WHERE IN THE WORLD IS MATT LAUER'S BRAIN?

Matt Lauer interviewed Disgraced Senator Craig this week which aired on NBC Tuesday night. While daring to ask Senator craig if admitting that being gay would be 'an awful thing to have to admit', Senator craig responded carefully "It is a lifestyle that I do not agree with." Assuming just for a moment that Senator Craig really is perfectly stright and the Minneapolis airport bathroom incident really was just a bizarre misunderstood interaction, I want to call the good Senator out (since Matt Lauer didn't do his job effectievly) on what he means by '(gay) lifestyle'. Homosexuals, tolerant heterosexuals as well, are getting pretty tired of this illigitimate term being used by intolerant bigots and not being called out on it. There is no such thing as a 'gay lifestyle'! I challenge anybody to name 2 things that constitute a 'gay lifestyle'. Likewise, I throw down the gauntlet for someone to describe an all inclusive 'heterosexual lifestyle'. 'Having sex with someone of the opposite sex' (something not even all heterosexuals are lucky enough to partake in) hardly constitutes a 'lifestyle'. There is not one single lifestyle practice into which one can categorize every homosexual or heterosexual! Hence, no 'lifestyle'. If Senator Craig wants to be fair and accurate (assuming he won't start with being honest and open about his bisexual practices) then he (and all other closed minded bigots) can say they don't agree with the practice of 'same sex sex' and leave it at that. And Mr. Lauer, I have the same advice for you that I have for President Bush: Do Your Damn Homework!

A CRITICAL MISCONCEPTION (aka: the irony continues)

I want to back off the previous post just a tad (just a wee bit mind you). I was rather impressed with President Bush's public praise for The Dalai Lama yesterday at The Congressional Gold Medal Ceremony. His bringing to front stage China's childish and short sighted stance of deeming The Dalai Lama an agitator and separatist, I felt, was a difficult yet morally and politically proper, if not courageous, moment of his tenure. I did care to bring up one tiny inaccuracy regarding his introduction to the Buddhist leader however. A phrase used to describe him that probably went unnoticed and certainly unchallenged by nearly everyone in attendance. President Bush referred to The Dalai Lama as 'a man of faith'. Of course, such a description immediately caught my attention and began to make my blood boil, not unlike a majority of what Bush says in public. Faith is defined as "To believe without reason; Believing impulsively, or believing based upon social traditions or personal hopes" also "a belief in one or more deities". I want to call this misstatement about The Dalai Lama, and subsequently Buddhism in general, out so as not to perpetuate such a myth. Buddhism is not a religion. Seeing that Buddhism does not discuss in the least bit even the conception of 'god' (a prerequisite for a 'religion'), it is not a theism. It holds no stance what-so-ever regarding the existence of god. No more so than does the commonly repeated 'golden rule' (also often misapplied as a 'verse'). Buddhism has nothing to do with faith. In fact, quite the opposite. What stands Buddhism apart from 'religion' is the fact that it dissects faith and actually holds it as a potentially dangerous and debilitating practice. Buddha himself went so far as to say, repeatedly, that not one of his followers should take any of his teachings as truth without first putting his teachings into practice and seeing first hand for themselves if they hold them to be true on their own accord. Something no 'religion' does. Buddhism is contra-faith, to make up a word (presidential candidate Stephen Colbert can make up the word 'truthiness' then I can take creative license too! - Colbert '08!). To believe in something without reason or evidence is illogical. Anyway, the gist of this post is to point out that in trying to compliment His Holiness by referring to him as a 'man of faith' President Bush in fact described him with words that are in complete contrast to who he really is and what he stands for. That President Bush is blissfully unaware of this dichotomy is perhaps more troubling than the inaccurate description in the first place. It certainly shows he, nor his advisers or speech writers (if applicable in this case) did any true homework into the person that was receiving the highest award given to a civilian by the U.S. government.

IRONY IN AIR, TOO THICK... CAN'T BREATH!

The Dalai Lama is in D.C. this week to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. Yesterday he met with President Bush. The White House quickly announced that it would not release an official photo of the meeting. It is presumed that the decision was made because they wanted to avoid upsetting China as much as possible. (China denounces all meetings between the Dalai Lama and any head of state because they view him as an enemy of the state, an agitator and a separatist). You see, China invaded the sovereign country of Tibet in 1950 and The Dalai Lama (Tibet's leader) escaped capture and went into exile in India where his primary residence remains today. Throughout his life he has fought peacefully for the return of his country and freedom for his exploited people. He has insisted on using only diplomatic methods to achieve these goals. In 1989 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent practices and for refusing to take up arms against China, the naked aggressor of his country. So I find it just a tad ironic (just a wee bit, mind you) that President Bush, a man who can be held directly responsible for breaking international law and the cause of death of 3000+ plus of his countrymen, wants to avoid being associated with a man who has dedicated his life to peaceful resistance of naked aggression. Certainly Bush doesn't want to taint his reputation any further. He must be mindful of with whom he is seen publicly. He needs to stay close with Dick Cheney and others who fabricated blatant untruths of Iraq's WMD status in order to justify invading the country and toppling it's government. Since The White House refused to release a photo of the meeting (in order to appease the government of the occupying country) I decided to release this one. I think it is much more appropriate and makes much more sense in the grand scheme of things.

I'M SMARTER THAN THAT 'BRO' (and all the other bros defending him)

You've all seen the video so I won't bother linking it or briefing you with the details... A bit of advice: Anyone who decides to become unruly and disruptive while a U.S. Senator is in the room then refuses to cooperate with police as they try to escort him out, that person is going to get tazered! Plain and simple. End of story. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Andrew Meyer was looking for his 15 minutes of fame. He found it. Anyone who thinks he was treated unfairly is as idiotic as he is. It's a damn shame the police have to be put on paid leave while a state investigation is conducted into the way the matter was handled. Now a group of students want tazers banned from school campus? Is this the same group of students who complained that VT campus police should have done more to protect students last spring? What do they suggest police carry with them while on campus? Guns that can obliterate vital organs? Billy clubs that can break bones and cause brain damage? Mace that will have everyone within a 10 foot radius vomitting uncontrollably? Or a tazer that leaves a welt on 1 person and hurts like hell for 5 seconds until he is subdued? You want police present to protect you when danger is present but not a nano-second before? You all should run for president. You're as short sighted as our current one!

SAY SOMETHING MEANINGFUL

Say anything meaningful!! Bush took a tour of the Minneapolis bridge collapse yesterday. Always the able statesman, he had a prepared statement ready for the press. A statement meant to highlight his understanding of what has happened and what needs to be done. A statement designed to demonstrate his deep and insightful take on the tragedy, yet to offer a positive outlook on us as a nation. "There was a man on the bridge when it collapsed. He immediately went to a schoolbus nearby where he heard screaming children to help bring them to safety." He paused to let the press catch up with his deep thoughts. "Ya know, it's an amazing country we live in where someone's instinct... someone's first instinct is to help save lives." When I first heard this I rolled my eyes (a now involuntary reaction whenever I hear his voice). It is sad that he thinks this type of reaction is somehow distinctive or uniquely American. On a hunch I went to CNN.com and looked at today's headline Iraq story. Here is a quote from an Iraqi citizen who had been near some bombs that The U.S. dropped on a target yesterday... "Shrapnel hit my front window ... then two explosions took place," said minibus driver Ali Abdul-Karim, 28. "Other drivers and I ran fast toward the sound of the explosions, to help evacuate the victims." Apparently Iraq is an amazing country too, since saving lives is obviously their first instinct. I would wager that the people of Iran are similarly amazing... and Egypt, and Mexico, Lybia, Cuba, Pakistan, Argentina, Sudan, Bulgaria, China, Panama, Lithuania, Turkey, Syria, Brazil, Japan, Germany, Korea, Philipines, Congo, Chad, Mayanmar, Kenya, Burma, Tanzania, Poland, India, Malaysia...* I can see the average-joe-U.S.-citizen thinking that another average-joe instinctively helping out injured victims is somehow unique to our country and therefor 'amazing'. But The Commander and Chief should have a slightly better idea of what mindsets, values and 'instincts' people from other countries have... particularly those with whom we're at war! How does an educated, world traveled statesman honestly become amazed with human behavior so common it happens every minute around every corner of the globe? More spectacular to me is that we live in a country where The President's first instinct is to make sure that no one in his administration ever be incarcerated for crimes against the state... wait... now that I think about, I guess that's not so amazing after all. I mean every dictator in the world protects his inner circle by bypassing the courts. *I can hear Bush now saying "Heh heh, this Bricotrout guy sure makes up some funny names for countries! Put a wire tap on him."

ANOTHER TESTIMONIAL

Last night Anderson Cooper interviewed Dr. Richard Carmona, U.S. Surgeon General for the Bush administration until last year. The job of the Surgeon General is to give expert advice and professional facts to the administration on all issues of public health so that The President can be well informed in making decisions on everything from disease control, to health eduction in the public schools (and all things in between). Earlier that day Dr. Carmona spoke to a congressional committee on problems he saw from his tenure with the Bush administration. It was not pretty. This is a quick excerpt from his conversation later with Anderson Cooper. The entire transcript can be found here. COOPER: Former surgeon generals have said that this administration put greater restraints on surgeon generals than any time in the past. Do you think that's true? CARMONA: This is the most partisan we have ever seen government, and it's the most marginalization that we have seen pushed on a surgeon general in the history of this nation. And that's not my opinion. That's coming collectively from my predecessors who watched my tenure. Reading the transcripts from Anderson Cooper 360 and hearing his testimony on The Hill yesterday, it is flat out scary how The Bush Administration has been more concerned about pursuing it's ideologies and agendas than it is about listening to The Surgeon General's professional advice on matters of public health. From issues of stem cell research, teaching condom use vs. abstinence in high school, to clean needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of AIDS. In each one of these issues (and countless more) the good doctor has been ignored, chastised, silenced and ridiculed for making stances that serve the best health interests of this country. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has made the exact opposite stances on all of these issues than what a doctor at the very top of his field knows to be sound and logical health policies. And as Dr. Carmona states, this is not his biased oppinion. This is the oppinion of 4 previous Surgeon Generals, including C. Everett Coop, one of the most respected Surgeon generals before and since he served for The Reagan Administration. At least we're all getting a thorough rectal exam from the administration in the meantime.

SERIOUSLY... WHO DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING?

The old adage "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." has never been more applicable. Scooter Libby's 30 month prison sentence for several counts of obstruction to justice and lying to a Grande Jury was commuted by President Bush on Monday. Not a full pardon, commuting his sentence seems to be a political compromise for Bush between the conservative hardliners and... well, everyone else in America. Libby will still be on probation for 2 years and still have to pay a fine of $250K. The ability to grant pardons and commute sentences is pretty much the only unchecked power a sitting president has. All other actions or decisions have to be concurred by Congress or The Supreme Court in some fashion (the other is the ability to declare war... anyone on an irony overload with that one?!) Bush told the American people 2 years ago that whoever in his administration was found to have leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's identity (a covert - yes, it has been officially confirmed that she was indeed a covert - CIA operative) to the press would be fired and face prosecution. Apparently what Bush failed to tell the American people was that he had no intention of letting that administrative official actually serve time. I guess we just should have seen that as a given. Bush used the word 'excessive' to describe the court's sentencing of Libby as the reason to commute his sentence when explaining his controversial decision to the press yesterday. However, the Federal Judge who presided over Libby's case and levied the sentence was appointed by Bush Sr., is known as a true conservative and has a flawless history of following the letter of the law when sentencing. Bush has long touted the importance for Federal Judges to stay within federal guidelines in sentencing, which is exactly what this judge did. Conservatives who are standing beside Bush on this decision were united in their voice 9 years ago that Clinton be reprimanded according to the same federal guidelines for lying to a Grande Jury aka 'perjury'. And he was. And his impeachment (yes, he was impeached, he was not removed from office which is a separate action) was deserved in my opinion. However, Giulianni, Fred Thompson, McCain, and Mitt Romney all now agree that federal sentencing guidelines are not fair in this situation. This scenario has now provided me with an impeccable litmus test for presidential candidates vying for my vote. I now know that Giulianni, Fred Thompson, McCain, and Mitt Romney will not be getting my vote come Tuesday Nov 4th, 2008. Finally, There have long been federal guidelines (granted, not laws) for a sitting president to follow (penned by The Justice Department early in this country's history) when pardoning one found guilty of federal crimes. One of those guidelines has been for The President to wait until at least most, if not all, of the convicted's sentence has been served. Bush seems to feel those federal guidelines (like bothersome sections of The Constsitution) are mere words that he can't be bothered by. As one observer put it "Bush seems to have all but given up on preserving the legacy of this administration for all of history". Funny thing is, I uttered a similar phrase hours earlier. It went something like "Man, he just doesn't give a shit anymore does he?" Folks, clearly Bush has adopted a 'run out the clock scenario' on his presidency. One would be hard pressed to counter the observation that this is not an administration "of the people, by the people, for the people". I repeat... If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

KNOW YOUR PRESIDENT ('s mindset)

This week President Bush received subpoenas from the House and Senate requesting documents on the firings of several U.S. attorneys last year. What do you think The President's response was on Thursday? Did he? A) Tell his staff to organize and collect the relevant documents and have them immediately sent to the proper authorities in a timely manner? B) Come to the podium and confess that the eight Attorneys General firings were indeed of a political (and illegal) motive and appologize to the American People for his and his staff's unethical behavior? C) Ask Roberto Gonzalez to tender his resignation so that the entire matter could be put to rest and the Justice Department could move back to it's important business? or D) Announce that he was going to blatantly defy the subpoenas, in effect telling The House and Senate (and American people) that it once again feels it is above the law and has no interest in participating in the Constitutional system of checks and balances? The answer: Tune in tomorrow (if your brainless ass didn't already figure it out)

KNOW YOUR MASS MURDERERS

Do you know your history? Wanna take a trivia challenge? In the comments, name the 4 individuals above and match them to the senseless mass murder scenes below for which they are responsible. Extra credit: Name the countries the individuals are from; the approximate dates of the crimes; the nation(s) against whom the crimes were committed; and how these criminals met justice. Pencils up... Good luck... You may begin.