Political Satire/Commentary -- Daily Updates at PoliSat.Com TM © since 1999

·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan, Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com , PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom , FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·

First Things First: Salute America's Heroes · Fallen Heroes Fund · Frequent-Flyer-Miles for Troops · Thanks to Troops · Military News ·· MilBlogs ·

Home · Posts: Current /Recent · Videos/Toons/Songs: Latest · Embed-Codes · Text Index · Images Index · Archives: Old · New · About · Contact · Syndication · Affiliates ·

News Sources/Papers/Magazines Pundits Blogs ThinkTanks What is "property"? Pantheopians Global Climate Asteroids/Comets Hitting Earth--Risks/Predictions Science GlobalWeb

Political Satire /Commentary* Daily Updates .™©·2003 ..··
Where the satire is always commentary but the commentary isn't always satire.
Special Commentary: To Citizen Soldiers a Song to Explain How Proudly We Thank You for Deeds in Our Name.
·Change font/text size·· Recent-Updates Index·· Archives·· Home·· Search PoliSat.Com·· Support PoliSat.Com.

February, 2004 (Daily installments are in reverse chronological order) Latest installment, go here.

··

Feb. 29, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040229-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Viewing "The Passion of the Christ" inspires passions about the paradoxical passions about "The Passion".·

Here's more passion about the escalating passions about "The Passion of the Christ." Last night, my wife and I saw it. At the first theatre where we sought to see it after dinner, all showings were sold out and additional new showings had been scheduled to commence very late in the evening. We managed to find another theatre where we were able to view it during a regularly-scheduled showing in a nearly-sold-out auditorium. Although I'm confident virtually all of my regular readers know I'm a secularist¹ (but not a Secular Fundamentalist²), I've included footnoted explanations to enable new readers to place my opinions in context.

By virtue having become well aware of the intensely passionate criticisms of, and plaudits for, the film, I had already inferred that part of Gibson's motivation for the graphic nature, and duration, of the violence was to magnify what he perceives to be the power of the message of forgiveness at the end. Absent such expectation, I might have experienced a different reaction to the film, but for me, the most gut-wrenching scene was the one depicting the sight of Jesus falling while carrying the cross as having prompted a flashback in Mary's mind a time when she saw him fall as a child and was able to rush to his side to comfort him as a parent. Absent my being a parent, I doubt the scene could have had such a gut-wrenching effect on me. Before becoming a parent, one can imagine how one would feel towards one's child, but even the best possible imagination cannot even remotely come close to invoking the actual feeling of being a parent.

Paradoxical Passions, Part II·

The template that Hollywood sells
to those who aspire to excel
requires the rendition
of views of tradition
as that against which to rebel.

But yet paradoxical Mel
designed a new template that spells
the formula best
for greater success:
Rebel against those who rebel.

Just as my pre-parenthood status prevented me from being able to know the feeling of being a parent, not being a Jew obviously prevents me from being able to know how my reaction might have differed if I were to be a member of an ethnic group targeted for extinction. Not being, and never having been, anti-Semitic, and the absence of such feelings having been at least in part the result of the ecumenical nobility exhibited by my little-league coach (a Jew who also was the father of one of my closest friends), I likewise cannot purport to say how the film is likely to affect people already harboring anti-Semitic feelings. Yet it is rational to assume that the film may fail in its purpose of conveying a message of forgiveness powerful enough to lessen, if not negate, rather than inflaming such feelings among people harboring them before viewing the movie. It is equally rational to assume that the message of forgiveness so powerfully conveyed by the movie may be more likely to lessen, rather than inflame, such prejudices.

Regardless of whether one were to view Jesus as merely human and assume the Biblical record to be otherwise historically accurate or view Jesus as Divine, the movie's overpoweringly positive message of forgiveness and selflessness stands in such stark contrast to the unstated message of so much of what is otherwise produced by the entertainment industry. Even though one could argue that the movie would inflame, rather than diminish, anti-Semitism among those already inclined toward such prejudice, one could not rationally deny that much of the unstated message of cynical, narcissistic self-indulgent hedonism that pervades so much of what the entertainment industry otherwise produces (and we as consumers too often patronize) for the world is far more likely to fan the flames of hatred of the West among fanatical Muslims than The Passion is likely to fan the flames of anti-Semitism among Christians the movie tries to motivate to emulate Christian forgiveness. Nevertheless, few, if any, who are so eager to condemn Gibson's movie as likely to incite anti-Semitism are willing to condemn comparable risks of other entertainment fare fanning the flames of anti-Western hatred among fanatical Muslims.

No one favoring liberty would want the entertainment industry to limit itself to forms of expression incapable of being misconstrued by the worst among us. What's paradoxical, however, is the willingness of such a large part of the entertainment industry to avoid condemnation of latter type of risks while sanctimoniously and hypocritically condemning Gibson for the former.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

P.S. To regulars who wonder, "When are you going to do more satire and less commentary," I say, "Stay tuned."

¹·Rational secularism-- in stark contrast to Secular Fundamentalism (see footnote 2)-- is, in my opinion, ecumenical in attitude towards non-fanatical religious beliefs.

²·To explain what I mean by "Secular Fundamentalism" would be beyond the scope of a footnote. Generally, I use it to describe people suffering self-delusions that their beliefs rest upon logical, secular reasoning rather than upon the same kind of leap of faith (albeit a leap in the opposite direction) they so vitriolically disdain in religious believers that it blinds them to the secular sensibility of many views merely by virtue of such views being advocated by religious believers. Although all Secular Fundamentalists are atheists, not all atheists are Secular Fundamentalists. Although all agnostics are non-believers, all non-believers are not agnostics or atheists. If I don't stop here, this will become a book rather than a footnote.·

...

··

Feb. 28, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040228-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

No update for Saturday, Feb. 28, 2004.

...

··

Feb. 27, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040227-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Howard Stern's vulgarities elicit stern words from Clear Channel Communications, but what about the FCC?·

Those who laud, defend or excuse Howard Stern's juvenile vulgarities on broadcast radio as protected by the free-speech guarantee rather than conceding them to be manifestations of an extremely narrow band of vulgarities constitutionally subject to either per-se proscription or time-of-broadcast limitations should petition the government to abolish the FCC and release broadcast frequencies to an unregulated free market. The ability to broadcast on a particular radio frequency is neither patentable nor copyrightable. Thus, a true free market system would be one under which the government would control only those portions of the broadcast spectrum essential for essential governmental services or functions (e.g., emergency medical services, police, national security, etc.) and everyone one else would have equal right (within each one's means, of course) to broadcast any content on any frequency at any power level not shown to be injurious to the health, safety or property of another. This would be the broadcasting equivalent of free speech in public places in which each speaker is entitled to "peaceably"¹ try to make his own speech heard above, or in addition to, that of another.

Stern Words for Stern Words·

Says Stern there's no freedom of speech
if ten vulgar words are decreed
as not to be heard
'cause I won't be heard
since they're all the words I can speak.

Under such a truly "free-market/free-speech" system, if a person (or group) finding the contents of broadcasts in a particular area on a particular frequency to be offensive or otherwise inferior to whatever such person (or group) were to deem to be suitable or popular, then such person/group would be free to commence broadcasting on the same frequency with an equally-strong, or stronger, signal. The ability of each competing broadcast to continue would be wholly dependent upon the free market, and neither broadcaster would be entitled to demand that the federal government take any civil or criminal action on behalf of either to stop the broadcast by the other. The likely result would be episodic chaos, but there certainly wouldn't be any government "censorship" of any content. It would be absolutely free speech.

Is that what broadcasters want? Of course not. Broadcasters want a system entitling them to have the government institute civil and/or criminal proceedings against anyone broadcasting in a manner to interfere with their own broadcasts.

Since they would want to have the government put me in jail if I were to spend the money to broadcast my content on their frequencies, why wouldn't that be censorship? Wouldn't the government preventing me from using my skill in broadcasting on their frequency to express my free speech be the equivalent of preventing me from appearing in a public place at the same time as someone else for the purpose of expressing my speech more effectively than such other person's speech? Suppose such other person's speech were to constitute "hate" speech and my purpose in appearing at the same time were to be to express anti-hate speech to drown out the hate speech? Could the government constitutionally stop me from peaceably doing so? Would (should?) my right to do this be limited only to times when the speech is "hate" speech or would it be sufficient for me to merely find the opposing speech otherwise offensive? Are there circumstances in which my doing so could constitutionally be deemed an unprotected attempt to interfere with the free speech of others? Of course. Would not governmental interference with my speech designed to prevent someone else from exercising his rights of free speech not constitute a form of time and place "censorship" of my speech by the government?

Back to broadcasting. Broadcasters would respond that I would have an opportunity when their license were to become subject to renewal to object to such renewal and attempt to persuade the government to issue the license to me. Wouldn't that constitute a time and place limitation on the content of my speech unless and until the government were to find my speech more suitable? If I were to deem a broadcast the equivalent of "hate" speech, wouldn't the requirement for me to either await the next licensing anniversary or institute complicated, burdensome administrative law procedures for an opportunity to be heard be the equivalent of the government licensing a part of a public square and denying me permission to go there to speak against hate speech unless and until the license of the speaker of hate were to have expired or have been revoked?

What should be the "test" for the government to apply to determine whose content is more, or less, worthy of licensure? Should it be merely a popularity contest-- i.e., whose broadcast would draw a larger audience? Do not advocates of free speech contend that the purpose of the guarantee of free speech is to protect unpopular speech since popular speech needs no protection? Does that mean that the government should refuse to license popular broadcasting content and instead only license unpopular broadcasting content? (Such approach would, however, guarantee the survival of NPR Radio, which is so unpopular with the public at large that the government must subsidize its broadcasts to the extremely small market it serves by funds the government coercively takes from taxpayers in the public at large.)

Of course, the sensible answers to these questions closely resemble the existing regulatory framework for broadcast licenses. We've sensibly chosen to classify broadcast frequencies as public property. We've established an imperfect system for determining who may, and thereby determining who must not, engage in broadcasting speech on specified frequencies at specified places at specified levels of power during specified time-frames over a specified period of licensure. Other than for an extremely narrow band of words and phrases, we've eliminated content requirements to approximate the free market that allows popular content to flourish without protecting unpopular content.

Broadcasters can't have it both ways. I'm not advocating content-based censorship beyond a spectrum so narrow as to render ludicrous a claim that such "censorship" impairs free speech in any serious or significant way. Somehow, I feel confident the Republic won't fall if Stern's employers (or even the FCC) were to limit his privilege of broadcasting vulgarities. If broadcasters want to assert an absolutist claim of free speech on publicly-licensed frequencies, then they should support abolition of the power of the FCC to license, and enforce the licensure of, frequencies for commercial broadcast.

If, out of the literally countless numbers and types of words and phrases to convey ideas, the FCC were to ban a few dozen of the type most popular among juvenile boys in locker rooms, it hardly seems a significant threat to free speech. If the government were to begin trying to expand such narrow band of proscribed words and phrases into serious limitations on speech, there would be more than ample numbers of people who would use other media to demand remedial action by politicians. Limbaugh fears that a future FCC would reinstate the old "equal time" limitation. By virtue of that standard having previously existed and (as Limbaugh correctly asserts) having then operated to limit speech in a material way, it's certainly not irrational to think that efforts to reinstate such standard would occur again. However, I think a massive percentage of the public would not tolerate such retrogression.

It's true that no one holds a gun on a person to require him to listen to a broadcast he finds offensive, but that's not the issue unless one were to presume abolition of the FCC so that the government would play no role whatsoever in determining who should receive the privilege of broadcasting on a particular frequency and under what circumstances someone else could, or should, become entitled to broadcast on such frequency instead. People certainly have the right not to travel to a public place to hear speech they may find offensive, but even in public places there are "content" limitations despite such freedom of opponents to "stay away" (just like our right to avoid tuning to a broadcast frequency). That some people may view public exhibitionism or engaging in sexual activity in public to be a form of expression or "speech" does not render it unconstitutional to prohibit such forms of expression in public places despite the fact that people offended by such expression would obviously be free to choose not to attend.

Many on the left, and even some on the right (such as Rush Limbaugh, who can't be "right" all the time) contend that to allow the FCC to enforce restrictions even against such a narrow band of speech would be akin to placing a frog in a pan of water and allowing the heat to be turned to a barely-warm degree. They fear this would set in motion a process that would inexorably lead to the temperature being gradually increased until the frog would have boiled to death before recognizing a need to jump from the pan. However, as explained above, absent abolition of FCC powers to license broadcast frequencies, the question is not whether the frog will be in a pot of water but merely on which element of the stove will the pan be placed. Likewise, the question is not whether government's hand will control the temperature at all but rather, how high will we allow the government to increase the temperature before we decide to protect the frog. We don't need to save Stern's vulgarities to in order to save the frog. Live frog legs anyone?

¹·With respect to the public-place context of free speech, the First Amendment guarantees the right to "peaceably" assemble but does not impose any such limitation for one's speech within the confines of one's own property or property of another by consent of such property owner.

...

··

Feb. 26, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040226-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Paradoxical Passions about "The Passion of Christ" by Mel Gibson.·

Not having yet seen "The Passion of Christ," I can't intelligently write about it as a movie. However, having seen "the passions" aroused, pro and con, about "The Passion," I can't help but comment on "the passions." First, to enable you to place my comments in perspective, I reiterate what most of my readers probably already know: I lack belief in a Deity. However, even though my views are secular, I'm not a Secular Fundamentalist.¹ I believe religious beliefs, like secular beliefs, have the capacity to inspire the best (or the worst) in human behavior depending upon whether persons acting upon such beliefs do so in humane (or fanatical) manner.

Paradoxical Passions·

A movie depicting The Passion
of Christ has aroused many passions
of pro and con views
but paradox skews
more strongly the "con" among passions.

Notwithstanding my not having seen "The Passion," commentaries condemning it and praising it, coupled with my general knowledge about New Testament doctrine, are sufficient to enable me to reach significant conclusions about the "passions" aroused by "The Passion." Believing these conclusions may not be self-evident to many on either side of the controversy, I'm expressing them here.

I find the most paradoxical passions to be among the "anti-Passion passions" rather than the "pro-Passion passions." Many (perhaps most, but certainly not all) expressing anti-Passion passions are unable (or merely unwilling) to admit that hostility to religion rather than disdain for graphic depictions of violence and/or artistic editorialization on a subject matter with the historically demonstrated power to arouse passions which, throughout much of the last two millennia, have often led to persecution, counter-persecution and war.

Rudimentary thought experiments can expose the transparent nature of much of the anti-Passion passion professing disdain for graphic violence. If a controversial film producer were to have made a movie graphically depicting persecution and torture of heretics by medieval Christian theocracies and depicting their victims as being nevertheless willing to advocate forgiveness of their tormentors, would not many (if not most) of the most vociferous anti-Passion commentators be lauding such movie and characterizing it as having been "artistically necessary" for it to portray the violence graphically rather than in a sanitized fashion? Does not the nobleness of forgiveness not vary inversely in proportion to the barbarity of the offense? How many among those who advocated our trying to "understand," rather than use military force against, those who directly and indirectly supported 9-11 are now lauding the overriding theme of "The Passion"-- i.e., unbounded forgiveness of unbounded barbarity.

Likewise, rudimentary thought experiments can expose the transparent nature of much of the anti-Passion passion professing disdain for what anti-Passion commentaries characterize as a message of "hate" against Jews. Apart from theological aspects of "The Passion," it depicts the struggle for freedom of conscience against a theocratic hierarchy. Using the same example for the thought experiment about the claimed disdain for depictions of graphic violence, would not many (if not most) of those characterizing The Passion as inspiring hatred against Jews be denying that a movie depicting the barbarity of medieval treatment of heretics would constitute a message of "hate" against Christians? One need not accept the theology of the New Testament to understand "The Passion of Christ" indicts not a people but theocratic intolerance of freedom of conscience-- i.e., compulsory piety. As was well stated by none other than John Ashcroft, embracing theocratic belief in a Divine Creator of free will leads to the conclusion that compulsory piety would offend such Creator.

Of course one can't logically focus on paradoxes in the anti-Passion passions without also doing the same with respect to the pro-Passion passions. The central message of The Passion is that it's morally commendable to die for the sake of the Creator (or for one's fellow man) but not to kill for the sake of the Creator. Those who perceive Jesus as Divine thus perceive the depiction of his admonition to his followers against employing violence to prevent violence against him to be a moral admonition against killing for the sake of the Creator rather than a per se admonition against killing. Although some theologians (and utopian pacifists who perceive Jesus as human rather than Divine) interpret such message as also condemning killing of anyone under any circumstances, the overwhelming majority of theologians sensibly reject such utopian views that would deprive civilization of the means to protect itself from barbarity.

Modern Christians (and modern Muslims and Jews) are, of course, right to morally denounce fanatic Muslim extremists who consider killing non-believers a religious duty; however, in medieval times, theocratic authorities purporting to be "Christian" used the sword as an instrument for compulsory piety rather than the tongue as an instrument of persuasion. However, modern secularists legitimately worry about historical legacies of religious intolerance-- especially those being replicated by fanatical Muslim extremists of today. Modern secularists also legitimately worry when religious "leaders" such as Pat Robertson encourage believers to embrace the notion that society's "permissiveness" (i.e. rejection of compulsory piety) invites the "wrath of God" against the whole of society for permissive toleration of the perceived transgressions of non-believers.

My own secular thinking leads me to admire the nobility of one's willingness to die for another person or beliefs as noble as The Golden Rule or freedom from tyranny. It doesn't lead me to condemn civilization's employment of violence against barbarism or tyranny. It does lead me to condemn compulsory piety for the sake of piety but to also condemn Secular Fundamentalists' narrow-minded condemnation of societal limitations standing on their own merits merely because some who favor compulsory piety would also favor such limitations. (See, for example, my views on marriage: Devolution Versus Evolution and Quantum Marriage.)

A final paradox is the breadth, depth and intensity of the Secular Fundamentalists' vitriolic hatred for Bush, who has comported himself on issues of faith in a more ecumenical fashion than any President in my memory if not in history. The demonstrably ecumenical nature of Bush's espousals of faith makes it self-evident, in my opinion, that the Secular Fundamentalists' condescending disdain for anyone embracing what they perceive to be the illogic of fundamental religious beliefs is what fuels the blindness of their hatred.

¹·To explain what I mean by "Secular Fundamentalism" would be beyond the scope of a footnote. Generally, I use it to describe people suffering self-delusions that their beliefs rest upon logical, secular reasoning rather than upon the same kind of leap of faith (albeit a leap in the opposite direction) they so vitriolically disdain in religious believers that it blinds them to the secular sensibility of many views merely by virtue of such views being advocated by religious believers. Although all Secular Fundamentalists are atheists, not all atheists are Secular Fundamentalists. Although all agnostics are non-believers, all non-believers are not agnostics or atheists. If I don't stop here, this footnote will become a book rather than a footnote. ·

··

Feb. 25, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040225-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Ralph Nader becomes the first Presidential candidate to run as a Vice-Vice-Presidential Candidate or as Darth Nader or Ralph Vader disguised as Obi Wan to battle Yoda Cheney.·

What amazes me is the number of pundits who fail to realize that Nader plans to serve as the VVP Democratic candidate and likewise fail to perceive the crocodile nature of the Democrats tears when Nader announced his decision to run. What do I mean by the VVP candidate? Traditionally, although not always, the task of Vice Presidential candidates has been to "take the low road" (by attacking the opposition more aggressively than would the Presidential candidates) to enable the Presidential candidates to "take the high road." Nader intends (over the feigned objections of the Democratic "leadership") to function as the Vice-Vice-Presidential candidate in Election 2004.

In the Meet the Press interview last Sunday, Nader made one thing clear to even the most casual listener and something quite different equally clear to the most careful listener. To casual listeners, he made it clear that his campaign themes would resonate most strongly with those who despise Bush and want him "impeached." To careful listeners, he made it obvious that shortly before the November 2004 Election, if it were to appear that support for him would likely cause, rather than merely increase the size of, a Democratic defeat, he would withdraw and urge his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee as the only way to defeat Bush.

This will enable the Democrats to count on Nader to launch attacks against Bush going far beyond the line over which even the Democratic VP nominee would be willing to go. For them, it's the best of both worlds. They expect to benefit from Nader's ad-hominem attacks on Bush while protesting that Nader, not Bush, is saying such awful things. Nader will attract zealous support among a large percentage of those who most zealously approached Dean.

In most elections, the media would tend to marginalize coverage for a fringe candidate. Nader is no Ross Perot, but one can safely predict that his most vociferous attacks on Bush will be most widely reported (with token disdain) by the dominant media (New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN.) In fact, one can safely predict that as the campaign intensifies, reporters from those media will spend as much, if not more, time asking Bush to respond to accusations by Nader than to questions raised by the Democratic nominees (and certainly more time than they'll spend asking the Democratic nominees to respond to questions raised about their professed policies).

Darth Nader aka Ralph Vader, V.V.P.C.·

I'm Nader, intending to run
disguised as the great Obi Wan
obliged to rebuke
the Dubya as Luke
as though to the Dark Side he's gone.

Though Yoda will try to contend
I'm Vader disguised to pretend
to be Obi Wan,
when all's said and done,
it's I whom the press will befriend.

The press will pretend to believe
I'm running again to reprise
Quixotic ambitions
that threaten attrition
of voters the Democrats need.

However, when push comes to shove,
if late in October the doves
are close behind Bush,
reverse I will push
and give my support to the doves.

Hey, Ralph, I'm the Bush you perceive
as dumber than folks can believe,
but unlike the press,
your game I have guessed,
so you I'll send Yoda to beat.

With Yoda exposing your creed
the voters will quickly perceive
your method to carry
the water your carry
unsafe at whatever your speed.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, notwithstanding current polls purporting to show Kerry and/or Edwards would beat Bush among "likely voters" by double-digits, the country has in fact shifted to the right. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Nader will actually reverse course in October to endorse the Democratic nominee because polls at the time will show that if all of Nader's supporters were to vote for the Democratic ticket, it would be insufficient to defeat Bush.

··

Feb. 24, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040224-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

The blame game regarding intelligence failures to connect the dots obscure and impede the process of determining, and fixing, the causes of such failures.·

Today's news is abuzz with reports¹ that in 1999 German Intelligence furnished the CIA the first name ("Marwan") and an unlisted telephone number (in the United Arab Emirates) for a person believed by German Intelligence to be an Islamic fanatic associated with the terror cell being monitored in Hamburg, Germany that included Mohammed Atta. It now appears that such first-name information pertained to "Marwan al-Shehhi," whom we now know to have flown the plane into the South Tower on September 11, 2004.

There can be no doubt that there were thousands upon thousands of needles mingled among millions and millions of tiny straws in the hundreds, if not thousands, of haystacks then being monitored by our intelligence services hamstrung in part by years-long patterns of legislative-branch and executive-branch limitations on, rather than supportive expansions of, intelligence-gathering methods and resources. Under such circumstances, blaming the intelligence services for having failed to penetrate terrorist organizations of Islamic fanatics to become better able to distinguish needles from straws is like a restaurant owner blaming a two-cook kitchen equipped with a new microwave to supplement an out-of-date stove for failing to successfully serve a five-course meal to a 500-person banquet while simultaneously being obliged to be certain that none of the dishes could contain any ingredient that could cause any allergic reaction to anyone consuming the meal despite the owner's failure to provide the cooks with the means to determine the existence, or scope, of any such amenability to allergic reactions or any effective means for testing the ingredients to determine the presence or absence of any allergen.

Determining the causes of failures to "connect the dots" is not the equivalent of fixing "blame" for failures to "connect the dots." The "blame," to the extent there may be any in contrast to the mere "cause," belongs more on the bosses (i.e., the legislative and executive branches owning the "restaurant" intended to serve "intelligence") than on the workers (i.e., the intelligence officers working as "chefs" responsible for creating and following recipes for serving "intelligence" to their patrons).

Blame Game Part 20,040,224·

The concept of "cause" ain't the same
as that we define to be "blame,"
and searches for cause
delayed by a pause
for "blame" are delayed just the same.

The concept of "blame" is like "fault"
for "ought-nots" and also for "oughts."
To focus on "fault"
before finding "cause"
obscures the perception of "oughts."

Attempts to clothe people with "fault"
whose motives comported with "oughts"
but failed to perceive
what hindsight perceives
leaves cause-finding progress at naught.

The "cause" was not lack of desire
to stop the attack that transpired.
For blame to be pushed
on Clinton or Bush
seeks heat 'stead of light from the fire.

What happened? We know the bosses wanted good intelligence. We know the workers wanted to provide good intelligence. What was lacking was the bosses' failures to possess, or use, good sense by choosing to expand rather than to limit and restrict intelligence-gathering services. Following the end of the Cold War, too many bosses failed to perceive that the "dividend" of "peace" is "peace" rather than evisceration of the tools that produced peace. There's enough collective blame for everyone, and the more time we spend trying to fix blame (i.e., on the Clinton Administration and/or on the Bush Administration), the less time we are spending fixing the causes of the problem. Responsibility, rather than blame, is the suitable badge for bad judgment exercised by people with good intentions.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·According to the February 24, 2004, New York Times:

In March 1999, German intelligence officials gave the Central Intelligence Agency the first name and telephone number of Marwan al-Shehhi, and asked the Americans to track him. The name and phone number in the United Arab Emirates had been obtained by the Germans by monitoring the telephone of Mohamed Heidar Zammar, an Islamic militant in Hamburg who was closely linked to the important Qaeda plotters who ultimately mastermin[d]ed the Sept. 11 attacks, German officials said. .... The information concerning Mr. Shehhi, the man who took over the controls of United Airlines Flight 175, which flew into the south tower of the World Trade Center, came months earlier than well-documented tips about other hijackers, including two who were discovered to have attended a meeting of militants in Malaysia in January 2000. .... The independent commission investigating the attacks has received information on the 1999 Shehhi tip, and is actively investigating the issue, said Philip Zelikow, executive director of the commission. .... American intelligence officials and others involved with the matter say they are uncertain whether Mr. Shehhi's phone was ever monitored. .... An American official said: "The Germans did give us the name `Marwan' and a phone number, but we were unable to come up with anything. It was an unlisted phone number in the U.A.E., which he was known to use." (Emphasis added.)

...

··

Feb. 23, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040223-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Ralph Nader's candidacy poses potential help for, not hindrance to, the Democratic nominee in Election 2004 regardless of whether it be John Kerry, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.·

That Ralph Nader's double game is self evident illustrates the intellectual contempt he holds for those whose interests he most ardently professes to serve-- the ordinary Americans he perceives as "victims" of the "two-party system" corrupted by "corporate" America. Nader, like Hillary, has chosen a strategy to maximize opportunities for snatching eleventh hour victory from the jaws of defeat or victory.

Grossly exaggerating his disdain for the Democratic Party, with whose left wing he shares little significant disagreement, while attempting to also appeal to right-wing isolationists disapproving the War in Iraq and fiscal conservatives feeling contempt for what they see as Bush's attempt to buy support from the left of center with expanded social programs, Nader expects the coming election to make him King Maker in either 2004 or 2008. He knows the history of third-party movements is that real political power for such "movements" lies in strengthening the power of whatever wing of whichever party is politically more in sympathy with the goals of the "movement" and thereby shifting the center of gravity of that party towards the the "movement."

Nader can ride his strategic fence until shortly before the November election, but Hillary must get off the fence one way or the other long enough before the convention to foment a deadlock to enable her to determine whether to run for President in 2004 or, in the absence of a deadlock, to determine whether to make herself available to be "drafted" as the running mate of the nominee. Nader, Hillary, the Deaniacs, George Soros, MoveOn.Org, and the rest of the Entertainment Left have succumbed, as have many pundits, to the delusional belief that the country is still split 50/50 as it appeared to be in the 2000 election. Notwithstanding current polls purporting to show Bush losing to Kerry and/or Edwards, they are all wrong. The political center of gravity of the country has shifted to the right, not the left. What is now keeping Kerry higher in polling among people paying little attention to more than the bare headlines about the campaign is the facile assumption among those unfamiliar with Kerry's legislative record that his military heroism makes him a potentially tougher, or better, Commander in Chief for the war on terror than Bush.

Kerry has achieved short-term success in feigning outrage at, and characterizing as attacks on his "patriotism," accurate descriptions of his record of voting against expansion of, and for limitations on, military and intelligence programs which the political center of gravity wishes had been, and now wants to be, expanded. Such success will be short-lived as the nature of his voting record and political philosophy become more apparent to the center of gravity, which has, thus far, focused almost exclusively on his heroism in combat.

Nader's leap of faith in the belief that the political center of gravity has not shifted to the right is what drives his expectation of being the beneficiary of sufficient support by late October to hand victory to the Democratic nominee by withdrawing from the race and urging his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee, by which strategy he would gain more effective control of the Left Wing of the Democratic Party and move its center of gravity even further to the Left. If (when) the election disproves his thesis that the country is still split down the middle rather than its political center of gravity having shifted to the right, the Democrats will be unable to malign him because it will be self-evident that his being in, or out, of the race would not have affected the outcome. Thus, for Nader, the strategy is "win/win."

The Nader Nadir.·

I'm Ralph, and I'm running to save you
from Dubya's intent to enslave you
by warfare deportment
and Ashcroft's enforcement
of laws to restrict and degrade you.

By "warfare deportment" I mean
his "war" against terror to wean
our country away
from views that embrace
enforcement of law as the means.

My rant against "Ashcroft's enforcement"
means Patriot Action deployment
for searches by cops
of too many dots
for terror-connection deployments.

While Dems feign the fear that "for Nader
to run would for them spell their nadir,"
they know I've devised
October's Surprise:
Endorsement from theirs truly, Nader.

Nader will perceive the 2004 loss by the Democratic nominee as proof of his thesis that the Democrats should embrace his brand of leftist "progressive" politics. However, political historians are more likely to view the years 2000 and 2004 as Nader's Nadirs.

··

Feb. 22, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040222-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Kerry, John Edwards, George Bush, Ralph Nader and most candidates evade issues on same-sex marriage, civil union and traditional marriage leading to the Quantum Theory of Marriage. ·

The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection prohibits arbitrary classification of people¹ as grounds for limiting their liberty or eligibility for privileges. In the abstract, a rational basis for a classification precludes its being deemed "arbitrary." However, the historically demonstrated tendency of majorities wielding power to classify minorities in ways to limit their liberty and/or eligibility for privileges in ways inimical to the principle of equality theocratically asserted in the Declaration of Independence and secularly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution justified, if not required, the U.S. Supreme Court to view as "suspect" otherwise rational classifications readily susceptible to such misuse.

Judicial and political evolution of our perception of classification of people according to sex has rightly led to such classification being presumed to be incompatible with the Equal Protection guarantee and, therefore, unconstitutionally "arbitrary" absent societal and/or governmental interests compatible with, and/or necessary for, promoting, protecting or preserving other Constitutional principles, prerogatives or obligations. Thus, proponents of such "suspect" classifications have the burden to establish a sufficient governmental or societal purpose justifying such classification in a manner not offending the Equal Protection guarantee.

Evolution of differing judicial, legislative and political views on what should be the methodology for interpreting the constitution has produced at least two distinctly different schools of thought. One school of constitutional thought advocates judicial interpretation of the Constitution according to the "original intent" existing at the time of its adoption. An opposing school of thought advocates judicial interpretation of the original intent as having been originally intended to be "elastic" to enable the judiciary to adapt interpretations of abstract intent to conform to evolution of societal understandings and expectations about such intent with respect to new, evolving, or unforeseen circumstances.

Although strict adherence to "original intent" would minimize the risks of the tyranny of an unbridled judiciary, it would nevertheless lead to too many instances in which constitutional amendments would be necessary to specify modern applicability of unforeseen, specific manifestations of rights or duties with reference to which reasonable people could disagree regarding whether they should be deemed within, or without, the abstract concept of original intent. Strict adherence to "elastic intent" maximizes the risks of judicial tyranny but relies upon the assumption that manifestations of such tyranny will foment support for amendments to the Constitution to counter them.

The wisest school of thought advocates adherence to "original intent" unless, and until, compelling reasons exist for following the second school of thought, of which Brown v. Board of Education is an example Construing semi-automatic rifles, but not bazookas, as "arms" (despite the fact that at the time of original intent, "arms" that could be borne by a person had not evolved beyond single-shot flintlocks) is another example of "elastic" intent.

Whether governmental licensing of "marriage" only between a man and a woman should be deemed a denial of "equal protection" to men desiring to marry men, women desiring to marry women, men desiring to have multiple wives, women desiring to have multiple husbands, groups of men and women desiring to collectively marry each other, brothers marrying sisters, sisters marrying brothers, brothers marrying brothers, sisters marrying sisters, parents marrying children, adults marrying minors, minors marrying minors, hermaphrodites marrying hermaphrodites, or hermaphrodites marrying men or women is the kind of decision that ought to be made in accordance with the "original intent" theory rather than the "elastic intent" theory. Such concepts were alien to the Framers. English common law, which the Constitution explicitly preserved, condemned bigamy; therefore, one could not rationally contend the "original intent" of equality (later codified in the Fourteenth Amendment) contemplated "marriage" between two people of the same sex..

Determining what type of family structure is best suited for producing and nurturing future generations and thereby deserves special recognition and/or protection is the kind of broad, fundamental "general welfare" determination society is entitled to make on a rational basis without being held hostage to a slavishly literal interpretation of "equal protection" that would trivialize the evolutionary differences between normal and abnormal.² Therefore, if a state were legislatively to choose to eliminate the man-woman requirement for "marriage" in that state, so be it. However, just as Nevada's power to legalize prostitution does not enable a Nevada prostitute to invoke Full Faith and Credit to bring suit in the home state of a tourist to collect on a bad check tendered in Nevada by the tourist for services of the prostitute if the home state of the tourist is one in which contracts for prostitution are unenforceable as against public policy, one state's having granted a "marriage" license to two people of the same sex, or to a polygamous relationship, should not enable the holders of such license to invoke Full Faith and Credit to demand recognition of such license by another state deeming such arrangements to be against its public policy. This is not rocket science, and these Conflicts of Laws principles are not new to our Republic.

In contrast, if a state were to establish a procedure for licensure of civil unions (i.e., contractual obligations with most, but not necessarily all, the incidents of marriage), then the argument for Full Faith and Credit recognition of such unions would be dramatically enhanced, although not guaranteed, because grounds for distinguishing between civil unions and marriage would be far less likely to be deemed contrary to the public policy of a state not yet formally recognizing civil unions. Thus, this is one of those controversies best suited for legislative evolution rather than judicial revolution.

Quantum Theory of Marriage·

The feminist doctrine on marriage
perceives it a tool to disparage
the value of women
as merely fulfillin'
subservient roles in the marriage.

The masculine doctrine on marriage
perceives it a tool to disparage
disbursement of seeds
at odds with the needs
of offspring produced by the marriage.

Though sanctified doctrines on marriage
have not uniformly disparaged
polygamous unions
homogenous unions
through hist'ry were always disparaged.

Though secular doctrines on marriage
through hist'ry were slightly more varied
than sanctified views
they always eschewed
homogeneous unions as marriage.

The Western tradition of marriage
promoted monogamous marriage
as passing the test
on what would be best
for seeds to posterity carried.

Rejecting statistical rareness
of non-procreational marriage
to bar or revoke
the marital cloak
does not its main purpose disparage.

For laws to confer special status
on man-woman rites that begat us
does not serve to slight
homogenous rites
with less than identical status.

Rejecting such specialized status
on man-woman rites that begat us
ignores the oases
of rational bases
supporting such specialized status.

That most who support special status
for man-woman rites that begat us
are moved to embrace
the status by Faith
does not negate grounds for the status,

'Cause ample and secular grounds
for marriage as special abound
that make it unique
for serving the needs
of seeds for posterity bound.

However, uniqueness of marriage
ought not to be grounds to disparage
the needs of the few
that unions accrued
in love be respected like marriage.

So therefore the proper solution
would license homogenous unions
of mutual vows
for status endowed
to complement marital unions.

To license homogenous unions
as diff'rent from marital unions
concedes we should use
distinctions to choose
the relative states of such unions.

Equality bars the consumption
of difference by sameness presumption
in contexts in which
a diff'rence exists
that warrants a diff'rent assumption.

Adoption's but one such example
where grounds for distinctions are ample
that pref'rence be shown
'cause mom-and-dad homes
for kids provide nurture more ample.

The vast majority of heterosexual parents contemplating their children being orphaned by their own deaths and unavailability of relatives or friends to adopt them would want whoever would assume responsibility for placing their children for adoption to accord preference to heterosexual couples as being in the best interests of the orphaned children. That such preferences ought to be respected (and presumed) demonstrates the folly of the argument that "Equal Protection" prohibits such disparate treatment between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This legitimate governmental purpose is alone³ sufficiently compelling to overcome any presumption of sexual classification for purposes of marital licensure as being "suspect"; therefore, such classification could not reasonably be deemed violative of the Equal Protection guarantee. Thus, it is sufficient to afford homosexuals the opportunity to enter into "civil unions" but nevertheless decline to classify them as marriages. That homosexuals, like heterosexuals, desire to make mutual, life-long commitments to each other's well-being is admirable and worthy of licensure as "civil unions" but not as "marriages." It's an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. It's time for sensible secular people to wake up from the delusional dream that whatever religious people favor must be wrong.

In case you're wondering why Ralph Nader's name is included in the headline, it's because on Meet the Press today, he, like the others, declined to confront the issues forthrightly.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·Although the Constitution permits classification of people as citizens or non-citizens for purposes of different treatment in a number of contexts, no such context is relevant to determining whether the Constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection prohibits classification of people according to sex in determining their eligibility for marriage. ·

²·I'm using the scientific, rather than a moral, meaning of "normal" and "abnormal." One need not invoke religion to understand the scientific fact that if homosexuality were to have become "normal" and heterosexuality "abnormal," the human race as we know it would not exist. Perhaps self-replicating, sexless beings could have, or would have, evolved, but they didn't. We did by virtue of heterosexuality being "normal" and homosexuality being "abnormal."

³·By characterizing this issue as being sufficient "alone" to negate the argument that Equal Protection requires treatment of civil unions as identical to marriages and prohibits preferences to heterosexual couples over same-sex couples in contexts in which it obviously makes sense to do so, I do not mean to imply that this is the sole basis for negating such Equal Protection argument.

··

Feb. 21, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040221-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Saturday, February 21, 2004-- No Update Today.·

··

Feb. 20, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040220-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Edwards challenges John Kerry to a Pre-Super-Tuesday Debate in Georgia to be called "Achilles' Heels versus Tar Heels."·

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that John Edwards is challenging John Kerry to a debate in Georgia before Super Tuesday. Kerry should, but probably won't, accept the challenge. PoliSat.Com hereby offers to sponsor the debate as long as it's properly named "Achilles' Heels versus Tar Heels" and conducted in accordance with PoliSat.Com's rules for Political Fisticuffs.

Rather than having Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich participate in the debate, PoliSat.Com would have each of them serve as punching bags for Edwards and Kerry. Under PoliSat.Com's "punching bag" rules, if either of the debaters were to score a knockdown on the other, the debater knocked down would be given an opportunity to launch a meaningless attack against either Sharpton or Kucinich, after which either Sharpton or Kucinich would be allowed a 30-second reply to make the knocked-down debater look better by comparison and allow the knocked-down debater enough time to regain his composure in order to launch an effective counter-punch against the other debater.

The first five rounds would take place on a Jousting Field. The next five rounds would take place in a squared circle (i.e., a boxing ring or wrestling ring) with Jesse Ventura as the Referee. The final five rounds would take place in a closet with the winner being whoever emerges first. If no one were to emerge, the whole process would be re-started as a debate between Kucinich and Sharpton, but there will be no punching bags because we've been unable to locate any other candidate who would, by comparison, make either Kucinich or Sharpton look better. (Someone suggested Michael Moore and Al Franken but neither of them was willing to make a commitment to counter any punch by Kucinich or Sharpton.)

Proposals for such debate have already produced a heated, off-the-record debate between John Kerry and John Edwards over their relative strengths and weaknesses in running against Bush. PoliSat.Com's high-tech¹ system for covert eavesdropping on political chatter has produced a record of the behind-the-scenes "debate" between Edwards and Kerry over whether there should be a debate between Edwards and Kerry:

Achilles' Heels Versus Tar Heels.·

I'm Kerry-- "Achilles" to you--
I'm stronger and braver than you
and wiser and older
and surely much bolder
than you who are short in the tooth.

I'm Edwards, a Tar Heel to you,
but I'm not at risk, as are you,
for votes that reveal
the spots on your heels
for shafts from opponents of you.

It's errors on hist'ry you've spun.
My heels are irrelevant, son,
'cause Bush, whom I'll face
this Fall in the race
will face my invincible front.

But none who's committed to cheer
for me against Dubya this year
expects me to win
and thus needn't send
a shot at my heels from the rear.

Will Kerry accept Edwards' proposal for a debate? Only if Edwards is able to couch his proposal in such a way as to make its rejection seem cowardly.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·Intoxicated computer-science graduates interpreting quantum fluctuations in the fluctuating quanta of political interests among a wide variety of political operatives.
·

··

Feb. 19, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040219-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Report of John Edwards' proposal for "No-Sex Marriage" as a "One America" solution to the "Two Americas" problem of "Same-Sex Marriage" and "Opposite-Sex Marriage" ignites a political firestorm.·

Publication yesterday of excerpts from an off-the-record interview of John Edwards by PoliSat.Com's Wisconsin Bureau Drawer Chief in the wake of his come-from-behind second-place finish behind John Kerry in the February 17, 2004, Wisconsin Primary lit a political firestorm over statements attributed to Edwards about the raging controversy over same-sex/opposite-sex marriages. Here is an excerpt from yesterday's report by PoliSat.Com about that off-the-record interview:

In an exclusive interview with PoliSat.Com's Wisconsin Bureau-Drawer Chief, Edwards provided insight into his winning strategy. While shaking his head in slow motion to emulate one of those Breck commercials to show the richness and fullness of his hair, Edwards said, "I'm the Sea Biscuit of this race. Just like everyone thought the now-legendary Sea Biscuit was too small to beat larger, stronger horses, all the experts today thought there was no way that a John Edwards Galluping on Tar Heels could possibly overtake a galloping war-hero like John Kerry." Asked to identify what he considers his greatest weakness, Edwards spoke at length:

Being so handsome makes people doubt I'm smart-- sort of like the stereotypical view of "dumb blonds," but I already have plans to counter that when I unveil the legal niceties of my proposal to solve the current controversy about marriage. There are already too many contexts in which there are "two Americas." Believe it or not, some people actually favor a "two Americas' solution to this problem-- in other words, one America of "same-sex marriage" and another America of "opposite-sex marriage," but my proposal is for a One America solution: "No-Sex Marriage." Now I don't advocate such arrangement for myself, but Bill Clinton has already proven the viability of the concept."

Although political guru James Carville recently made comments¹ likening the political skills of John Edwards to those of Bill Clinton, some Edwards supporters construed them as "left handed compliments." Others viewed them as having hit the nail on the head if not the head on the nail. Clinton could not be reached for comment on PoliSat.Com's publication of its satirical interview with Edwards. Nevertheless, the "Same-Sex/Opposite-Sex Marriage" issue seems determined to raise its head in this campaign and force all candidates to define their preferred positions, but none of them seems to want to be first out of the box.

Edwards' "One-America Solution" to the "Two Americas" problem of "Same-Sex Marriage" and "Opposite-Sex Marriage" is the "No-Sex Marriage":

Opponents who wish to disparage
my positive manner of carriage
as candidate for
Election Oh-Four,
distorted my statements on "marriage."

I never said words to disparage
the zealous defenders of marriage.
Instead I have called
for "equal for all"
solutions for all seeking "marriage."

Because "One America's" best,
not "Two," we must therefore divest
homogenous sex
and opposite sex
as tests for which marriage is best.

Instead of the opposite sex
preferred over homo-type sex,
in my "One America,"
we'll redefine "marital"
as meaning the "absence of sex."

We'll moot, not approve, Same-Sex Marriage
and Opposite-Sex tests for marriage--
by mere recognition
of ancient traditions
that wives first devised: No-Sex Marriage.

Though status-quo thinkers maintain
the dangers of radical change,
statistics say most
of husbands would boast
they'd surely not notice the change.

Said Clinton, though favoring Edwards'
proposals for meanings of BedWords,
I'd have to complain
if "wives" are the same
as "interns" for rules under Bedwords.

Almost immediately after publication of the off-the-record interview, PoliSat.Com received a telephone call from John Edwards asking that he be identified only as a "top Edwards campaign official wishing to remain anonymous." Respecting his wishes, PoliSat.Com can now report that it has learned from a "top Edwards campaign official who wishes to remain anonymous" that Edwards views PoliSat.Com as another example of the "Two Americas" problem-- in other words, "One America" of "Satire" and the "Other America" of "Commentary." PoliSat.Com responded to Edwards' criticism by pointing out that "only idiots could have thought yesterday's 'report' that he favored 'No-Sex Marriage' constituted 'real' commentary on 'real' news rather than 'satirical' commentary about 'satirical' news." Edwards, showing the quick-on-his-feet skills that made him such a successful trial lawyer, quickly retorted, "But those are the very people to whom I'm trying to appeal in my campaign." Stung by the harsh reality of Edwards' retort, PoliSat.Com's Washington Bureau Drawer Chief replied, "Touché."

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·(According to the Charlotte Observer, Carville described Edwards as "the best stump speaker [he has] seen, even better than Clinton.")

··

Feb. 18, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040218-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Edwards stages a Sea Biscuit Gallup on Tar Heels narrowing the lead of John Kerry galloping on Achilles' Heels in the Wisconsin race as they approach the Super Tuesday final stretch.·

In the wake of the February 17, 2004, Wisconsin Primary, John Edwards' Tar-Heels Galluping so closely behind John Kerry's Achilles' Heels has become the story de jour among political pundits, news junkies and political reporters. To physicists, the sound of galloping tar heels is similar to that of one hand clapping, which explains how Kerry didn't hear John "Sea Biscuit" Edwards Galluping behind him until nearing the finish line.

Wesley Clark, who now stands "beside" Kerry as an unofficial spokesman for the Kerry Campaign, said, "If I were still in the race, no one would catch me by surprise by catching me from behind." A reporter then asked Clark, "If that's true, how did you move from second place in most polls only a few weeks ago to nearly last place before you joined Kerry's campaign?" Flashing that awe-inspiring deer-in-the-headlights expression, Clark smiled and said, "Everyone knows I was a Dark Horse rider, but no one overtook me by galloping faster. Instead, everyone knows that despite my being a 21st Century version of Ike-- i.e., a great general galloping to the rescue of a disabled political party-- I purposely slowed down because as a great military man, I'm trained to leave no one behind."

Howard Dean said, "I wasn't surprised by Edwards having so suddenly narrowed Kerry's lead because by placing my stethoscope to the ground, I heard the squishy sound of those Galluping Tar Heels. Al Sharpton said, "Why does Edwards try to portray himself as the candidate riding the white horse? Shouldn't he be riding a horse of color? At least Wesley Clark had the decency to ride a dark horse."

Galluping Tar Heels·

Says Edwards to Kerry "The sound
behind you are hoofs as they pound
as Tar-Heels in action
with excellent traction
as into the stretch we are bound."

"Though both of us favor the use
of speaking, not whipping, to boost
the speed of the horse,
the sound of your voice
like Mondale's resembles a moose."

"And that's why I'm willing to bet
by me you'll be passed in the stretch
when 'giddyup' sounds
are heard by your mount
as calls by a moose for a mate."

··
In an exclusive interview with PoliSat.Com's Wisconsin Bureau-Drawer Chief, Edwards provided insight into his winning strategy. While shaking his head in slow motion to emulate one of those Breck commercials to show the richness and fullness of his hair, Edwards said, "I'm the Sea Biscuit of this race. Just like everyone thought the now-legendary Sea Biscuit was too small to beat larger, stronger horses, all the experts today thought there was no way that a John Edwards Galluping on Tar Heels could possibly overtake a galloping war-hero like John Kerry." Asked to identify what he considers his greatest weakness, Edwards spoke at length:

Dennis Kucinich, who's had little luck in his nationwide efforts to attract a girlfriend or potential mate, said, "I think there's too much emphasis on sex, so I think Edwards' proposal for 'No Sex' marriage is sound. In fact, many of my ex girl friends who rejected my proposals for marriage had said they would have accepted if I were to have proposed a "No Sex Marriage." This may get me in trouble with the entertainment industry and probably would blow any chance that Madonna might endorse me now that Clark is out of the race, but I firmly believe that once people give up sex, they'll find it easier to give up beefcake and cheesecake in favor of a Veganism. In fact, when I'm elected President, I'll establish a Department of Veganism as part of my larger proposal for a Department of Departments."

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

··

Feb. 17, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040217-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Kerry's Achilles' Heel gets stuck in Wisconsin not by an arrow but by tar.·

From the sounds of reports of this evening's results in today's Wisconsin Primary, the galloping sounds of John Kerry's Achilles' Hee