Eating the Apple

Eve did it. Adam did it. Now it's my turn to take a bite. Why not? Hey! It's delicious.

Wednesday, November 30, 2005


I hereby freely confess to you that I am an atheist with an unusual hobby. I am an Old Testament 'junkie'. I do not regard the Old Testament as 'The Word' of any god. Instead I see it as the product of many priests and prophets who told stories about their history, culture, values, and feelings. These writings were compiled by a 'redactor' and reshaped by scribes and copyists who sometimes spun the narrative to fit their ideologies.

I also confess that I am embarrassed to use the term 'The Bible'. There no one single monolithic entity characterized by that term. I much prefer to use the word 'Scriptures' because the plural implies variety. I study some English translations of the Masoretic (Hebrew) text. When I study a certain passage, I compare the passage in the KJV, NSRV, NIV, and JPS translations and examine commentary in study bibles. (The first verse of Deuteronomy is strikingly different in these translations.)

The Masoretic text not the only ancient version of the Scriptures. The Septuagint (Greek) translation from about 250 BC contains several books that are not now considered canonical by some Chrtistians and Jews. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest biblical manuscripts in existance. They have influenced the NSRV translation (example: Deut 32:8,43). There are many other ancient versions of the Scriptures, such as the Syriac and Samaritan versions. All of these are used by scholars in their studies.

In addition I confess that I am embarrassed to use terms like 'Old' and 'New Testament'. These terms may be demeaning to Jews, It suggests that their holy books are old-fashioned and therefore inferior. I could use the term 'Tanakh', but most people won't understand it. I do not know of any good, neutral terminology to use here. It is said that turn-about is fair play. So I shall use the terms 'Primary Scriptures' and 'Secondary Scriptures'.

Finally, I confess that I have limited knowledge of the Scriptures. I am more student than scholar. And I am struggling to unravel the mysteries of the Scriptures, to separate the strands of thought, and to identify the mythology within and about the texts. I am fascinated and challenged by the Scriptures, not because they are easy to understand, but because they are difficult.

The next time I return to this topic I shall compare Genesis 25:1-2 with 1 Chronicles 1:32.

Deja Vu All Over Again

As I listened to President Bush give his plan for victory in Iraq, I kept feeling that I have been through this before during the 60's and 70's in the time of the Vietnam War.

President Bush offered a "light at the end of the tunnel" as he described the "Vietnamization" of the war against the insurgents.

There are other similarities between the two wars. In neither case was the United States attacked. The so-called Tonkin Gulf Incident was a fiction in Lyndon Johnson's mind. And contrary to what Colin Powell said at the United Nations, no "nexus" between Al Qaida has been found.

Both wars were started by United States officials who had an overweening confidence in their ability to control events in distant lands combined with abysmal ignorance of the history, culture, history, and aspirations of the Iraqi and Vietnamese peoples.

There is one big difference. In Iraq a 'Tet Offensive' has not happened.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

The President's Mascot


What is our president's mascot? Answer below.

News flash 1:

Antarctic ice shows current levels of carbon dioxide are 30% higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years. -- BBC

News flash 2:

U.S. to battle allies over global warming -- Reuters

Musical selection 1:

A president hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
-- Paul Simon

Musical selection 2:

How many times can a man turn his head,
And pretend he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is rising in the sea,
The answer is rising in the sea.
-- Bob Dylan

News flash 3

Tropical storm Epsilon has just formed.


The ostrich.

Monday, November 28, 2005

On The Possibility of a Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

Proponents of the Theory of Intelligent Design argue that this theory should be taught in science classes. It seems self-evident that the proper subject matter for a course in science is science. And to many people the Theory of Intelligent Design doesn't qualify as science and therefore should not be taught in science classes. The proponents of the Theory of Intelligent Design have yet to overcome this objection.

The purpose of this essay is to inquire whether this objection to the teaching of the Theory of Intelligent Design can be overcome so that this theory can be legitimately taught in a science course.

First, let me state some basic facts about the nature of scientific inquiry. The great goal of scientific research since the beginning of modern science hundreds of years ago has always been to find natural explanations of natural phenomenona. In this respect people of today have a very different outlook from ancient peoples. In ancient times people believed that all natural phenomenon were controlled by gods. If one became sick, for example, it happened because a god was angry with that person. But today we understand that illness is caused by bacteria and viruses. We look for natural explanations.

Secondly, scientific knowledge results from the application of observation, experimentation, accepted theories, and logical reasoning.

Third, scientific results must be publically verifiable. Suppose a scientist says that something specific will result from a new experiment. Other scientists will repeat the experiment. If they do not obtain the same results, the original findings are discredited. That is what is meant by "peer review". In this way a scientific theory must be falsifiable.

Fourth, our confidence in a scientific theory arises from its ability both to organize existing knowledge and to make predictions of new discoveries. For example Edmond Halley used historical records and Newton's Theory of Gravity to predict that a certain comet would appear at a certain time. As a result of that successful prediction, that comet is now known as Halley's comet. The theory of evolution has become a basic organzing princicple in biology even though very few predictions are possible. The critics of the theory have contended that there must be certain transitional species. The recent discovery of such a species confirms the prediction and supports the Theory of Evolution.

These four conditions are fundamental to the acquisition of scientific knowledge in fields like physics, chemistry, and biology. There are difficulties with these conditions in certain fields. In astronomy we cannot experiment on stars and galaxies. However, experiments with particle accellerators have shed light on the fundamental processes that operate within stars. In spite of this difficulty we have built up an impressive body of astronomical knowledge.

In the social sciences there is a serious problem with observation. An anthropologist, for example, cannot observe the feelings and beliefs of the people he studies. He can only know what these people say about their feelings and beliefs. For this reason the social sciences are often called "soft sciences"

With these four principles in mind, let us turn to the examination of the Theory of Intelligent Design. Let us enumerate the questions that must be answered before the theory can be regarded as having any scientific credibility.

The concept of 'intelligent design' implies the existence of an 'intelligent designer', some entity who can intervene intentionally in our universe. Words like 'intelligence', 'designer', and 'intention' charaterize living beings. At the risk of appearing redundent, I shall use the convenient acronym LID to mean a 'Living Intelligent Designer'. So now let us ask, what are the necessary attributes of a LID?

The term 'intelligence' implies an organ of intelligence, We call such organs brains. However the 'brain' of a LID might be very different from our understanding of brains. This leads to:

Question #1: Of what substance is the 'organ of intelligence' of a LID composed?

Science deals with four fundamental entities, matter and energy within a framework of space and time. By matter is meant atoms, molecules, and sub-atomic particles. There are several forms of energy such as light, heat, and kinetic energy. If something cannot be described in terms of matter, energy, space and time, then it cannot come under the purview of science. If the answer to this question is that a LID is made of spiritual material, then that means that the Theory of Intelligent Design has no scientific foundation.

The term of intelligence also refers to the process of thinking. Thinking means the formulation of intentions, the evaluation of alternatives, the prediction of consequences, and emotions such as joy and anger. In our brains thinking seems to relate to electrical activity in and between the nerve cells of our brains. Of course the thought process of a LID may be very different from ours. Therefore it is relevant to ask:

Question #2: How does a LID think?

Thinking depends upon memory, i.e stored information. We know of two very different models of memory. First, our brains depend upon a biological form of memory which is not well understood. In addition we are familiar with several types of memory used in computers such as hard disks, silicon chips, flash memories, and old fashioned core memories. But all types of memory have one thing in common, they store information for a period of time. Of course the memory of a LID may be quite different. Therfore:

Question #3 How is the memory of a LID organized and how does it operate?

It is not enough that a LID can formulate intentions. It must have the means of carring out its intentions. Thus:

Question #4 What organs does a LID use to carry out its intentions? Of what substances are they composed of? And how do they operate?

The processes of thinking and carrying out intentions involves the use of energy.

Question #5 What form(s) of energy does a LID use?

A LID requires a source of energy. It is unlikely that a LID has an infinite supply of energy. Very likely, an infinite supply of energy would destroy the universe. This leaves two possibilities. Either a LID can replenish its supply of energy, or its energy becomes depleted over time. The last alternative is unlikely since every living plant or animal that we know of replenishes its supply of energy. Thus:

Question #6 How does a LID replenish its supply of energy? What does it feed upon?

Living creatures use food not only as a source of energy, but also as a supply of materials for growth and for the repair of their bodies. Thus:

Question #7 How does a LID grow and how does it repair its body?

Every living creature that we know of has a finite lifetime. Only a few animals live more than 100 years. And only a few plants live more than 1000 years. Consequently, a species must propogate or become extinct. Thus:

Question #8 Does a LID have an infinite lifetime? If yes, how is it possible for a living being to have an infinite lifetime? If no, how do LIDs propogate?

This completes the list of question I have concerning the existance and nature of LIDs. No doubt, others can add many questions to this list.

Now I shall turn to the question of how we human beings can learn about the existance of LIDs.

Question #9 By what experiments, observations, and logical deductions can we obtain verifiable public knowledge of the existance of a LID or LIDs?

When a new scientific theory is announced, the proper attitude of other scientists is skepticism. And a scientist should remain skeptical until the evidence convinces him otherwise. At the same time a scientist should be open-minded. He should not ask for absolute certainty for in this world, absolute certainty is impossible. I think that the proper standard is the one used in criminal trials, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Doubts can be manufactured. Thus 'proof beyond all doubt' is not a reasonable standard. Reasonable doubts must be grounded in experiments, in scientific observation, or in logical deductions from accepted facts and theories. Reasonable doubs must be overcome before a scientific theory can be truly accepted.

Even so, scientists will set forth theories without having sufficient evidence to prove the theories. The Theory of Continental Drift is one such case. This theory was rejected by many scientists until the 1950's. Then the discovery of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge led to the Theory of Tectonic Plates which incorporated the Theory of Continental Drift.

Therefore, we should remain skeptical, but open-minded regarding the Theory of Intelligent Design. But we can ask the proponents of this theory to step up and take responsibility for providing evidence that proves their theory beyond a reasonable doubt. Or if they cannot do that, at least provide a plan for the gathering of this evidence. Thus:

Question #10 What experiments, what scientific observations, and what logical deductions would prove the Theory of Intelligent Design beyond a reasonable doubt?

Question #11 What plan of investigation could be formulated to provide the required scientiic evidence?

Now comes the big question. The power of a scientific theory, like the theory of relativity, often comes from new scientific observations predicted by the theory. The Theory of Relativity is a case in point. Many wierd predictions have been made from this theory, and all of the tests of these predictions have been successful. This is the reason that the theory has been accepted despite of the immense difficulty of understanding it. Thus:

Question #12 What scientific predictions can be made from the Theory of Intelligent Design and what publically verifiable tests can made of these predictions?

The main problem with the Theory of Intelligent Design is that it is like a magic wand. It can be used to predict anything that you want it to. Since it can explain anything and everything, it truly explains nothing.

Here are twelve questions concerning the Theory of Intelligent Design. I maintain that it is the responsibility of the advocates of this theory to provide publically verifiable answers that will satisfy knowledgable people who are skeptical but open-minded. Until these questions are answered, the Theory of Intelligent Design cannot be accepted as a scientific theory.

How many of these questions can be answered? NONE!

Until these questions are answered, the Theory of Intelligent Design does not rise above the level of mystical speculation. Now I do not intend to denigrate the importance of mystical speculation. It has had a powerful impact upon our culture, our values, and our history. Nor do I say that mystical speculation has no place in our schools. Mystical speculation could be taught in courses on mythology and theology, but NOT in science courses.

Or if the Theory of Intelligent Design must be taught in a science course, let it be sandwiched between the teaching of astrology and the flat earth theory.

- - -

Copyright (c) 2005 by Tover van Ooteldonk. Permission is granted for the republication of this essay in its entirety in any form for any non-commercial, non-profitmaking purpose provided that this copyright notice is included.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Thanksgiving Grace

Dear family and friends, before we begin our dinner today, let us use this moment to give thanks for the blessings that we have received in the past year. Let us start by giving thanks to all those who contributed to this wondrous celebration -- to the farmers who grew the food we have on our table, and to the railroads and truckers who brought the food to our community and to the markets that sold us this food. And we are specially thankful that the American enonomy did not collapse this year as we feared it might and that enough of us were employed long enough to afford the exorbitant cost of this food. Of course, we must not forget the cooks who labored for many hours so that we may enjoy the culinary perfection of this delectable repast.

And let us not forget the one to whom we owe a special debt of gratitude. He is the one who is at the center of our thoughts on this occasion, the one who gave mightily on our behalf, the one whose presence here is essential to this celebration -- the one who is here in the flesh if not in the spirit. We give our most grateful thanks to the one who sacrificed everything -- the turkey. As that great gobbler looks down upon us from turkey heaven, I am sure that he is impressed by the loving way that his mortal coil has been roasted to perfection. He too, should be grateful for the way we have honored him today. That bird did not die in vain. Amen.

Saturday, November 26, 2005


Charles Darwin turned monkeys into human beings.

The Kansas school board turned human beings into monkeys.

Redefining Science

The Kansas school board who removed "natural explanations" from the definition of science only demonstrated their abysmal ignorance of what science is about.

If 'intelligent design' can become a science then so can astrology, alchemy, witchcraft, pyramid power, and biorythms. Perhaps the Kansas school board can teach us how to turn lead into gold.

Friday, November 25, 2005


It is the day after Thanksgiving. It is an appropriate time to cast aside my customary acerbity and prove that this old curmudgeon can still find reasons to be thankful. These are my wishbone awards in no particular order:

Wishbone #1 For family and friends who gathered together and brightened up the world.

Wishbone #2 For National Public Radio for a fine lineup of news, information, and opinion broadcasts. My favorite shows are The Diane Rehm Show, Talk of the Nation, Open Source, All Things Considered, BBC News, News and Notes, Car Talk, and my favorite variety show, A Prairie Home Companion. I'm proud to a member of my local NPR station.

Wishbone #3 To the New England Patriots. They have a winning record this season after suffering devastating losses of key personnel. Being two games ahead of Buffalo in the weak Eastern Division gives them an excellent chance to make the playoffs. The big obstacle in the AFC playoffs will be the Colts. They have a perfect record at this point. A major share of the credit must go to coach Bill Belichik. He needed only one year to turn the team around after he arrived. His genius lies in his ability to acquire good players that are overlooked by other teams and to turn them into solid team players. His latest acquisition is Heath Evans. After being cut by Miami and acquired by the Patriots, Heath had a career day against his old team. Belichik's best genius move was in the 2000 draft. His sixth round draft choice turned out to be a pretty good quarterback.

Wishbone #4 To everyone who contributed to the relief of the great natural disasters of the past year. And to the Walmart employees and others in Louisiana who gave food and water to needy people after Hurricane Katrina.

Wishbone #5 To Cindy Sheehan who made America listen.

Wishbone #6 To Senator John McCain. I disagree with his economics, but I admire him for his honesty, his candor, his patriotism, his courage, and his common sense. He is one politician who takes seriously the threat of global warming. Nevertheless, I don't understand his forbearance after he was humiliated by his fellow Republicans in the Soth Carolina primary of 2000.

Wishbone #7 To the voters of Dover PA who cast an obstacle in path of those promoting the unscientific theory of 'intelligent design'.

Wishbone #8 To the British civil servants who leaked a top secret memo describing a conversation between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. President bush said he wanted to bomb the headquarters of Aljazeera in the friendly country of Qatar.

Wishbone #9 To the TV station Aljazeera for bringing an independent voice to the Arab world. Aljazeera will probably do more to bring freedom and accountability to Muslim nations than anything that the United States can do alone. Check it out at

Wishbone #10 To Mark Russinovich who exposed the scandal of Sony's CDs that included dangerous 'rootkit' software. Mark and other experts forced Sony to recall over fifty CDs of such artists as Celine Dion, Van Zant, Neil Diamond, Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, and Roseanne Cash. In their zeal to protect their copyrights Sony used software that violated the copyrights of the open software LAME project.

Wishbones to many others, unmentioned here, who struggle in small ways to make our world better. And enough of this gentle, pollyannish, blandness. Tomorrow I shall be back to my usual cantankerous acerbity, hurling brickbats at all pusillanimous purveyors of hypocricy, mendacity, and cant.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Turkey of the Year

Turkey Day is upon us. What better way to celebrate Turkey Day than by giving the Turkey of the Year to some deserving clown who really messed up. I'm getting out of politics for this one. I'm not going to cite Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, or Pat Robertson. That's too easy -- belabouring the obvious. There are just too many turkeys in politics.

Instead, I'm giving my Turkey of the Year Award in the field of Arts and Culture:

Turkey #1 Sony BMG Corporation for including 'rootkit' software on some 50 music CD's. This software installs itself on your computer without your knowledge or consent. It hides all files and registry entries whose name begins with $sys$ thus opening the door to viruses that cannot be removed by normal means.

Turkey #2 Sony BMG Corporation for not including an uninstaller with the 'rootkit' software. An attempt to uninstall the rootkit by deleting the files may disable the CD drive.

Turkey #3 Sony BMG Corporation whose president, Thomas Hesse, said, "Most people, I think, don't even know what a Rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

Turkey #4 Sony BMG Corporation for putting out patches that are riskier than the original software.

Turkey #5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Sony BMG Corporation. In their zeal to protect their copyrights, Sony used software plagerized from the open software LAME (mp3 reader) project.

For more information, go to or google sony rootkit.

Confirmed: Bush wanted to bomb Qatar

Yesterday, the Daily Mirror of London reported:

PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals. But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.

It is hard to believe that President Bush would be so stupid as to propose the bombing of a friendly country, even in jest. It is bad enough when a prominent person like Pat Robertson advocates the assassination of the president of Venezula. But Pat Robertson is a private citizen with no official standing. He has no means of carrying out an assassination. But President Bush does have the means to start a war in any part of the world. So any mention of bombing a friendly country has to be taken seriously.

Still, the idea of bombing the offices of Aljazeera in Qatar has to rank as one of the most outlandish ideas of the last century. It would give Al Qaida a massive propaganda victory. It would convince many Muslims that the United States is the enemy of Islam. The idea is so outlandish that one has to believe that the whole thing is a monstrous hoax concocted by the Daily Mirror.

Or is it?

There are several incidents reported in European news sources that give credence to the Mirror's account:

1. Downing street reaction. The Scotsman reported;

Downing Street yesterday failed to deny the reported plot, citing subjudice laws.

The Mirror was more specific:

Downing Street said: "We don't comment on leaked documents."

This can be interpreted as confirming that an important document was leaked.

2. Reaction of other politicians as reported in the Mirror:

Yesterday former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation. He said: "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions.

3. Criminal charges under the Official Secrets as reported by The Guardian:

Last week, Leo O'Connor, a former researcher for (former MP) Mr Clarke, was charged with receiving a document under section 5 of the (Official Secrets) act. David Keogh, a former Foreign Office official seconded to the Cabinet Office, was charged last week with making a "damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations". Mr Keogh, 49, is accused of sending the document to Mr O'Connor, 42, between April 16 and May 28 2004.

4. The most convincing report also comes from the Guardian:

The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.

It would be a ridiculous thing to threaten newspapers under the Official Secrets Act if the alleged memo was only a hoax. It seems obvious that the memo is genuine.

Then why did the White House dismiss the Mirror's story as outlandish? The White House is trying to imply that the memo is a hoax. But, as I have shown, the credibility of the memo is supported indirectly by independent news sources. However the White House is notorious for its lack of integrity and credibility. Why should we believe a president who used bogus intelligence to sell a war?

This matter raises questions about the mental stability of our president and his fitness to govern. It would be better to impeach him and remove him from office than let him start another disastrous war.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Insanity in the White House

I am utterly appalled by a story that appeared today in The Daily Mirror of London. A memo leaked from the office of Prime Minister Tony Blair disclosed that President Bush wanted to bomb the offices of Aljazeera in Qatar. this matter was discussed by Bush and Blair at a meeting on April 16 last year. Tony Blair vehemently opposed the bombing of Alazeera.

It is uninmaginable that any sane president could ever entertain such an idea, let alone discuss it with another leader. After all, Qatar is an ally in the struggle against Al Qaida's terrorism. An attack upon Qatar would have alienated friends and allies throughout the world and radicalized moderate Muslims. It would have been a huge victory for Al Qaida.

It is a fact that the U.S. bombed the offiuces of Aljazeera in both Kabul in Afganistan and Bagdad in Iraq. Our government has claimed these bombings were made through 'military error'. However, the memo from 10 Downing Street casts doubts upon the explanation of military error. The deliberate bombing of facilities of Aljazeera would constitute an act of war against Qatar and a war crime.

This matter manifests the hypocrisy of the Bush administration. Bush has taken a public stance of promoting freedom throughout the world. Then he turns around and advocates the destruction of a news organization that exercises that freedom.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job in the Oval Office. But at least, no one was injured and no one was killed. What should we do with a president who used bogus intelligence to start a war that cost the lives more than 100,000 people? It is time to impeach President Bush and remove him from office. Better that, than to let him start another misbegotten misadventure that will cost many thousands of lives.


For more information see: (no 'www.')

Monday, November 21, 2005

Global Warming

In "the Boxer", Paul Simon writes, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." This aphorism seems toi chatacrterize the Bush administration. President Bush listens to those who deny the reality of global warming and disregards the mountain of evidence supporting global warming.

It is true that scientists have not proved that the current warming trend will continue for decades into the future. And it is true that scientists have not decided how much of this global warming is caused by man vs. nature. But this is irrelevant. A prudent and rational government must take the threat seriously and begin to take precautions.

We do not buy fire insurance on our homes because we know our house will burn down. Rather we take out insurance because we don't know. And if a forest fire is threatening our house, we shoulod not stop to argue whether the fire is natural or man-made. That would be stupid. Yet our government insists upon arguing whether global warming is natural caused by man -- an utterly stupid waste of time.

In rejecting the Kyoto treaty, President Bush argued our industries could not afford the cost of compliance. But can we afford the cost of losing New Orleans? Hurricane Katrina was just a shot across the bow. It proved what can happen when there is a five degree rise in the water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico. And both the number of hurricanes and their intensity have hit records in recent years.

The greatest future danger comes from the melting of glaciers. If all the ice in glaciers melted the sea level could rise about 200 feet. That is not likely to happen. But if only a small percentage thag ice should melt, sea levels could rise a few feet, which would be catastrophic for cities like Portland ME, Boston, Providence, New York, Baltimore, Newport News, Charleston, Miami, Mobile, Galveston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland OR. Can our economy afford the loss of these cities?

But in retrospect, the denial of global warming may prove to be President Bush's most enduring legacy, outlasting his Supreme Court appointments. Let the rising waters wash away the blue states. What surer way is there for ensuring Republican domination of our government for the rest of the century?

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Congratulations and Condolences

My congratulations to coach Bill Belichik and the New England Patriots for maintaining a winning record (6-4) in this injury-plagued season.

My condolences to the Belichik family on the passing of Bill's father at the age of 86.

By the Balls

I recall a saying from the days of the Vietnam War, "If you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

Congressman John Murtha stirred up a hornet's nest of controversy by saying that the U.S. troops in Iraq have become a "catalyst for violence". He called for the removal of these troops. His words prompted a furious outburst from Vice President Cheney and other administration apologists.

This tempest has erupted after support of the war among the public dropped and shortly after the attainment of the tragic mark of 2000 dead American servicemen and women. The count of 2000 dead does not reflect the uncounted deaths among allied troops and so-called contractors. These figures are dwarfed by the number or Iraqi deaths during the invasion (estimated by the Lancet at 98,000) or during the insurgency (unkown).

To punctuate Murtha's remarks, car bombs have killed 150 Iraqis in the past two days. The violence in Iraq is out of control. A year from now the number of American dead in Iraq will reach the 3000 mark. That will exceed the number of people killed on September 11. The Bush administration has no plan and no means for bringing this gruesome violence to an end.

Right now Al Qaida has America by the balls. Our hearts and minds are following.

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Pat Robertson's First Amendment

The conservative political activist former presidential candidate, and 700 Club host, Pat Robertson has often astounded the nation with his incisive and divisive pontifications topics including the moral clarity of blaming of abortionsts, gay, lesbians, and liberals for September 11 and calling for divine retribution upon the city of Dover PA. After analyzing his fulmintions with obtusive scrutinization, I am confident that I can localize the "intelligent design" of his theocratic intellectuality. Accordingly, I present to you the First Amendment of what I call Pat Robertson's Bill of Rights:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a non-Christian (strike that) non-Protestant (strike that) non-fundamentalist religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of an evangelical religion; or abridging Pat Roberton's freedom of speech, even when he calls for the assassination of a foreign leader, or of the ultra right-wing press; or the right of born-again Christian people peaceably (if they get their way) to assemble in support of theocratic government, and to petition the government for reactionary Supreme Court justices.

Friday, November 18, 2005

My Lover

In grade school I was taught to love the government that represented freedom and democracy to the world. In high school I was shocked to discover that my lover was unfaithful. Now I realize that she was always an old whore.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Saddam Hussain

Saddam Hussain sat on a wall.
Saddam hussain had a great fall.
And all Georgie's horses and all Georgie's men
Can not put Eye-rak back together again.