court sessions begin with the invocation "God save the United States and this Honorable Court". The National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, Declaration of Independence and our National Motto all acknowledge America's dependence on a divine power. How then can we possibly deny our dear offspring the privilege of reciting the same thought that appears virtually everywhere else in our civic fabric?

Good question.

The response is two-fold.

One. If the neocons, religious-right, and talk show nutjobs were interested in anything but self-victimization and inflammatory rhetoric, they would come to realize that the decision in Engel did not prohibit prayer in public schools. The decision prohibits state-mandated prayer. This inconvenient truth doesn't give Sean Hannity or Pat Robertson much to scream about, but it's true. The facts can be so boring. You can pray in school, carry a bible, wear a "Jesus Saves" t-shirt. You just can't be compelled to do so.

Two. Why does this matter? No one can actually believe that a one-sentence prayer will turn the wicked from their evil ways. I'm guessing that the worst villains of history prayed in their evil classrooms before plotting the deaths of millions.

Besides, the folks who are the strongest supporters of God as a part of education are usually the people that carry Bibles in the shower and ensure that their children receive a daily dose of hell and damnation. Would one more prayer really make that much difference?

No, my children. This is just another smoke screen to demonize anyone that isn't in lock-step with the Christian right. Here's how it works. First you get some weak-willed high court judge to erect a statue of the ten commandments in the state court house. When someone objects that this is a religious icon and files suit to have it removed, bingo, God and religion are under attack by the godless left. You have controversy. Fox news arrives to document the statue being removed. Dr James (no fun) Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, will arrive to lament that this is just another example of how America is going to hell in a handcart. Democrats, whether they were involved or not, will be painted once again as, heathens, atheists, and pro homosexual. ( They always throw that in).

Listen up Rush:

Opposition to state-sponsored Christianity ,(let's call a spade a spade), does not make a person anti-God, anti-religion, or above all, anti-American.

Let's all take a deep breath and remember that we are a country of laws. How those laws are interpreted determines how we live. You may disagree with some decisions but to ascribe the evil intent of a godless conspiracy to those decisions is just foolishness.

We will close now with a prayer...

...or are things a little quiet right now?

The dog days of summer, (this phrase once applied to the women I dated in August), are with us in earnest. There seems to be an eerie quiet over the land. School (and Congress) are back in session; high school, college and pro football are just starting; and George Bush is naming cabinet members with a stealth that puts the CIA to shame.

Just for fun, Google up the Bush cabinet. Aside from the usual suspects - Condi; Don "stuff happens" Rumsfeld; Alberto "whatever you say, boss" Gonzales; Michael "storm? What storm?" Chertoff; and, if you read your currency, Henry Paulson at Treasury - you won't know anyone. You could be standing behind the entire cabinet at Starbucks and, except for Rumsfeld's perpetual sneer and Condi's smile, not recognize a single soul. I would be amazed if even her parents knew that Margaret Spellings was Secretary of Education. She probably just forgot to mention it.

My guess is that on the resume of these anonymous public servants, an asterisk appears next to this job listing:
"Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary of Energy*
*in the declining years of the Bush administration.

Whatever happened to the bright lights of the first GWB cabinet?

There was Colin Powell. He was going to show George W. the ways of global politics, (after he bought George a globe). Once he got into the White House he made less noise in foreign affairs than the White House cat. Although he probably realized that he was strictly window-dressing, he hung in for the entire first term. During his time in the cabinet he showed more loyalty than was ever shown to him.

Then there was the moderate Republican from New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman. She was installed as head of The Environmental Protection Agency. Because the Bush crowd had zero interest in protecting anything, Christine's microphone was shut off for her entire time in office. Owing to a sudden attack of self-respect, she was the first cabinet member off the island. Bravo, Christine.

To ensure that Christine couldn't protect anything, Bush installed Gail Norton as Secretary of the Interior. Gail's previous post was as a PR flack for the oil and timber industries. Ms. Norton's primary focus for her five-year run at Interior was to champion the administration's desire to drill for oil in the Alaskan Wilderness. Thankfully, she was about as successful in this enterprise as Rumsfeld has been in Iraq. She recently returned to Colorado where she is, no doubt, leading the charge to clear-cut the Gunnison National Forest.

All of these knights in borrowed armor have been replaced with folks that Americans couldn't pick out of a line-up that included John Michael Karr and Lindsey Lohan. Mark Johanns? Michael Leavitt? Elaine Chao? Who are these people?

Well, fear not. It's not like any of these lesser lights are actually going to be given the power to do anything. The reins of government are still firmly in the same shaky hands that have always held them...Dick Cheney's and Don Rumsfeld's; oh, and that other guy.

Just today, Mary Peters was chosen to replace Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. You may remember Mr. Mineta as the only member of the Clinton cabinet to be retained by the Bushies. I'm guessing that they couldn't find anyone else that would work for them. The Bush people were confident that Norman couldn't cause much trouble in that his primary role at Transportation was to decide how many flights United can run out of Kansas City, and to stamp "pilot error" on the jackets of airline incident reports.

I'm sure that Ms. Peters is a wonderful and competent person, but when I look at her all I can see is Harriet Myers. You remember Harriet. She was George's choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Dick Cheney hasn't left George alone in a room since.

If any of you are waiting (read, hoping) for Rumsfeld to step down or be cashiered, forget it. To be blunt, George hasn't got the cahones. Rumsfeld's decisions in Iraq are the primary reason that Bush has ratings lower than C-Span on Christmas. Even the dog days of summer can't stop the casualties, American and Canadian, from floating up the Potomac. I'm guessing George would love for some country like the Sudan to offer Rumsfeld the job of Secretary of Tourism. No such luck. When old Don Rumsfeld signs on for a disaster, he's in for the duration. No cut and run for him!

How about this for a solution? Arrange a hunting trip for Cheney and Rumsfeld. However it comes out, America wins.