I have no problem with boycotts, letter writing campaigns, or businesses like Clear Channel simply deciding to drop radio hosts because they don't fit the image they company wants to put forth, but I find this sort of thing to be of concern...

"The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 49-1 to send a tough broadcast-indecency bill to the full House of Representatives, which could vote as early as next week on the measure.

...Individual performers and networks could also face maximum fines of $500,000 under the bill for indecent speech. In the past, performers faced a maximum fine of $11,000, which has never been imposed, lawmakers said."

When you raise fines to that level and threaten to revoke licenses you are in effect engaging in "stealth censorship". By that, I mean that since what is considered to be "indecency" on the radio is very subjective and since the fines are so high, no radio stations are going to be able to afford to continue to carry "shock jocks" once this goes into effect.

Now if the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to ban "shock jocks" like Howard Stern & Don and Mike from the airwaves, they'd hear shrieks of "First Amendment, First Amendment" until their ears bled -- and rightfully so. But even though it's highly likely that is going to be the EFFECT of this new broadcast-indecency bill, it's not causing the sort of stir that it should.

Of course, some people, heck maybe even most people, will be applauding if radio hosts like Howard Stern are driven off the air. I know many of you reading this very page probably think "Stern's a gross, obnoxious, pig who rips on Republicans and Christians. Why should I care if he loses his radio show?" If Stern went off the air because he couldn't compete in the marketplace or because of public pressure on the radio stations that put him on the air, I wouldn't care either. But when the government decides to step in and wipe people like Stern off the map despite the fact that they're popular, despite the fact that they've been on the air doing their shtick for more than a decade, conservatives should care. I say that because next time the government might decide to step in and start leveling huge fines on WEBSITES that they decide are "indecent" or radio talk show hosts who they decide are only presenting one political point of view and therefore aren't being "fair". Enforcing minimum standards of decency is fine, but we should be very wary of how our First Amendment rights may be degraded if the government gets comfortable with fining popular broadcasters into oblivion...

This is an excerpt from post I made back on Feb 27 entitled "Why States Rights Don't Currently Matter When It Comes To Gay Marriage"...

"Because I believe that protecting marriage is so absolutely essential to the continued success of our country, I support a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. But if that can't get through Congress, and Constitutional Amendments are difficult to get approved under the best of circumstances, I would support a fall back Amendment.

That would be an Amendment to the full faith and credit clause to insure that the legislators of each state, not the courts, would make the decision on gay marriage and that their rulings would not impact other states. I think that kind of Amendment would have a much better chance of being passed because it would expose those who opposed it as zealots who want activist judges to impose their agenda on the rest of the nation."

Fast forward less than a week to National Review and what do we find?

"We are therefore pleased to learn that Sen. Orrin Hatch is introducing his own constitutional amendment. His version reads as follows: "Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman." This amendment would not only clearly allow civil unions to be enacted by legislatures; it would even allow legislatures to enact full-fledged same-sex marriage. But it would bar federal or state courts from imposing either.

Some conservatives will object that this amendment does not go far enough. But what it does is meet the challenge that actually inspired an amendment in the first place: the threat that judges will impose same-sex marriage or its equivalent in disregard of the public will. Hatch's language has the additional advantage of being clear and understandable to the layman. For most people, the notion that legislators should be making these decisions will seem like simple common sense."

This my friends, is a winner. It is a Constitutional Amendment that CAN BE PASSED and that addresses the STATED concerns of people who are pro-gay marriage. This Amendment leaves the decision to the states & it does not use the Constitution to settle the issue of gay marriage forevermore. Of course, a lot of people who are pro-gay marriage would fight this Amendment tooth and nail because despite their claims to the contrary, they want the judiciary to impose gay marriage on America. But fighting against an Amendment like this would expose their real agenda for what it is.

On the other hand, as National Review said, there may be some conservatives who oppose this Amendment because they believe it doesn't go far enough. Hey, I understand where they're coming from, but you have to take your victories where you can find them. As I mentioned last week, Constitutional Amendments are difficult to get approved under the best of circumstances and this isn't the best of circumstances. So if we can pass an Amendment that protects states from having gay marriage imposed on them by the judiciary -- and as I said, I think Hatch's Amendment could be passed -- that would be a notable improvement over the current situation.

So if W. finds that he doesn't have the votes to get the Constitutional Amendment he's pushing for through Congress -- and that will probably be the case --I would strongly recommend that he throw his full support behind Hatch's Amendment or something very much like it.

The Bush-Cheney 04 team have unveiled their new campaign platform, including a series of television, radio, magazine and newspaper ads, which will focus on the slogans, "George W. Bush: Compared to John Kerry, he's a man of the people!" and "George W. Bush: Compared to John Kerry, he's just like you!"

The ads will feature still photographs of the president clearing brush or driving his pickup truck, juxtaposed with shots of Kerry cavorting on his yacht or dining out in expensive restaurants in European capitals with various interns, cronies and, occasionally, his wife.

Also, Bush will be shown stammering and searching for the right word, while Kerry will be shown smoothly slipping into French, answering every question with a memorized speech referring to his Vietnam experience and deepening his voice several levels as he speaks in hushed tones about the last bottle of Chateau Margaux he and Teresa shared.

Also planned are spots featuring Laura Bush. In one, the contents of which were leaked to BrokenNewz this morning, a split screen shows the first lady stirring her husband's breakfast grits and polishing his cowboy boots as next to her Teresa Heinz-Kerry is seen yelling at the help for mismatching her husband's tie for that day with her pashmina. "The more and more we think about it," said a Bush-Cheney spokesman, "we're just so grateful Howard Dean imploded."

If you enjoyed this satire by Marni Malarkey, you can read more of her work at Broken Newz.

As a general rule of thumb, you should start to get VERY suspicious when the mainstream media runs "anecdotal stories". I say that because you can find a handful of people who believe JUST ABOUT ANYTHING. That means it's very easy to decide what sort of story you want write, get a few juicy quotes, and then imply that the people you spoke to represent a majority.

If you want to see a perfect example of how this is done, just look at the "Bush is exploiting 9/11 stories" that the media is playing right now. 9/11 was not only the defining event of the last 4 years, it was one of defining events of the last hundred years. It has been talked about, analyzed, studied, & debated every single day since it happened and it has had a profound effect on America. Yet, Bush runs an ad with a very minimal amount of footage in it from 9/11 & we hear hysterical cries of "exploitation, exploitation"!

But you see, we're hearing that story because that is the story the media wants to tell you. They could have just as easily done anecdotal stories that said "family members of 9/11 victims like Bush ads" or "family members of 9/11 victims have no strong opinion about Bush ads," but that doesn't fit their agenda.

Let me show you a little evidence that'll back-up what I'm saying. I went through an AP article entitled 9/11 Victims' Kin Angered by Bush Ads that features 9/11 relatives who are "outraged" over Bush's ads and I googled every person who had an angry reaction. Interestingly enough, 5 out of the 6 people interviewed had an ax to grind with George Bush. The people who trashed Bush in this one are...

-- Coleen Kelly who is a member of an anti-war group called "Peaceful Tomorrows" & spoke at an anti-war rally with Susan Sarandon.

-- Jeff Zack & Harold Schaitberger are the spokesman and president of the International Association of Fire Fighters Union who "gave Kerry an early endorsement in the presidential race".

-- I found no previous attacks on Bush by Barbara Minervino who "questioned whether Bush was "capitalizing on the event"'.

-- Like Colleen Kelly, David Potorti is part of an anti-war group called Peaceful Tomorrows. Here's a quote from an interview he did at Buzzflash back in October of 2003,

"I feel like the foreign policy of the Bush Administration is almost like a second assault on us. We had this terrorist attack and now it's almost like we have this other attack from our own government which is doing things which clearly are not in our interests, and clearly are not reducing the chances of another terrorist attack happening again. Sometimes I feel quite assaulted from all quarters. And it's just a very odd place to be -- to feel like your own government is not operating in your best interest."

-- Kristen Breitweiser has been claiming for quite a while that the Bush administration is covering up/refusing to investigate 9/11. Read more about it in this 2003 article called "Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush" -- and yes, Breitweiser is one of the moms battling Bush.

Come on folks, this article is a joke! We don't have any polling data, we don't know how the reporters chose these people to quote, we don't know how many pro-Bush quotes weren't included, all we have are 5 out of 6 people who the reporters MUST HAVE KNOWN were going to trash Bush before they even talked to them.

This piece is liberal bias at its worst and if AP had any integrity, they'd issue a public apology for putting out this sort of slanted bilge.

***Update #1***: The plot thickens! It seems that one of the people criticizing Bush in this article has actually campaigned for Kerry. From "Schaitberger Stumps for Kerry"...

"After Kerry’s surprise victory in Iowa, IAFF General President Harold Schaitberger spent the last week in New Hampshire on the campaign trail helping to keep Kerry’s momentum going.

...As co-chair of the Kerry for President campaign and President of the first union to endorse John Kerry, Schaitberger’s visit generated significant press coverage.

So they're quoting a "co-chair of the Kerry for President campaign" in the article without even telling their readers about it? Could AP be any more deceptive?

Hat tip to Little Green Footballs for finding this.

***Update #2***: This just keeps getting better and better. Apparently Peaceful Tomorrows has received millions not only from US taxpayers -- which is mind-blowing in and of itself -- but it has also received "4.3 million...from the Howard Heinz Endowment". Boy, it's funny how that worked out isn't it?

After having some technical problems yesterday, RWN, like Douglas MacArthur, has RETURNED! The page is back up and running like John Kerry after a question about his Vietnam war protestor days and it is nice to be back...

At PatriotBlog.Com we decided that to celebrate our first month we would do a post here at one of our favorite blogs, RightWingNews! First we want to encourage any blogger out there to APPLY for our award shown above. Second we want to encourage each of you to visit Patriot Blog! Also if you enjoy our site we hope that you will sign up for our Week in Review sent out every Saturday! Below is a sample posting from Patriot Blog on Feb. 22nd:

"All you really need to know about Government and Bureaucracy"

For those who read my essays, length does not always correlate with quality. Apparently the federal bureaucracy never got the memo.

Pythagorean theorem: ........................................24 words.
Lords prayer:...............................................66 words.
Archimedes Principle: .....................................67 words.
10 Commandments: ...........................................179 words.
Gettysburg address: ........................................286 words.
Declaration of Independence:..............................1,300 words.

US Government regulations on the sale of cabbage: ............26,911 words.

Find More @ Patriot Blog.Com

With John Edwards expected to announce his withdrawal from the presidential race today, the contest for the Democrat nomination narrows to two men — Sen. John Forbes Kerry, D-MA, and Sen. John Forbes Kerry, D-MA.

"I think we're going to see them go at it hammer and tong until the convention," said Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democrat National Committee. "We couldn't hope for two men who offer more contrast; the war hero vs. the peace protestor, the wealthy husband of an heiress vs. the assailant of the privileged class. One backed the attack on Iraq, the other opposed it. One voted for the USA Patriot Act, the other denounces it. One supported the president's 'No Child Left Behind' education plan, the other is harshly critical of it."

Mr. McAuliffe said his main job as party chairman over the next six months is to "keep the two John Kerrys focused on attacking President Bush, rather than sniping at each other over character issues."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work over at Scrappleface.

Today, I ran across a despicable post over at Gut Rumbles. It's the sort of racist trash I'd expect to be bringing to you from a KKK forum when I was doing an edition of ACPOTI. Let me give you a few samples from this post about a fight at a basketball game....

"I saw the news clips. There wasn't a white face in the bunch. The gym was filled with black people who went totally African at the end of the game. It was a f*cking riot. I don't care whether you want to call me a racist or not, but black people cannot continue to behave as savages and be treated as free citizens in this country. We have f*cking LAWS. You can't just nut-up and go n*gger over a f*cking basketball game. The world doesn't work that way."

I hated hearing such talk when I was young. But I believe that they were right, after watching history for the past 40 years of my life."

The guy who runs this blog, Rob Smith, has been talking a lot about personal problems he has had lately and maybe somehow, someway, that explains why he put this racist garbage up on his page. But to be honest, I don't care what kind of issues you're having, there's no excuse for putting your name to this sort of white supremacist filth.

Moreover, I find it embarrassing that I've invited this cretin to participate in blogger polls & have linked his material before. But rest assured, I will NOT be repeating that mistake unless I find cause to trash Gut Rumbles again....

Hat tip to Michele Catalano at A Small Victory.

I have to tell you, I am totally unimpressed with George Bush's new campaign ads. They're nothing but generalized, fluff. Don't just take my word for it -- go look at the commercials.

In the first one, "Lead", George Bush says he knows "exactly where he wants to lead this country". Well, can you fill us in George? Is it secret or something? I know Arnold Schwarzenegger got away with being that non-specific for a while but he was a movie star running against a man so unpopular his own children probably voted against him. Bush does not have that luxury.

In the second commercial, "Tested", we hear about how we've made it through tough times and at the very end we get "President Bush -- steady leadership in times of change". What's the best way to put this...that's just LAME. The commercial is lame, that phrase is lame, the whole thing is lamealicious, lametacular, a lamea-namea-ding dong -- L-A-M-E. Trust me, the race for the Presidency is not going to be won by repeating the phrase "steady leadership in times of change" over and over.

Last but not least, we get "Safer, Stronger". Unlike the other two, this one starts out strong -- it notes that Bush started with a recession, the stock market was dropping, 9/11 hurt us -- all worthwhile things to point out. But then we get "Today, America is turning the corner," "rising to the challenge," & "safer, stronger". Yes, all of that's true. But, why did we turn the corner? Was it dumb luck? Did the market's like John Kerry's hair and hope he becomes President? Did magic prosperity leprechauns decide to help us out? No, it was because of BUSH's TAX CUTS which John Kerry wants to fritter away on useless government programs and because Bush took action against our enemies over the objections of weak kneed Jimmy Carteresque objections of people like John Kerry. This ad should have been used to verbally punch Kerry in the mouth, give people a reason to vote for Bush, or both. But in the end, it didn't accomplish anything.

If the Bush campaign is going to do ads this bereft of substance, they might as well just show George Bush sitting at his desk in the oval office rubbing a puppy's belly for 30 seconds before they finish things off with "Vote George Bush, he loves puppies!"

Come on, the Bushies have got to do a little better than this if they want to win...

An American tourist in London decides to skip his tour group and explore the city on his own.
He wanders around, seeing the sights, and occasionally stopping at a quaint pub to soak up the local culture, chat with the lads, and have a pint of Guinness.

After awhile, he finds himself in a very high class neighborhood.....big, stately residences...no pubs, no stores, no restaurants, and worst of all... NO PUBLIC RESTROOMS.

He really, really has to go, after all those Guinness's. He finds a narrow side street, with high walls surrounding the adjacent buildings and decides to use the wall to solve his problem.

As he is unzipping, he is tapped on the shoulder by a London Bobbie, who says, "I say, sir, you simply cannot do that here, you know."

"I'm very sorry, officer," replies the American, "but I really , really HAVE TO GO, and I just can't find a public restroom."

"Ah, yes," said the Bobbie..."Just follow me". He leads him to a back "delivery alley", then along a wall to a gate, which he opens.

"In there," points the Bobbie. "Whiz away,...anywhere you want."

The fellow enters and finds himself in the most beautiful garden he has ever seen. Manicured grass lawns, statuary, fountains, sculptured hedges, and huge beds of gorgeous flowers, all in perfect bloom.

Since he has the cop's blessing, he zips down and unburdens himself and is greatly relieved.

As he goes back thru the gate, he says to the Bobbie "That was really decent of you ....is that "British Hospitality ?"

"No" replied the Bobbie, with a satisfied smile on his face, "that is the French Embassy."

I found this joke over at VodkaPundit.

I'm a HUGE fan of "three strikes and you're out" legislation because it stops career criminals from walking in and out of our revolving door court system and keeps them behind bars where they belong. But of course, no matter how successful a policy is, there are always people who want to change it....

"It's been 10 years since California enacted the "three strikes" law mandating sentences of 25 years to life for repeat serious or violent offenders. But some say it's time for the no-exceptions enforcement to be loosened.

Since the three-strike policy became law, the state's crime rate has dropped almost 50 percent, despite a one-third increase in population. Critics say the law casts too wide of a net, sweeping up thousands of petty criminals and shoplifters and putting them away for decades."

I don't care if they're non-violent; if they're habitual criminals, they belong in a cage. And let's be realistic here -- if they've been caught three times, they probably managed to evade the law dozens and dozens of times before they finally slipped up and got pinched.

So how much sense does it make to let a crook out of jail who's going to make a living shoplifting or doing daylight burglaries to support his crack habit? How much time and money will the police spend investigating their crimes? What does it cost to replace the goods they steal? Most importantly, what do you say to the parents of a kid who gets raped or murdered by some thug with a record as long as your arm? "Sure, we've arrested him 15 times, but his offenses were non-violent so we thought it was OK to let him roam free?"

Let the "activists" say what they want; America would be a better place to live if we had "Three Strikes" laws in every state. The less career criminals we have on the street, the better...

I've heard a lot of people say this "Passion of the Christ" necklace looks tacky, but it's growing on me. I think I'm going to pick one of these up...

It's like wearing a cross -- only edgier! On the other hand, is it not weird to be buying "The Passion of the Christ" merchandise? I mean coffee mugs? I suppose I should be grateful there are no Jesus "Happy Meals" this time around. But just wait, next thing you know we'll have movies about David or Samson and they'll really get the merchandising going. I mean come on, a David action figure who actually fires stones from his sling at a giant, menacing, Goliath? They'd sell a bazillion of them for Christmas...

-- Frank J. from IMAO interviewed G. Gordon Liddy and it produced one of the funniest exchanges I've ever seen in an interview...

Frank: Have you ever considered a soul patch instead?

Liddy: I’m sorry; considered what?

Frank: A soul patch.

Liddy: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Frank: It’s a little bit of hair under your lower lip.

Liddy: You mean a goatee?

Frank: No, it’s just under your lower lip. A soul patch is a little hippy thing.

Liddy: Alright, I have no idea what you are talking about.

-- Jonah Goldberg, who is ambivalent about the FMA, nevertheless makes a point I've been trying to get across...

"What I don't understand is why it's a great thing for unaccountable judges to change the meaning of the Constitution without a public debate while it is some form of tyranny for the House, Senate and fifty states to debate the issue over the course of months or years under the glaring spotlight of the media."

When it comes down to radically altering the definition of marriage via judicial fiat or protecting marriage via Constitutional process, and that's what it comes down to on this issue, there is absolutely no question which path is more democratic and in line with what the Founding Fathers would have wanted.

-- Back when Howard Stern was on in Charlotte, I used to enjoy his show when I headed into work. Furthermore, I've read both of his books, liked his movie, and generally thought he was a funny, creative, and talented entertainer. That being said, there has been way too much complaining about Stern being suspended by Clear Channel for being offensive.

Clear Channel is a private company and they have every right to drop Stern if that's what they want to do to clean up their image. It's not a First Amendment issue, the government didn't make them do it, and there is no "chill wind blowing". In fact, the decency standards on radio are actually fairly lax (which suits me fine by the way). If they weren't, Stern and many of his imitators would have been fined off the air long, long, ago.

You also have to remember that there's nothing new about this in the radio world or even for Howard Stern. In fact, I suspect that all of Stern's carping on air about being censored is just shtick. Heck, Stern's movie, "Private Parts" was in part about this same sort of situation. Stern was on the air, his bosses decided he was too offensive, and then he was eventually fired because of it -- although I don't remember the movie actually showing that part.

Stern's a controversialist. He knows exactly where the line is and he deliberately dances back and forth across it to get ratings. For example, if the only thing you absolutely, positively, couldn't do on radio was say the word "moo"...this is what you'd hear from Stern every day...

Stern: Let's go to a caller...
Caller: Moo, MOO, MOOOOOOOO!
Stern: Did we beep all those out? We missed one?
Robin: That's terrible..hahahahahah!
Stern: Yeah, couldn't that guy just go to the MOOOOvies instead of calling my show?
Robin: Howard! You can't say that!
Stern: Why, it's a Mooooot point isn't it?
Robin: Oh Howard!

That helps Stern build and retain an audience, but every so often he gets fined or fired over it. That's just part of the price of doing business. But as long as Stern brings in the ratings, he'll be back. There are plenty of radio stations out there who'll be happy to bring him on board just as long as he can still make them money.

Paris - After having just recently banned the headscarf from being worn in public schools, the government of France has decided to ban the wearing of berets as well.

“Like the headscarf, the beret is a symbol of intolerance, fanaticism and extremely rank body odor,” said M. Jean-Pierre Lapin, the French Minister for Culture, Haughtiness and Rudeness. “The beret just screams ‘France’, and right now being overtly French is bad for business, especially in the all-important American market."”

In order to stimulate the lagging French economy, the government has begun distribution of 40 million New York Yankees baseball caps and 30 million Roy Rogers Genuine 10-Gallon cowboy hats.

In related news, the French Interior Ministry announced today that anyone caught wearing a beret in public will be subject to a fine of € 10,000 and will be forced to watch Gerard Depardieu films non-stop for 48 hours.

If you enjoyed this satire by William Grim, you can read more of his work at Broken News.

You've just gotta read these quotes from Senator Flip flop about Haiti...

"Kerry (D-Mass.) said he would have sent troops to Haiti even without international support to quell the revolt against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

"I would intervene with the international community, and absent an international force, I'd do it unilaterally," he said, adding the most important thing was to protect democracy."

Good grief! Kerry spent the length of the Democratic primaries complaining that it was wrong to take out a psychotic, anti-American monster who had WMD programs going, supported terrorism, brutalized his people, defied the US, etc, etc, etc, because "Egads man, the French and Germans don't approve!" But then along comes Haiti, a backwards, inconsequential, basket case of a nation that is practically irrelevant to our national interests, and suddenly John Kerry doesn't care who likes it and who doesn't, he just can't wait to get in there and prop up a corrupt, illegitimate, thug who's hated by his own people. What's wrong with Kerry? What's wrong with the Dem's foreign policy?

They just don't get it. Just listen to Representative Kendrick B. Meek...

"The problem for Haiti is that it's not oil-rich," said Representative Kendrick B. Meek, the Florida Democrat whose Miami district is home to the largest Haitian immigrant community in the United States. "It's a people of African descent. And they're not campaign contributors. I hate to say that, but I believe if the people's circumstances were different, I think they'd see a very different reaction from this administration."

The fact that they're black has nothing to do with it one way or the other and that's the way it should be (more on that coming in this post). But, it's also correct to say that they're "not oil-rich" & that they're "not campaign contributors". We could also add that they're not friends, they're not allies, they're not economically or strategically important -- in short, we have no interests in Haiti. So given that, why should we get involved? Haiti is not our problem.

I also find this sort of sentiment to be insulting and juvenile...

"Bill Fletcher Jr., head of the TransAfrica Forum, a policy group focusing on African and Caribbean issues, was particularly critical of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's role in pursuing the Bush administration's policy on Haiti. Fletcher said black officials should not have expected Powell to urge the administration to move more forcefully in Haiti simply because he is black.

"We have to stop believing," Fletcher said. "We have to stop thinking that Colin Powell wants to do the right thing. If the brother wanted to do the right thing, he would have resigned."

So now your race is supposed to determine your opinion on foreign policy? The left and right should be united in ripping Fletcher up one side and down the other for his comments. We have absolutely no business, none whatsoever, making foreign policy decisions based on the race of the people we're dealing with and that should be something that even Democrats, unserious as they are about foreign policy, should be able to comprehend. But don't hold your breath waiting for the left to get a clue about this.

Last but not least, as thanks for saving Aristide's bacon, we've been accused of kidnapping him,

"President Jean-Bertrand Aristide asserted Monday that he had been driven from power in Haiti by the United States in "a coup," an allegation dismissed by the White House as "complete nonsense."

Mr. Aristide, who relayed his accusation by telephone from the Central African Republic to news organizations and members of Congress, contended that he had been kidnapped and forced to leave Haiti at gunpoint."

So there you have it. There's the great statesman that the Democrats are just dying to protect. But as Congressman Mark Foley (R-Florida) correctly pointed out,

"Conspiracy theories may be entertaining, but Haiti would be better served if people stuck to the truth. And the truth is that President Aristide realized he had to go. He was either leaving on a Learjet or in a casket. He chose the jet."

Don't we have better things to do with our troops than trying to fix a mess like Haiti? The Democrats say "no", I say "yes".

Washington, DC — Personal liability lawyer and Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards announced today that he is bringing a lawsuit against everyone who doesn’t vote for him during this election cycle. In his lawsuit filed just two hours ago in the Federal District Court of Northern Virginia, Edwards states that American citizens who vote for other candidates are “depriving plaintiff of constitutionally protected freedoms and are engaging ipso facto in restraint of trade. Such actions constitute a tort against plaintiff by depriving him of his livelihood as an overpaid and underworked public servant.”

Edwards is asking for compensatory and punitive damages “in excess of $180 million,” the amount of money and fringe benefits he would stand to realize from eight years as president and 25 years of retirement. Additionally, Edwards is asking for $120 million to compensate for lost royalties and fees from presidential memoirs, speaking engagements and lobbying contracts.

Political experts and court watchers are divided on the lawsuit’s chances of success. Spokespersons for former presidential candidates George McGovern and Walter Mondale said the two men would have no comment on the matter unless it is successful, in which case they will file similar lawsuits and claim it was their idea all along

If you enjoyed this satire by William Grim, you can see more of his work at Broken Newz.

As promised, here are the best quotes from the eminently quotable Donald Rumsfeld...(Cont)

***Update #1***: These were actually released late Friday night and would soon be dropping off of the page. But, I didn't want anyone who doesn't read the page on the week-ends to miss these quotes. So, I'm reposting them today. Enjoy...

Long ago, when I first heard about Mel Gibson's movie -- then simply called "The Passion" -- I can't say that I was all that interested in seeing it. I mean a movie about Jesus that was in Aramaic & Latin? At the time I was hearing that the film wasn't even going to have subtitles! So I can't say that I was actually looking forward to the movie and that must have been true for most people since Mel Gibson had an incredibly difficult time even finding a distributor for the film.

So what changed? How did a movie that seemed destined to fail at the box office before being shunted off the "foreign films" section at Blockbuster end up making more than 100 million dollars in its first 5 days on screen? Well, interestingly enough, Gibson owes a lot of his success to the Anti-Defamation League's absolutely hysterical bleating about anti-Semitism in the film. The louder the ADL shrieked, the more time Gibson got to go on TV and defend his movie and the more prominent conservatives and church leaders Gibson was able to persuade see the film so they could judge for themselves. And not only did the reviewers say the movie wasn't anti-semitic, they said this was a magnificent film that for the most part attempted to stay true to the Scriptures. In a time when Christians are used to being mocked by movies like "Dogma" & "The Last Temptation of Christ," I think a lot of people are grateful to find a flick that takes Christianity seriously. So you have a film that doesn't sneer at Christians, that's getting great reviews and that is tremendously controversial because of the anti-Semitism charges. No wonder it has done so well at the box office.

Personally, I wanted to see if the movie lived up to the hype, so I caught the film in a packed theater here in Charlotte this week-end. And what did I think about the movie?

Well, first off, although some people may disagree with this characterization, I think "The Passion Of The Christ" must be understood as a movie made by a Christian for other Christians. By that, I mean that this movie focuses on the last 12 hours of Christ's life with very little backstory. So if you don't already understand what's happening -- and I'd say even "buy into" what's happening -- you're not going to be seeing the same movie as someone who does.

For example, many people have pointed out -- quite correctly -- that this is a horrifically violent movie. In fact, I'd compare it to movies like "Kill Bill: Vol 1," "House of a Thousand Corpses," "Dead-Alive," & "Saving Private Ryan" when it comes to the amount of blood and gore you're going to see. However, I would also note that there is a difference between the violence in say "Kill Bill: Vol 1" & "Saving Private Ryan". In one movie, you're treated to gratuitous bloodletting that serves no other purpose than to titillate. In the other, you're seeing violence with meaning. In "Saving Private Ryan," Spielburg is trying to get across that in a real war, somebody doesn't just grab their chest and go "Argh ya got me" and then fall over dead. They take nightmarish wounds, they have arms blown off, they're blasted into chunks. That's why some people might not have a problem taking a kid to see "Saving Private Ryan" although they'd never consider taking that same child to see "House of a Thousand Corpses".

In this case, savage beatings and scourgings that would be little more than depraved violence in another context, are moving because they're being inflicted on Jesus. The message is, "This horror, this terrible agony that you can barely endure watching on the screen, was what Jesus endured for your sake, so you could be saved." Personally, I choked up several times watching the movie -- it was that powerful.

As far as anti-Semitism goes, there was none in the movie. That's not to say that all Jews are portrayed as "good guys" in the movie, because they're not. But the portrayal of the Philistines as "bad guys" who pressured a reluctant Pontius Pilate into crucifying Jesus seemed to me to be entirely consistent with what I was taught in Sunday School. According to the Bible, the Pharisees and the Jewish mob were not mere bystanders watching the Romans persecute Christ. To the contrary, they demanded Christ's death and they got it. So to be honest, I'd have to say that the people who are crying "anti-Semitism" seem to have a problem with the Bible itself, not Mel Gibson.

On top of that, as I mentioned, not all Jews are portrayed negatively in the film. There are Pharisees who protest that Jesus is being treated unfairly, random Jews who speak up for Jesus, Veronica wipes Christ's face, and Simon who helped Jesus carry the cross comes across quite well to filmgoers. In fact, you could even make the case that the Romans, many of whom were so sadistic that they reminded me more of orcs from JR Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy than human beings, were depicted far more negatively than the Jews.

Moreover, for those who are concerned about this movie negatively impacting people's perceptions of Jews, Christ's message in the Bible and in Gibson's film is not one of anger, but one of forgiveness for all mankind. One can have no doubt that the same Jesus who told Peter to drop his weapon and then healed the ear of a wounded Roman soldier who had come to capture him and take him to his death would disapprove of anti-Semitism in the strongest of terms. Furthermore, how could anyone believe that the same Jesus Christ who cried, "Forgive them father, they know not what they do" from the cross would sanction persecuting Jews? Of course, he wouldn't.

However, we do need to keep things in perspective. Jews have in the past been persecuted because of "Passion plays" and since the ADL has spent months trying to make this movie sound like some sort of anti-Jewish propaganda flick (I hope the publicity they received was worth the enormous hit their credibility is taking), I can understand why some Jews would be concerned about this film. But personally, I don't think Jews have anything to worry about. I just don't see anyone walking out of this movie hating Jews who didn't hate them going in.

Well, that covers the controversy around the movie, but what about the movie itself? I have very few quibbles about what was done on the screen. Satan was a bit of an...odd looking character, but I suppose that beats a giant CGI creation with horns and cloven hooves. I'd also say Gibson may have gone just a wee bit overboard on the sadism of the Romans that I mentioned before and with the wounds inflicted on Christ. By the time Jesus was crucified, I'm not sure there was a square inch of his body that wasn't covered with some sort of cut, bruise, or abrasion. Of course, I'm not an expert on flogging or the severity of beatings that the Romans gave under those circumstances, but still a touch, just a touch, less gore would have been better in my opinion.

But those are relatively minor issues when measured against the riveting, heart rending film that Gibson has brought to life and the screen. From start to finish, you cannot tear your eyes away despite the fact that you know what's coming for the most part. To see the pain of Peter after he denies Christ, Judas paying the price for his betrayal, and Mary witnessing the horrors done to her son, is just...I don't know exactly how to express it...but it has an effect that's deeply personal and hard to explain. In any case, this is an unforgettable movie and I'd say it's a must see film for any Christian. I would call it a must see film for everyone, but for reasons I've addressed earlier in the review, I don't know if the movie will have the same impact on people who are not Christians. Judging by a lot of the reviews I've seen, I'd have to guess that it doesn't. So keep that in mind, but my review is thumbs, way, way, up on this one.