The constitution protects and allows a President to seek confidential advice - it’s referred to as Executive Privilege. The theory being that if all conversations the President had were public domain, it may hamper the President from getting candid advice from industry experts.

I think we can all agree that is proper and appropriate for the President to have that right. So why is everyone angry over Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force?

The contention is that the Energy Task Force was comprised solely of energy corporation executives, and they could have been trying to create a policy that was self-serving. Even if they weren’t, the appearance does not lead one to think that a big oil Vice President and energy executives would have created a policy with tough environmental standards and fair pricing for the American people. Ken Lay from Enron was on the task force, and we all know how honest he is. The report even reads like it was nothing more than a big corporate lap dance.

So when the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch asked for a copy of meeting attendance records and meeting minutes, Dick Cheney said no and invoked Executive Privilege and generally seems to be acting like he doesn’t understand what all the hubbub is about.

I can sum it up in one sentence. The commission, full of energy executives, could have led to an energy policy that was not in the general public interest. And if you don’t understand that simple issue, you should not be Vice President, Mr. Cheney.

Evidently, separating church and state is like separating conjoined twins that share a heart - it can’t be done.

The Supreme Court is now regularly releasing audio transcripts of oral argument in “big” cases, like the one taking place now with Dick Cheney and his Energy Task Force.

Well, if you listen to this audio, you can hear that the session opens with prayer.

Do they use the Bible in determining judgments, too? If so, then I hope they remember that if you steal a man’s ass (think donkey, you pervert), you can be stoned. I wonder what the punishment is if you steal a man’s 401k, or send people to war for corporate profits…

Our distaste for the abomination that is George W. Bush is evident. Too bad we can’t have a recall vote for a guy we never elected anyway. All that aside, this little video gives you a nice glimpse at Bush’s obliviously elitist attitude.

Watch the Movie

Now that’s the kind of man of the people that I want to entrust my security, money, and future to. This buffoon needs to be overthrown. Maybe China should do to us what we did to Iraq and overthrow our leader under the guise of Weapons of Mass Dumbass.

There is a campaign controversy brewing — this one being one of the most phony I’ve seen in a long time. John Kerry evidently stated in 1971 that he, along with many veterans that protested the war, gave back the medals they earned while in combat. But over the past few years, he has denied discarding any of his medals.

This is controversy enough for the media, which is beginning to skewer the democratic nominee at any sniff of a “flip-flop.”

This is crazy on a few different levels. First, when has being against the Vietnam War ever been looked upon as bad? We have all heard the stories of vet’s being spit in the airports as they came home because they happened to be wearing their military uniforms. The media is now treating John Kerry with a “how dare you” attitude because he protested the war when he returned the US. So what?

This also brings me to my frustration with John Kerry — his inability or is it his unwillingness to engage in tough language.

The issue could be solved very quickly and Kerry would get more respect if he addressed the media like this, “At least I went when I was called and I earned those medals. I still remember the sound of a mine blowing my boat and my men out from under me so I’ll do with my medals as I damn well please. President Bush, you didn’t even show up for your physical at that National Guard, so keep your mouth shut on this issue.”

In case you are keeping score along with us, three countries are now pulling out of Iraq:

Spain
Honduras
Dominican Republic

Add to the mix that Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “Why shouldn’t we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?”

He then said that restoring compulsory military service would force “our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face.”

You know what would have helped us “understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face”?

The Truth. Pretty simple. If you hadn’t lied to us before the war about the reasons for going to war, maybe you’d have a more sympathetic country supporting you.

“Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class,” Senator Hagel pointed out. Yes, that’s right. Because rich people don’t go to war, right Dubbya? And they still won’t go to war if there is a draft, because we saw how many son’s of millionaries fought Vietnam.

With news of several coutnerfeiting occurrences in my local paper, medical bills piling up, and my incessant need to collect comics, I’ve been pondering the nature of money and value in our society. What’s the real issue with counterfeit money? If no one ever finds out that it’s counterfeit, doesn’t it have the same value as a real bill?

In other words, if I make a counterfeit $20 and pass it. The person who I give it to passes it as well. Say this happens 20 more times. For those 20 people, that bill had a value of $20, regardless of whether it was real or not.

It all falls back on the supposed idea that the government has enough gold and silver to back up every dollar on the planet. Well, seeing as how about 40% of US bills are outside of the country, the government doesn’t even own enough storage for the gold they would need.

So, my point is that money only has the value that we all agree it has and if we all agreed, knowingly or not, that my fake $20 was worth $20 in goods or services then it is in fact, true.

Without getting into the string of events that caused our forums to dive… we have them fixed up and back online. We are still tweaking them cosmetically, but all is well.

Hop in the fun!

I’ve always thought this was the best way to fix a PC.

Washington has been arguing over campaign finance reform for years. It pops up from time to time, especially during election years like so many other topics that politicians talk about, but never actually attempt to fix.

But let’s be honest with ourselves about something first. We, as American tax paying citizens, know jack squat about campaign finance. The average person likely doesn’t know who even enforces enforce that set of vague, ill-defined campaign finance laws (see endnote).

But the truth really is that the laws, like so many in Washington, are too complicated to be effective. And what they really lack is just some common sense.

I’m going to avoid a conspiracy theory here, and not suggest that maybe they were written to be complex on purpose - so that each side can easily find and create loopholes. But like I say, I’m not going to suggest that.

As a voter, I am disillusioned when I think that Washington will sort this out. Isn’t that like asking casino owners in Las Vegas to write gambling laws? Or asking big oil companies to define our energy policy. Oh wait, the Bush administration did do that last one.

Both parties don’t want to touch campaign finance law too much because it’s what keeps their pockets lined. Unless one party thinks the other is getting a better deal, neither party really cares to make a campaign finance law that really works, is clear, understandable and fair to everyone.

Once again it is left up to us llamas to chart the plan. And a simple plan it is. It will keep campaigns fair and even, and best of all, level the field for the little guy with little money.

The gist of the plan is this: there is one master bank account for both campaigns. All money donated to either campaign gets deposited to the one account, and each candidate gets 50% of the money.

Example, if the racist institution Bob Jones University (see endnote), who normally gives more than a few greenbacks to Republicans, gives the President Bush Reelection Campaign $100,000, then it does not go to George W., rather the “master fund” that divides the money in half, and each candidate gets $50,000.

It has many effects. One, it keeps one super-rich, super-connected candidate from amassing a giant war chest against a poorer candidate. A poorer candidate would never be able to compete. Simply, more money for advertising could bury the other guy. It gives the guy with fewer connections the ability to play on a level field.

It would remove the suggestion that certain organization “buy” candidates by donating huge sums of money. Mircosoft could never “buy” influence in exchange for favor by getting anti-trust lawsuits thown out by Ashcroft, because half the money would be going to the guy Bill Gates would never support, the Democrat. Now, there is an ancillary argument that this would allow a big company, like say an energy company could “buy” both candidates in one fell swoop. But do you think George W. Bush would listen to anything MoveOn.org would ask for, or would Kerry agree to the conservative stances of Bob Jones University?

One way to ensure both candidates don’t get tainted is to keep the contributions anonymous. Yes, that right, the AFL-CIO union would not be able to tell any candidate they actually donated. Of course, that presents a danger in that keeping such a thing private removes the finances from public scrutiny. Personally, I favor full disclosure and up to the minute reporting on all fundraising.

The concept is elegant in its simplicity. Whenever any presidential candidate has a fundraiser they are technically also fund raising for the competition. So if John Kerry is at an AFL-CIO fundraiser, patrons do not write checks to the John Kerry Campaign, but rather to a single Presidential Election Campaign. This PEC would then see to it the money is divided 50/50.

Simple, eh?

Endnote 1:
The Federal Election Commision. In 1975, Congress created the FEC to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. They are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections. The FEC is made up of six members, 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Endnote 2:
Yes, I called Bob Jones University racists. I don’t use the term lightly, either. Bob Jones University does not allow interracial dating, which is the modern day equivalent of, “keepin dem black boys away froms our white women.” Not only is this racist but also I always wondered why feminist organizations have not criticized this. What does this say about women? That they are not intelligent enough to decide whom to fall in love with? The conservative institutions have to make that decision for women now? Isn’t that like telling women they can’t make the choice of what to do with their own wombs? Oh, wait a minute, I think I see a pattern here…