These lips are made for talking, and that's just what they'll do, and one of these days these lips are gonna slobber all over you ....

eee-- yuk !!

"It's vile, it's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

--- Former Republican Congressman Mark Foley's comments made on 9/12/98 in regards to Kenneth Starr's report on President Bill Clinton.

If you haven't been awake over the last week, Florida Congress critter Mark Foley, was busted writing explicit emails to several teenage male pages asking to see their underwear, mentioning desires to see them without clothes.

Here and also here are the fair and accurate summaries of the story -- if you haven't been paying attention.

Now this is also the same Congressman who was known as a vehement organizer to protect children from child molesters (read the links above.) But since poor ole Mark Foley is a drunk going to rehab, surely we can forgive him for being a closeted homosexual child molester. Surely it must be that bad ole alcohol problem that is responsible, not Mark Foley.

The whole god damn Republican leadership knew about this for how long? Seven to Eight months! Were they going to do anything? This is the same Republican party that organized to foist Jeffrey Gannon as a reporter from a fake internet news service, when he was just a gay pimp double-timing at white house press conferences tossing out loaded questions.

Oh and why did ex-CIA (some would say interim) head Porter Goss and the 2nd in command -- Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo -- suddenly resign when it was revealed that a limosine company was bringing legislators to hotel rooms where there were poker games and prostitutes?

click me baby, pull-ease AND click me too.

This thing has legs. Will the press dig? I hear a sudden celebrity court case looming in the not too distant future.

The television media is all top down. That is the entire televised experience is controlled or overseen by a small group of managers and producers. The opposite of top down management is bottom up management; that is, all information comes from a multiplicity of sources, and decisions by the group are based upon the free awareness of these multiple sources. A top down management system would inherently filter the sources and would also "dress up" the presentation because the information which becomes televised always pass through the oversight by the small group of managers and producers.

So when newspapers and television stations become owned by the same company, whose interest is served? Currently media companies can control 40 percent of any local market. Why should they control that much? How come there isn't a law that mandates every media company must be independent and not conglomerated into hundreds and thousands under the management system of a larger corporation? The television station in San Francisco should not be under the same management system of the one in Oakland, or Los Angeles or Sacramento --- or New York or Seattle or Boston or .... Media companies do not have to conglomerate to become profitable, they only do so because the profits can become astronomical at the same time that the content can be micro-managed.

This micro-management is however not beneficial for a democracy, which only flourishes under a bottom-up type of management system. In my opinion, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act should be enacted upon all these media conglomerates. They should all be broken apart and sold, just like what was done to Standard Oil in the early 1900's and AT&T in the latter 1970's and early 80's.

This is actually a conservative -- not a liberal or radical -- position. The point is to conserve our democracy, and the only way to do so is to break apart the anti-democratic forces in our society. Don't let the talking heads hi-jack the true meaning of the word conservative. Conserve means to preserve, or to believe that changes to the original principle are not always beneficial to the principle at all.

And in this case, in order to preserve our democracy, we must ensure that everyone has a way to express their viewpoint, and that all news is presented equally. With the top down management system, this is an inherently impossible result. So we are forced to conclude that in order to preserve our democracy, we must therefore take the action of breaking up and selling the media conglomerates.

Gold, Silver are not inherently valuable. They are valuable because people buy gold and silver. When paper money was backed by gold and silver, the paper was not any less or more valuable, nor any less or more secure. The only difference was that there was a 2nd layer to the exchange rates between currency.

Currency is valuable when the world economy uses currency in the market exchange. Your money is not valuable in the world economy because your nation doesn't produce or sell valuable commodities. Making the currency backed by Gold and Silver does not make a currency more or less valuable in and of itself.

For instance, the US Dollar is the currency used on the Petroleum oil exchange, and so any nation that wants oil has to buy dollars in order to place bids on the Petroleum market. This demand for dollars creates a need for dollars which gives dollars value. If the petroleum markets were denominated in Euro's or Yen, then the demand for dollars would decrease, and the exchange rates would plummet. This would still occur if dollars were backed by Gold and Silver, and in fact, would be much worse, because then US Treasury would be further obliged to buy Gold and Silver in order to sustain the changing exchange rates.

This is why the world went off the gold standard -- it was too damn costly, and too subject to speculative bubbles, because drops or rises in currency involved mandatory purchases of gold and silver which are measured in other markets.

Most of life is sheer attitude. You find yourself in situations you can't change, you happen upon a streak of bad luck, but nevertheless no matter what you do the events will still occur as they did occur. But your attitude, your will, does not have to change, because who and what you are does not change unless you permit yourself to change.

Now if you decide upon a course of action and then suffer the consequences, your decision does have the power of change, because you will forever have to acknowledge the choice and the consequences. This is different from external events, or matters that do not originate from your own decisions. When events result from the consequences of our own decisions we do not have the option of attitude, because we are forever tied to the linkages that led to the events and so therefore we must always reflect or protect against these realizations. Sometimes this leads us to blame others or form some rigid moral paradigm through which everything must be judged.

Events that are random do not engender this type of psychology. Which makes me wonder, is all of human irrationality really just based upon the evolution of some decision or set of decisions made in response to certain events?

Day one : put into 40 degree Fahrenheit room, walk in room once every two hours and throw cold ice onto prisoner

Day two: put bag over head of prisoner and hog-tie prisoner, than leave out in hot sun all day.

Day three: put a plastic bag over the prisoner, tie the prisoner to the board,lift the board so prisoner is upside down, and then pour water over the plastic or dunk into tub of water so that prisoner can feel like drowning

Day four: shackle prisoners hands upward against the wall so that the prisoner cannot sit down without pain

Day five: hook wires up to the testicles of the prisoner, and than have them stand on a box for a couple of hours at a time

Day six: put collars on prisoners necks and drag them around a court yard, throw them down and let dogs nip at them to tear their flesh, then beat them with billy sticks, and even violate their anus with sticks

repeat.

Now, who is it that doesn't know the difference between torture and coerced interrogation ?

All of these events have been documented as not just random acts, but, even according to the military's own investigation, as part of a systematic design.

THE SUPREME COURT, ELITIST AS IT IS, AGREED. It really isn't too hard to understand.

Bush broke the law, and allowed Rumsfeld and the gang to violate the Geneva conventions. Bush's own lawyer (now Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales even warned them they were breaking the law to the point that he advised them to prepare to be indicted.

They knowingly broke the law. Don't people go to jail for that?

We as a people need to communicate. The species has developed sounds and visual symbols representing the sounds, both of which inately represent ideas and specifics of the human experience. At a macro-level, each nation is tied into itself via a panorama of multiple networks. Some of these are the media : television, radio, newspapers, books, and magazines. Some of these are institutional : churches, schools, governments, buildings and businesses. Some of these are physical : family, friends, the president, the store clerk, the police officer, the fireman, and whatever genre, race, or stereotype we care to cast the human species into.

All of these "tie-ins" to the culture are just a larger version of our species ability to communicate in complex, abstract ways. Birds have their songs, cats their meows, and dogs their barks, but these all convey merely a small number of basic emotions without much depth or elaboration. Nothing can be comparable to the human vocabularies, of which there are more than 250 basic grammatical structures across the entire planet. Humans even celebrate the differences through art, where there are various card playing pets seated around a card table, or fishes able to talk and organize complicated excursions with many different ocean species. Being the dominant Earth species, we are just walking apes who have colonized all the land masses. And now, as we stare at stereotyped roles on the television sitcoms, as we collectively sift through the hysterical and the inane in the ether of the communication food chain, we are really no different than fish living in some 12th dimensional beings aquarium, waiting for the small flakes that get put in the water twice a day.

The 2006 Nawlins battle will be determined this week. My team is the nawlins napsters.

Already today, my 3rd Baseman, Aramis Ramirez of the Chicago Cubs, is 2 for 2, with a home run and 4 rbi's. I hope this trend continues. You never know. Aramis might get only 2 more singles the rest of the week. That's baseball.

Not like anyone else cares but me. I'll post the winner next week.