Here's some questions for both Dem frontrunners, via columnist Lawrence Elder. Why does the mainstream media focus on this fluff while issues with real impact go unaddressed?

Don't Obama supporters also deserve straight answers?

As of March 2008, kids applying for a job at Burger King have been given tougher interview questions (+ a drug test) than Clintobama.


1. Sen. Clinton, you oppose the Bush tax cuts because they unfairly benefit the rich. Since the top 1 percent of taxpayers -- those making more than $364,000 annually -- pay 39 percent of all federal income taxes, don't all across-the-board tax cuts, by definition, "unfairly" benefit the rich?

2. Sen. Obama, you also oppose Bush tax cuts, and claim that they take money away from the Treasury. But President Kennedy signed across-the-board tax cuts in the 1960s and said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Was he wrong?

3. Sen. Clinton, you criticize President Bush for inheriting a surplus and turning it into a deficit. The National Taxpayers Union added up your campaign promises, and they came to an increase of over $218 billion per year. What would this do to the deficit?

4. Sen. Obama, if elected, you promised to raise minimum wage every single year. But isn't it true that most economists -- 90 percent, according to one survey -- believe that raising minimum wages increases unemployment and decreases job opportunities for the most unskilled workers? What makes you right, and the majority of economists wrong?

5. Sen. Clinton, you want universal health care coverage for all Americans -- every man, woman and child. When, as First Lady, you tried to do this, 560 economists wrote President Clinton, and said, "Price controls produce shortages, black markets and reduced quality." One economist who helped gather the signatures explained, "Price controls don't control the true costs of goods. People pay in other ways." Are those 560 economists wrong?

6. Sen. Obama, you once said you understand why senators voted for the Iraq war, admitted that you were "not privy to Senate intelligence reports," that it "was a tough question and a tough call" for the senators, and that you "didn't know" how you would have voted had you been in the Senate. And over a year after the war began, you said, "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." How, then, can you say that you consistently opposed the war from the start?

7. Sen. Clinton, you want to begin withdrawing the troops within the first 60 days of your administration, with all the troops out within a year. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker of the Baker-Hamilton report said that such a precipitous withdrawal in Iraq would create a staging ground for al-Qaida, increase the influence of Iran over Iraq, and result in "the biggest civil war you've ever seen." What would you like to say to Secretary Baker?

8. Sen. Obama, the church you attend, according to its Web site, pursues an Afrocentric agenda. Your church rejects, as part of their "Black Value System," "middleclassness" as "classic methodology" of white "captors" to "control subjugated" black "captives." Your pastor, Jeremiah Wright, recently called the Nation of Islam's Minister Louis Farrakhan -- a man many consider anti-Semitic -- a person of "integrity and honesty." What would happen to a Republican candidate who attended a Caucasian-centric church, and who praised David Duke as a man of "integrity and honesty"?

9. Sen. Clinton, you recently criticized NAFTA, the free trade agreement signed into law by President Clinton. The conservative Heritage Foundation says that NAFTA-like free trade benefits the economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico, resulting in increased trade, higher U.S. exports and improved living standards for American workers. Explain how President Clinton and the Heritage Foundation got it wrong then, but that you are right now.

10. Sen. Obama, this question is about global warming, something about which you urge extreme action to fight. You criticize President Bush for going to war in Iraq, even though all 16 intelligence agencies felt with "high confidence" that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMDs. Critics of Bush say he "cherry-picked" the intelligence. Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists consider concerns about global warming overblown. Isn't there far more dissent among credible scientists about global warning than there was among American intelligence analysts about Iraq? If so, as to the studies on global warming, why can't you be accused of cherry-picking?

OMG, nice find! ant, watch it twice. Hilarious.

Information to share with anyone not reading or ignoring PC Gamer: Yahtzee will now be the Back Page columnist of PC Gamer (US edition) starting in the February 2007 issue.

My subscription was a wise choice indeed.

One Nation “Under God”
Questions & Answers

In 2002, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2-1 that public schools may not sponsor recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, due to its religious content through the inclusion of the phrase "under God." This ruling sparked much comment in the media and was denounced by many political leaders. The U.S. Supreme Court later announced that it will hear
an appeal of the decision. The high court’s ruling is expected by late June or early July 2004.

Q. Why did the 9th Circuit Court rule the way it did?
A. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates the separation of church and state. Under this time-tested arrangement, government is given no authority to meddle with religion or religious matters. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that public school sponsorship of the Pledge furthers religion. Thus, the court declared the action unconstitutional. The court noted , "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical…to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect of religion. The coercive effect of this policy is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school, their teacher and their fellow students."

Q. Isn't this a radical ruling?
A. Not at all. The court simply applied the constitutional principle that government has no business promoting religion. Courts have been particularly vigilant when it comes to public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that religious instruction is up to parents, not government officials or public school personnel. Public schools serve children of many
different religious perspectives (and some who practice no religion at all). Thanks to the protections of the Constitution, students cannot be pressured to participate in prayer or other forms of worship at public schools. The appellate court's ruling on the Pledge is simply a logical continuation of that wise judicial precedent. Furthermore, the 9th Circuit judge who wrote the
opinion, Alfred Goodwin, could hardly be called a radical. He is a Presbyterian elder, a World War II combat veteran and was appointed to his position by President Richard M. Nixon.

Q. Did the court declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?
A. No. The court ruled that public schools may not sponsor daily recitation of the current Pledge of Allegiance because of its religious content. If the Supreme Court upholds the 9th Circuit ruling, public schools could continue to recite the pre-1954 version. Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Q. What did the Pledge say before 1954?
A. Students used to end the Pledge, "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Despite the controversy surround the 9th Circuit's ruling, many Americans thought the Pledge was just fine as a patriotic ritual without religious references. After all, America survived the
Great Depression and won two world wars with a secular Pledge, and neither religious devotion nor patriotism suffered.

Q. How did "under God" get into the Pledge of Allegiance?
A. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister. Bellamy crafted the Pledge for a magazine called The Youth's Companion as part of a patriotic exercise to mark the 400th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the New World. Bellamy, who was an advocate of church-state separation, did not include religious references in his Pledge. In
1954, Congress inserted the phrase "under God" into the Pledge after a lobbying campaign led by the Knights of Columbus. This was during the McCarthy era, and the change was seen as a blow against "godless communism" in the Soviet Union.

Q. Does the ruling mean that public schools can no longer open the day by reciting the
Pledge of Allegiance?
A. The ruling currently affects only those states in the 9th Circuit -- California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Alaska and Hawaii and is currently on hold while the Supreme Court considers the matter. If the high court upholds the lower court ruling, it will apply that decision nationwide. Public schools would have to stop sponsoring recitation of the
Pledge or use the pre-1954 version.

Q. What's wrong with a generic reference to God in the Pledge? Who does it hurt?
A. The Pledge was a purely patriotic exercise until Congress in 1954 made it a patriotic and religious exercise. Millions of Americans who have no religious beliefs or who object to religious-political entanglement were alienated by that change. When it altered the Pledge, Congress sent the signal that in order to be a patriotic American, one must also be religious.
Many Americans disagree with this assertion. Not all religious people agree with so-called “generic” references to God. These references tend
to reflect Judeo-Christians understandings of God that may not be shared by Buddhists, Hindus and others. Other believers oppose phrases like “under God” because it is a form of watereddown spirituality. They note that religion has thrived in America due to the separation of church and state and do not want to violate that principle.

Q. Haven't some courts said that references to God in the Pledge are permissible because
they are ceremonial and don't really promote religion?
A. Some courts have said this and have even asserted that such usages are acceptable because they are merely "ceremonial deism" -- the practice of government co-opting generic religious Americans United for Separation of Church and State language for ceremonial purposes. Religious believers ought to be appalled by such statements. The phrase "under God" has obvious religious meanings. It is not drained of its religious
meaning merely because of frequent repetition. In addition, religion is not some prop designed to give heft to government functions. For believers, faith is to be taken seriously. It demeans religion to claim that phrases like "under God" are no longer religious because they have been so
frequently used by government.

Q. How have politicians reacted to this controversy?
A. Many overreacted. There were immediate calls to amend the Constitution, even through the Supreme Court has not issued its decision yet. Both houses of Congress have also passed resolutions condemning the 9th Circuit's ruling and expressing support for "under God" in the Pledge. Some political strategists have also recommended using the decision for partisan
purposes. President George W. Bush and his allies in the Senate said they would use the ruling to press for confirmation of Bush's judicial nominees.
Bush himself said that the decision shows that "we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kinds of judges I intend to put on the bench." Bush's statement implies that he has a type of "religious test" in mind for judges, a violation of Article VI of the Constitution, which forbids religious tests for public office.

Q. What about Religious Right groups -- how did they react?
A. Several Religious Right groups used the controversy to raise money, foment hysteria and attack the separation of church and state. Many groups also hoped the ruling furthers their farright political agenda and urged President Bush to use the decision to argue for more judges who oppose church-state separation. TV preacher Jerry Falwell, for example, sent a message to his supporters telling them that he believes it is "time to go to war" over this issue. TV preacher Pat Robertson said the Pledge ruling may cause more terrorist attacks, concluding, "[I]f something much more terrible than
September 11th befalls our beloved nation, the answer to the question 'Where was God in all of this?' may well be 'He was excluded by the 9th Circuit.'" Ultra-conservative newspaper columnist Cal Thomas suggested that the Pledge ruling may have been even worse than the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Thomas wrote, "On the eve of our great national birthday party and in the
aftermath of Sept. 11...the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has inflicted on this nation what many will conclude is a greater injury than that caused by the terrorists."

Q. What happens now?
A. The Supreme Court will issue its decision most likely by the end of June or early July. The high court could uphold the 9th Circuit’s decision or overturn it. The court could also dismiss the case and rule that the man who brought it, Michael Newdow, lacks “standing” (the right to sue)
because he does not have full custody of his daughter, a public school student who is exposed to Pledge in school.

Q. Could this case result in a tie ruling? What would happen then?
A. It is possible that the Supreme Court’s decision could be a 4-4 tie. Justice Antonin Scalia made public comments about the case in January of 2003. Justices are not supposed to pre-judge cases, and Scalia was asked to remove himself from the deliberations. He later recused himself from the case. If the court splits 4-4, the decision will still apply to the states in the 9th Circuit but will not be extended nationwide.

if you would like to learn more about religious liberty, please contact:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
518 C Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: (202)466-3234 Fax: (202)466-2587
e-mail: americansunited@au.org
website: www.au.org

Since we're talking about how condoms are no fun: a squirt of lube inside a condom makes the experience *way* more pleasurable for a guy. Almost like you're not wearing one at all. Astroglide's great stuff, well worth it, and there are cheaper lubes which are just as good (although you might have to shop around to find the good ones available to you). Seriously, lube's so good that I make a point of going and getting more if I'm out. One of our local Montreal sex columnists wrote that it's her favourite sex toy.

Well I was already skeptic about this whole thing before even knowing who this man was. I thought something was missing, like I stated in above post.

I did a very quick, no hassle research via wiki, and there's already a section dedicated to: controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perkins

quote: "Columnist Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post reacted sharply to Perkins' book[1]: "This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." endquote

how he got his russian passport (basically putin gave it to him):
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/olybb/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&page=holdenrussia

that's a nice article. this is a really big deal actually, there's a lot of racism around eastern europe, i am pretty sure this is a positive story.

quote from the article:
Yes, the money is great, but the exposure to the world beyond America's borders is something he cannot put a price on.

"The culture, there's just a whole world out there to see," Holden said, "and if you're close-minded to that, you miss out."

Our local columnist calls them 'news poodles' Mix. (I'll plug him, what the hell. Larry Alexander: http://local.lancasteronline.com/15/Larry%20Alexander )

Vote independent guys. Our only hope unless you want more of the same. Same shit, different lean if a democrat makes white house.

I simply detest this woman, her video and her goddamn book.

Nothing what she says is a secret, it's common sense that has existed for eons. If it was called "Positive Thinking For the Win" no one would have bought the book, but it's called the Secret and sold off as being some ancient texts and rubbish like that becuase it's the same rehashed story you can find in Self-Help texts dating back to the 19th century.

It's just so vapidly stupid... Her entire case is that if you think about it hard enough it will happen? Oh yeah? Tell that to the people in Darfur or Iraq am sure they can just wish all the death and violence away.

Oh I found something that does a much better job...

Karin Klein, editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, called The Secret "just a new spin on the very old (and decidedly not secret) The Power of Positive Thinking [book by Norman Vincent Peale (1952)] wedded to 'ask and you shall receive'." The editorial, in one of its strongest criticisms, asserted Rhonda Byrne "took the well-worn ideas of some self-help gurus, customized them for the profoundly lazy, [and] gave them a veneer of mysticism..."

Journalist Jeffrey Ressner, reporting in Time, writes that some critics are concerned with the film’s attitude toward "using ancient wisdom to acquire material goods." In one example in the film, "a kid who wants a red BMX bicycle cuts out a picture in a catalog, concentrates real hard, and is rewarded with the spiffy two-wheeler."

Jerry Adler of Newsweek notes that despite the film's allusions to conspiratorially suppressed ancient wisdom, the notions presented by the motivational speakers who make up the film's cast have been commonplace for decades. Adler notes that the film is ethically "deplorable," fixating on "a narrow range of middle-class concerns — houses, cars, vacations, followed by health and relationships, with the rest of humanity a very distant sixth." Noting that the scientific foundations of the movie are clearly dubious, the Newsweek article quotes psychologist John Norcross, characterizing it as "pseudoscientific, psychospiritual babble."

Tony Riazzi, columnist for the Dayton Daily News, also questions the merits of The Secret, calling Byrne's background as a reality TV producer a "red flag." He also said that "The Secret's" ideas are nothing more than "common sense. Take out the buzzwords and pseudo religious nonsense about what you 'manifest' for yourself, ignore the vague prose and you get the message that thinking positively serves you better than thinking negatively."

Jewish is okay, but Muslim is not. More @ Wiki.

I'm pretty baffled at the ignorance on display here regarding such a simple issue. The vaccine does not have "some small chance of preventing the STD", it has near 100% chance at preventing infection from the subtypes that it protects against. And the only people saying the "vaccine has only a 5 year window of effectiveness so the target girls 9-12 years old will have the same risk of anyone else" are conservative newspaper columnists and the like who actually seem to be hoping the vaccine doesn't work so they don't have to worry about explaining sex to little jane. I mean the mind just boggles here. The vaccine has only been around for 5 years and in that time it appears to confer near perfect (non-diminishing) protection against the virus. There is almost no reason to suspect the vaccine doesn't confer VERY long term protection as most other vaccines do.

More from Wikipedia:

A poll conducted by American columnist Dave Barry, recorded in Dave Barry's Book of Bad Songs, selected Harris's version of "MacArthur Park" as the worst song ever recorded.