The role money will play in 2008

Money. This is what the next six months will be about now that we have entered the long-awaited general election. Obama is a fundraising machine, as is the Republican National Committee on a smaller scale, while McCain and the Democratic National Committee have yet to prove they are worth sending money to. Further, McCain has chosen to go with public financing which will limit his entire general election spending to $85 million which is merely a few months of work for Obama. But what does all this mean?

Well, for one thing, running a national election is expensive. We are talking about funding a massive infrastructure in many key states, campaign rallies, salaries, the ever-so-entertaining advertising, and the list goes on. The more money you have to allocate to the operations of a campaign, the smoother it will run. This might be where McCain is fortunate if the RNC is able to finance a large portion of the advertising and campaigning.

But the main issue of who controls America goes deeper than just the Presidential race. The Republicans are fighting a lot of important battles in key congressional districts that they will have to help finance if they want a chance at holding onto their veto-protecting minority. Something will have to give...either throw the money behind the party nominee in hopes of flooding the political market with anti-Democratic and pro-Republican propaganda and risk losing those congressional seats, or fight for the congressional seats and hope for the best on the Presidential front. Of course the Presidency is the most important fight that they need to win, but what is the smartest strategy for the next six months?

I think that if McCain wins, it will be at the cost of the key congressional races. This means that there is a large chance that the Democrats will get a veto proof majority and make life for McCain hell. McCain will be forced (albeit not with too much difficulty) to start making deals with the Democrats to get anything done. Either way, I think if this likely scenario happens, McCain is a one term President for sure (not to mention history is against him). McCain would have to meet different criteria for Supreme Court Justices if he doesn't avoid a large Democratic majority. That means appointing Justices who may not be as conservative as his base would want, causing a ton of problems there as well.

But all this is assuming McCain can even win. The donation numbers are very telling. Not in terms of support, but in terms of the capabilities of the candidates and parties. McCain isn't bringing in the dollars he would like. He is past having to convince conservative people to vote for him over Obama. It is now on him to convince those people to donate to him.

Cindy McCain: Above Suspicion

As we all know, home wrecker Cindy McCain has adamantly refused to release her income tax records:

McCAIN: You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years, and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate.

CURRY: So you'll never release, you're saying?

McCAIN: No, no.

CURRY: Never?

McCAIN: No.

CURRY: Even if you're first lady?

McCAIN: No.

CURRY: Because that is -- even though not an elected position, you would be in a very public role.

McCAIN: I'm not the candidate.

She quite simply makes a good point that she is not a candidate. Fair enough. But she is married to one. I am willing to bet money that she will eventually release these forms, just like all the stuck up broads before her who initially refused (Heinz, Ferraro, etc). But to more pressing matter. Let me take you, my loyal readers, on a journey through time to put this blatant case of hypocrisy into perspective. The time is 2004. The setting is the 2004 Presidential race. The main character in this story is the evil-step mother looking Teresa Heinz Kerry, "sugar momma" to then Democratic nominee for President, John Kerry.

The first stop on our journey is an ABC News report that asks the question,"Why Won't Teresa Heinz Kerry Release Her Tax Returns?"

"Yet Heinz is adamant. She won't disclose her tax returns, she said through a spokesman, because she isn't a candidate for office. Why should she be subjected to the same scrutiny as her husband? Heinz has a point. She isn't breaking any law. She enjoys the same privacy rights as others. But she's now the first wife of a presidential candidate to refuse disclosure since the practice became customary."

"What would be in her tax returns that's worth keeping secret? A lot, actually. One Republican lawyer says Heinz's returns would be a "treasure trove of opposition research." One thing the returns would show, this lawyer says, is the extent to which Kerry is a "kept man."

--snip--

Making Heinz's tax returns public would confirm that she's Kerry's sugar daddy (sugar mommy?). It would also strike a blow against Kerry's populist rhetoric by detailing the lavish lifestyle he and his wife enjoy: the vacation home in Nantucket, the ski chalet in Ketchum, Idaho, the estate outside Pittsburgh, the Georgetown manse. Not to mention the red-and-white Gulfstream jet. And the tax returns could embarrass the Kerry campaign further if it's revealed that Heinz has contributed to independent organizations working to unseat President Bush.

--snip--

"...the political press has started to question Heinz. Robert Novak devoted a column to the subject last week, for example. And the New York Times editorial page weighed in as well. "We urge that the candidate's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, release her tax returns," the editors wrote. The Times is being consistent. In 1984, during the Zaccaro controversy, an editorial in its pages said: "Mrs. Ferraro's husband, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion." Is Teresa Heinz?

Excellent first stop in rediscovering hypocrisy, don't you think? Let us not waste any more time, and jump ahead to the infamous voice of conservatives and Republicans, the National Review that rants about Teresa Heinz' arrogance in not disclosing her income tax forms.

Could it be, who knows, that Teresa was a little stingy last year, or could it be, perhaps, that she gave to some charities that might prove a little embarrassing in an election year?

Baseless innuendo? Very possibly. But there's an easy way to show that these suggestions are completely unfair. Disclose the full form, Teresa. Privacy? Oh, come off it. How can disclosure of any part of Mrs. Kerry's personal 1040 relate to her children, all of whom are now in their thirties?

--snip--

Trusts and income this large, even if only partly controlled by a potential future First Lady, matter. We've already seen how Teresa effectively helped finance her husband's campaign, at least in its bleaker moments. How her money is generated is, therefore, of some interest as is its potential, particularly in the context of a campaign that has made so much out of "Halliburton," for conflicts (or the perception of conflicts) of interest.

Teresa, of course, continues to use her family's "privacy" as a justification for this billion-dollar omission.

--snip--

But all this is to play Teresa's game. There is plenty that she could disclose without overly compromising her children's privacy, and, if only to avoid the suspicions that will otherwise inevitably arise, plenty that she should disclose. The reality, however, is that, for whatever reason, she simply isn't prepared to do so. Teresa Heinz Kerry has, instead, a different message for the electorate.

"Shove it."

Excellent trip through time using the wonders of Internet research and Google and we are now back into present day. Why are the Republicans so quiet on this issue all of a sudden? I mean, they brought it up in 2004, and 20 years prior to that with Geraldine Ferraro and her husband. What is in her tax returns that she wants kept secret? Could it be, who knows, that Cindy was a little stingy last year, or could it be, perhaps, that she gave to some charities that might prove a little embarrassing in an election year? How much "better" than the rest of us is John and Cindy McCain?

I could go on beating my point senseless, but I won't and will just allow the Republicans of the past to speak for me. They are simply saying, release your income tax forms like everyone else. Cindy McCain responds to the requests of the electorate with a simple...Shove it.

Cindy McCain, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion

Sue Happy America

"A New Jersey couple, whose son was struck in the chest with a line drive, is planning to sue the maker of a metal baseball bat used in the game.

Two years ago, Steven Domalewski was pitching when the ball slammed into his chest and stopped his heart. He was resuscitated but now has brain damage and is severely disabled.

The family contends metal baseball bats are inherently unsafe for youth games because the ball comes off them much faster than from wooden bats. The lawsuit will also be filed against Little League Baseball and a sporting goods chain that sold the bat.

An attorney says Domalewski will need millions of dollars worth of medical care for the rest of his life. The bat maker says while it sympathizes with Steven and his family, the bat is not to blame for the injury."

First of all, let me make this clear...I sympathize with the family over this tragic incident. Sports injuries like this at such a young age is horrible and I am sure this family is in incredible pain over this. I have personally seen similar incidents. I know one of the worst things that can happen to a kid is a sports injury. Many are lucky enough to heal and get back in the game. Some are unfortunately not. My heart goes out to the boy and his parents.

However, suing the people who make the bat is absurd. To save the tax payer's money in the litigation of this ridiculous case, I will try the case right here on my blog.


Opening Statements

PROSECUTION: My client has been injured from a ball that was hit off one of the defendants bats. Therefore, we feel they are liable and should pay for this injustice. Why should my clients pay for the "millions in dollars" of medical expenses when the injury resulted from their product?Quite simple.

DEFENSE: I can in no way imagine how the bat company, our client, would be liable for such an incident. Did our client lie about the effects of hitting a leather ball with a metal bat? They clearly did not make a defective product as it did it's intended job. Did the parents raise objections to Little League Baseball prior to allowing their son partake in the game? Even if the parents did not raise these objections, was it responsible for them to allow their kid to play the game knowing using metal bats is dangerous? Surely the Plaintiffs have some rational reason why "our client should be held liable for such an incident. It is of our opinion that our client is no more responsible for this child's injuries than his parents are for allowing their kid to play such a game knowing the risks. What about the ball company? Why is there no lawsuit being brought up against the maker of balls? Perhaps the problem was the ball was wound too tight. Perhaps your beef is with the glove company for not being big enough to catch said ball hit off said bat.


Direct Examination (Bat Maker)

PROSECUTION: Did you make the bat? (Yes) Was the bat made of metal? (Yes.) Does a ball hit with a bat come off the bat with an excessive speed? (I wouldn't say excessive...) Is the ball hit back faster than thrown? (Yes, but...) Prosecution is finished with this scum.

Cross Examination (Bat Maker)

DEFENSE: What is the purpose of the bat? (To hit a ball) So, the bat is made to hit the ball back into the field where players equipped with gloves catch it and throw it around?

Objection your honor, leading the witness<>
<Activist Judge>Sustained, rephrase please<>

Apologies your honor. What happens to the ball once it is hit? (Players equipped with gloves attempt to catch it and then throw it around) Was this bat working properly, by this I mean, did the bat hit the ball? (Apparently so). So, it did not malfunction? (No, it did not. It accomplished its job) The defense is finished.

Redirect Examination (Bat Maker)

PROSECUTION: Why do you make metal bats when wooden ones suffice? (Because it is legal and there is a demand for metal bats. We make both to fit market needs.) So, gay marriage is legal in California, are you going to go out and get one of those?

Objection, your honor, the question is argumentative and not relevant<>
Sustained, you make an outburst like that again I will hold you in contempt>

We are finished.

<>snip snip<>

Closing Statements

PROSECUTION: The defense would have you believe that their client, who makes such lethal weapons, is innocent from liability of this child's injuries. Who, in their right mind, would side with such a blood sucking corporations that do not have any social responsibility? You let these companies get off, and they will continue to rape hard working Americans such as yourselves. They don't care about you, or little Stevie. They only care about the bottom dollar. Who is going to pay Stevie's bills now? What a shame that this is happening in America. We will be calling for a Constitutional Amendment to ban metal bats. America cannot let this go unopposed!

DEFENSE: Why does our judicial system even let this crap get on the stand? Why does someone have to be at fault. Why does that someone have to be my client? The facts of this case are simple. The parents let the boy play baseball. They knew he would be on the field with metal bats. In fact, he has played this sport for years and has even used a metal bat without any objection of his parents. Why is my client guilty of being the bad guy all of a sudden when they didn't have a problem with my client before? If you want to change the system, keep your fight between you and Little League. Leave the bat and glove makers out of this. My client simply provides the service of a product that is in demand. Bats don't kill people, people kill people. The moral of the story: Don't hate the player, hate the game. Defense rests.

Jury Deliberation

JURY Rep: We, the Jury, find the defendant guilty on all counts. We find the defendant liable for $50 million dollars. We further find that the defendant liable for punitive damages in the amount of $150 million.

Justice has been served.

Marriage: Legal in California

The righties must be livid. Falwell is turning over in his grave, assuming they left enough space for that. I wonder how many cities God is going to wipe out over this ruling...

"California's Supreme Court quashed a ban on gay marriage in a historic ruling here Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot.

In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.

"Limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

The ruling added that all California couples had a "basic civil right" to marry "without regard to their sexual orientation.""

So, there you have it. It is now time for all the "States Rights" advocates, no, hypocrites, to complain about what a state did and push for a national amendment to secure their own right to divorce, infidelity, and love affairs with Congressional Pages without allowing gay couples to partake. As if waking up to this gem of a news story that will set off days of ignorance and bigotry played out on conservative radio shows couldn't make me smile bigger, the fact that REPUBLICAN APPOINTED JUSTICES are the ones who voted for this! Perhaps this is just another sign that the Republican Party has lost touch.

Let us recap. These four voted agreed on this ruling. Three of which nominated by Republican Governors:

• Chief Justice Ronald George, 68, a Republican appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson in 1991.

• Justice Joyce Kennard, 67, a Republican appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989.

• Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, 72, a Republican appointed by Wilson in 1994.

• Justice Carlos Moreno, 59, the court's only Democrat, he was appointed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2001.

Oh, I get it. Activist judges. Remember, the definition of "activist judges" is any judge whose opinion you do not agree with.

Let us cover some quotes from people who advocate states rights ONLY IF those states agree with them...

"President Bush has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision by the California Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment is the best way for the people to decide what marriage means." -Dana Perino, White House Press Secretary and total ditz

"What an outrage. It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny." -James Dobson, chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family and all around douchebag

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling,” he said in a statement. “. . . I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.” -The Terminator

I personally just don't get it. I am married. To someone of the opposite sex, no less. Who cares if gays marry? No skin off my back. They are the ones going to hell, why should anyone else care, right? We are fighting a war or two. We are facing a recession. The dollar can't buy crap overseas. Mohammad's the world over are trying to secure their ten year old virgins by blowing the rest of us up. Everyone is losing the house they can't afford but thought they could. Gas prices are forcing us to drive 55mph. The threat level is perpetually "orange," whatever that means. The Polar Bears are going to die out in the year 2045, which is about 5 years before global warming does the rest of us in. And people are this passionate against gay marriage? Talk about some effed up priorities. The world is supposed to end in 2012...is gay marriage really what we should be concerned about? Yes sir! Time to push my hypocritical moral code onto others!! I laugh at this ruling. Not against, but at the people whose veins are bursting because of it. I could care less how this goes down, but watching people cry over it is hilarious.

Time to go back to caring about real issues affecting real people. Like censoring video games, damn it!

Purple Hearts for Mental Wounds?

"...with an increasing number of troops being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, the modern military is debating an idea Gen. Washington never considered -- awarding one of the nation's top military citations to veterans with psychological wounds, not just physical ones.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates offered cautious support for such a change on a trip to a military base in Texas this month.

"It's an interesting idea," Mr. Gates said in response to a question. "I think it is clearly something that needs to be looked at."

With all due respect to Mr. Gates, whom I respect more than any single member of Bush's administration, this is complete crap. The Purple Heart is for soldiers who bled on the battle field as they fought for our freedom. Period. The shear idea of this medal being awarded to someone with mental issues is a stain on anyone who lost a body part, or took a bullet, or otherwise physically wounded by the enemy. The Purple Heart is a badge of honor and to sully it with victims of mental wounds is a disgrace to our soldiers who are making this sacrifice and earn this medal with their blood.

To the PTSS people fighting for this award: Get your own medal if you are having trouble sleeping at night. You can't say that to the guy who didn't come back. Or to the guy paralyzed for the rest of his life. I honor the sacrifice you made to the country, now honor the sacrifice those who bled made as well. Leave this medal in the hands of the wounded and on the graves of those who didn't come back.

One of the last things I saw in Washington DC before leaving the US for my current job was a Purple Heart resting peacefully on the grave of a fallen soldier in Arlington National Cemetery. You cannot tell me that any mental would is greater than the sacrifice that soldier made for my freedom.

Politics: Let the Games Begin!!

I was going to write something witty about Edwards endorsing Obama, but something better came up. Something classic. Something truly political...


And I thought Rush Limbaugh's rant earlier this week on McCains "Save the Planet" speech was a little over the top. Apparently not. I really can't wait to watch Fox News this evening and listen to all the "true" conservatives bash him for this one.

I thought Rush on the radio the other day was exaggerating the below McCain quote, when in fact he wasn't...

"I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach — an approach that speaks to the interests and obligation of every nation," McCain declared.

Hmm, I wonder who he is talking about. I would expect this statement from Obama, but McCain? He must be part of the 70% who thinks Bush has lost his effin' mind and has no idea what the hell he is doing. Ariana Huffington claims McCain admitted to her that he didn't even vote for Bush. Normally I would consider the source, but the evidence is slowly stacking against him. Not to mention he discussed being John Kerry's running mate. But McCain denounced both silly claims being the straight shooter he is trying to shed the whole "maverick" image.

I do think this is brilliant politics, though. McCain is doing what he can to win those votes on the fence. He promises to push the conservative agenda by only appointing conservative judges (not to be confused with activist judges). Then he turns around and jumps onto the Save the Planet bandwagon to pull those from the left side of the aisle. To be honest, he is definitely playing both sides a hell of a lot more than Obama. But you have to call it what it is...politics. The Republican voters are not that stupid...maybe ignorant, but not that stupid.

Obama threw Wright under the bus, McCain throws the conservatives under. I was begining to think his running mate would end up being super-conservative to bring that base back into play, but lately I am willing to bet it will be someone even less conservative than he is. The base doesn't matter and he knows it. He knows it will be a cold day in hell before any of those clowns vote for Obama no matter how far left McCain pushes the envelope. They will vote for McCain and they will like it.

Vintage Douchebag of the Week

This is vintage Bill O'Reilly, a classy conservative. I'll let the video do the talking. Cheers!

H/T to Stardust

Democrats Propose a Rich Tax

It looks like Democrats are pushing a tax increase of a half percent onto anyone who makes $500,000 or more a year to fund the war into next spring. I have mixed feelings about this. First of all, I can honestly care less if they raise the taxes of rich people to pay for anything. I am not one of them, I simply don't care. BUT, is this an appropriate step to fund the war? I say no, and here is why...

We should be looking at ways to reduce the tax burden of everyone in our country and the only way to do that is to cut the fat of the government. That is right, reduce spending in general. Our leaders need to take an honest look at all of our governmental organizations and cut the fat there. Our leaders need to look at all the failed programs and companies that the tax payers are forced to keep alive and cut the fat there. Our leaders need to start running a responsible government. If they can't work with what they have, why should they take more? Eventually that will be not enough and they will need to take even more. This is ridiculous and both parties are guilty of it. More than ridiculous, this is irresponsible.

We have yet to reform social security, welfare, and a host of other failed social initiatives. Reforming the system will (hopefully) improve how much the government spends on these programs. Can you imagine how much money will be saved when welfare become a temporary hand up and not a permanent hand out?

People like to tout the "free market system" with as little intrusion of the government as possible, but are totally ok when the government puts more money into the market artificially just adding to that deficit (granted the "rebate" will be eventually paid back to the government by the tax-payers anyways**). Do you honestly think the government is going to give everyone a rebate and call it a day? No. They will need to get that money back eventually. The only way they won't ask for it back, is when they reduce their spending. Oh, but that would be after they dig out of the deficit. You tell me which is more likely.

As I was saying over at Freadom Nation, the gas-tax "holiday" is another one of those stupid irresponsible political ploys. So everyone saves an entire $30 this summer. Wow. That is almost enough to buy a video game full of sex and violence. Do you guys not realize (again) that until spending is reduced, any tax "rebate" or "holiday" is just political bs? They will get that money back. Oh, and they really need it to replace the collapsed bridges that the taxes were supposed to be used to inspect.

So, jump into your corners now. The Democrats will argue how they are responsible for large surpluses and "responsible spending" and the Republicans will argue that they are responsible for lower taxes and "responsible spending." Well, surpluses are an effect of taking too much money from the tax payers, and low-taxes with high spending in effect create deficits which we will end of paying for eventually anyways. Maybe both parties should meet half-way and lower taxes, reduce spending, and continue to spend responsibly because they are only both half-right (and inversely, half-wrong) as of now. I don't want to hear we have surpluses. I don't want to hear we have deficits. I want to hear our country is ran efficiently and actually balanced their budget with only the money we approved for them to spend. No more. No less. This is essentially common sense.


**I spent my $1,200 in the Japanese economy. How did you spend yours? ;-)

10,000 BC: Worst Movie Ever

Don't waste the money seeing this one. Terrible movie. Second worst movie of all-time, in my opinion. Don't take your kids to see this as they will leave the theater worse off than before. Not even worth the $4 I had to pay to see it in the base theater. Where do I begin?

Ok, this movie is solidly a huge piece of non-historical crap. I like the premise, which is a quasi-love story "set" in the last millennium of the ice age (approx. 11k years ago, movie is set exactly 12,008 years ago). But it stops there.

Rather than go into detail over all the obvious misrepresentations of history and the evidence we have, I will just post a couple huge complaints I had with this movie. Remember, the movie is claimed to be 10,000BC.

The film blatantly used domesticated horses. That is an error of at least 5,000 years, at a modest estimate.

The film shows an elaborate method of hunting Mammoths. We know they would trap Mammoths near cliffs and force them off to the death. The movie presents a wild chase scene (where the people actually keep up by running) where they try and catch one with a huge net. Sloppy. Hey, at least they got the time period right for once (ok, twice) in the film.

Weapons. This is awesome. Ancient tribes did not have the capabilities, or the know-how to make steel weapons, or iron harnesses, or countless other items using metals. But these people did. They definitely made use of this fantastic prop. Wow. At best guess, this is an error of at least 6,000 years.

Pyramids of Kufu. Ok, they never said what pyramids they were, but they clearly were the Pyramids in Giza. All three of them in same position, smooth sides, gold top, etc. Not in 10,000BC. Are you effing serious? Even the Ziggurats of Mesopotamia were step pyramids and those weren't around until about 6,000BC at the earliest. But, these were clearly the Egyptian Pyramids.

Domestication of the Mammoth...in Egypt...to build the pyramids...in 10,000BC... hahahahahahahahaha. Are you effing mad? Seriously? Pick up a damn book.

I could go on. I won't because the point should be clear. The writers, directors, actors and everyone else who helped bring this movie to us deserve to have this stain on their records. They suck and are totally ignorant of history. I am surprised they didn't make use of dinosaurs.

Overall, this is a terrible movie and I should post the ending here just to ruin this piece of crap for everyone else. But I won't. They disregarded all evidence whatsoever that we have on history. This film would have been much better if it were called 3,000BC so many of the inaccuracies would have been quasi-accurate. I suspect they wanted to use the Mammoth and bus-sized Saber-tooth tiger which they then clearly had to set the film in 10,000BC.

Don't watch it. Don't let your kids watch it unless you want them to be stupid for the next few years. Don't buy it. Total crap.

Possibly 500,000 Dead, Who's to Blame?

Deadly cyclone hits Burma, countless dead. Who is to blame? Al Gore says Global Warming, Pat Robertson probably thinks it is the gays. In any case, news reports say it is possible that 500,000 will die as a result of the Cyclone that tore into Burma (Myanmar for those of you who actually recognize that hack of a government). But why so many? Perhaps it has to do with the way these people live in coastal towns in houses that wouldn't pass the structural test in crap towns like Tijuana. If so, only a little bit.

I think it has to do with the military dictatorship that has just now let large groups of Aid workers into their country to help solve this crisis.

Five days after the storm, the junta continued to stall on visas for U.N. teams and other foreign aid workers anxious to deliver food, water and medicine to survivors amid fears the death toll could hit 100,000.

That is total BS. Five days?? The military junta is guilty of killing countless people because of inaction. They are refusing to let people into their country to HELP save people. This is no different than pulling the trigger themselves. They are guilty of not doing everything humanly possible to save the lives of their countrymen in a time of crisis. This disgusts me. And should disgust the rest of the world. This is murder.

Prior to this disaster, the junta showed the world how they handle dissidents who were peaceful monks! They beat them, they tortured them, and they murdered them. Does this sound like a government that respects human rights? Now they have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people (and counting) on their hands which makes them no better than any of the world's other dictators. (fun factoid: Saddam Hussein killed only 30,000 Kurds with poison gas).

So, where do we draw the line? How many more have to die before we say "Screw you junta, we are coming in and if you try and stop us, we will blow you back to the stone age." The United States is unmatched in our ability to provide aid in times of natural disasters. No other country in the world has the ability the United States has to save these people and help this county. We have the money, the resources, the manpower, and the equipment to make a difference, and Burma's refusal to allow us to help is unfortunate for the people who are dying. Does their government truly not care what happens to it's citizens? Obviously not.

They fear we are going to take them over? Maybe we should. Maybe we should show the people what freedom is all about. The junta has overstayed their welcome and it is time to go.