Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Congress Wants to Slow Down Your Internet

(Note that this was originally published May 9, 2006 by Michael Socolow who is an assistant professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine. After reading it, I felt that it needed to be shown here in it's entirety. All emphasis are mine)

Congress wants to change the Internet.

This is news to most people because the major news media have not actively pursued the story. Yet both the House and Senate commerce committees are promoting new rules governing the manner by which most Americans receive the Web. Congressional passage of new rules is widely anticipated, as is President Bush's signature. Once this happens, the Internet will change before your eyes.

The proposed House legislation, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), offers no protections for "network neutrality."
Currently, your Internet provider does not voluntarily censor the Web as it enters your home. This levels the playing field between the tiniest blog and the most popular Web site.

Yet the big telecom companies want to alter this dynamic. AT&T and Verizon have publicly discussed their plans to divide the information superhighway into separate fast and slow lanes. Web sites and services willing to pay a toll will be channeled through the fast lane, while all others will be bottled up in the slower lanes. COPE, and similar telecom legislation offered in the Senate, does nothing to protect the consumer from this transformation of the Internet.

The telecoms are frustrated that commercial Web sites reap unlimited profits while those providing entry to your home for these companies are prevented from fully cashing in. If the new telecom regulations pass without safeguarding net neutrality, the big telecom companies will be able to prioritize the Web for you. They will be free to decide which Web sites get to your computer faster and which ones may take longer - or may not even show up at all.

By giving the telecoms the ability to harness your Web surfing, the government will empower them to shake down the most profitable Web companies. These companies will sell access to you, to, and even, etc. What if these companies elect not to pay? Then, when you type in "," you might be redirected to, or your lightning-quick DSL Internet service might suddenly move at horse-and-buggy speed.

It might appear that the direct ramifications of this bill are somewhat obscure. Why should you care, if your Internet fee isn't altered? Or if your Web surfing will (possibly) be only minimally disrupted? (The telecoms understand that completely barring access to certain sites - especially the most popular ones - would be counterproductive.)

You should care because any corporate restriction on information gathering directly counters the original purpose of the World Wide Web.

"Universality is essential to the Web," says its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. "It loses its power if there are certain types of things to which you can't link."

If calling up the Web site of your favorite political commentator takes far longer than surfing to a commercial site, the new laws will have a direct impact on the Web's democratic utility. The proposed laws also facilitate future steps toward corporate censorship. Do you think that the telecoms, under the proposed regulations, would make it easy to visit the Web sites of their disgruntled - or possibly striking - employees?

The proposed new rules have received surprisingly sparse media coverage. The new laws have economic, political and social ramifications. There are several explanations for the silence.

The most probable is simply that because the laws have strong bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, they do not appear particularly newsworthy. COPE has been promoted vigorously in the House by both Texas Republican Joe L. Barton and Illinois Democrat Bobby L. Rush. While a few legislators are attempting to preserve net neutrality - most notably Democratic Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - they are clearly outnumbered.

The history of American telecommunications regulation does not offer a promising model for the future of net neutrality. In the late 1800s, Congress approved of Western Union, America's telegraph monopoly, censoring the Associated Press. The 1934 Communications Act resulted in political discussion over the national airwaves being tightly moderated by CBS and NBC.

Most telecom laws are sold to the public as the "natural evolution" of communications technology. Yet there is no truly natural evolution to our telecommunications laws. Only very rarely is regulation completely ordained by physics or technological limits. More commonly, it emerges from the political process. This is news to many Americans unaware of their own media history.

Many people believe the Internet's decentralized structure guarantees that no company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship - whether by corporate or state interests - simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your screen, it will be too late to complain.

(My two cents now)
I urge each and everyone out there to email and call their representatives in Congress and tell them to vote no. Or at least support and vote for the neutrality of the internet. I don't know about any of you, but I darn sure don't want this site, or other sites that I read to be slowed down or shut off completely.

Your vote is your voice. USE IT.

Monday, May 08, 2006

How Low Can Bush Push the Republican Party?

The latest polls are in and only 31 percent of Americans feel that George Bush the second is doing a wonderful job. Just last week I believe his approval rating was at 33 percent. So how far can he fall?

According to the USA Today story here, only four other presidents in history have scored lower approval ratings since they began regularly measuring the polls in the mid-1940s: Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and George Bush the first. When Nixon, Carter and the elder Bush sank below 35%, they never again registered above 40%. At least Truman recovered somewhat.

I am very curious as to how Bush the second, and indeed the Republican Party as a whole will fare with the mid-term elections coming up. After all the Democrats only need 15 seats to usurp Republican domination and wrest control away. Already the democrats are planning what they will do once(in their minds anyway) they take over the house and senate. (For that story, read the article here.)

Can you say Speaker Pelosi? Or can you say Madam President Clinton?

Moussaoui doesn't want to go to prison

Zacarias Moussaoui has filed a motion asking the sentencing judge to withdraw his guilty plea.

You can read the whole story here .

Poor Moussaoui. Now he is saying that he lied about his part of the September 11 hijacking plot. Not only that but he said that he plead against the advice of his lawyers because he didn't understand the United States legal system.

Oh Boo Hoo hand me a tissue.

So now the big bad terrorist is afraid to go to his new home? Or is he afraid that everyone and history will forget about him as he rots in prison? Either way, his request will be turned down. Once the plea is entered and the sentence passed down in judgement, it is over.

Too bad for you Moussaoui. Now we can forget about you and laugh. And the last laugh is ours.

Isreal Answers Back to Iran (Finally)

"Iran can also be wiped off the map"
So reads the Online edition of the Jerusalem Post. This is the sentence uttered by Vice Premier Shimon Peres during an interview with Reuters.
The entire article can be read here.

As I wrote in an earlier blog entitled " Iran and the Latest Lunacy", I believe that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to be either insane or perhaps is deluded by religion; I don't know which. But I do know that I stated just a few days ago that if Iran attacks Isreal, especially with nuclear weapons, then Iran will no longer be a country as we think of it. Isreal will retailiate with their own nukes and if anyone is out there that thinks Isreal doesn't have nukes, then they are oblivious to the truth of that reality.

As appearantly the man in the white strapped suit is who resides as president of Iran.

God help us all when he triggers WWIII.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Episcopalian Vote for Bishop

If you read my post below titled: "Episcopal Church Loses Collective Mind", you'll know that the Episcopalian church members were to vote on 7 different candidates for the position of Bishop of the Diocese of California. And you'll remember that 3 of those candidates were openly gay, living in an openly gay relationship. I complained that it seemed that the members of the Episcopalian church in even nominating such people violated God's word as laid out in his Holy Book and as such thumbed their collective noses at our Father.

But, as outlined here on CNN's website tonight, the members actually have a brain and decided to at least elect a Bishop who isn't gay.

In fact, according to the report, the three openly gay electees received only a "handfull of votes" each.

So to the brave memebers of this denomination who voted for a non gay bishop and to keep their denomination whole and not splintered, I commend you.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Rep. Patrick Kennedy and a Double Standard?

After reading the various news accounts about the Patrick Kennedy incident last night is there anyone out there who can honestly say that for whatever reason, he received extream preferential treatment last night. Let's really be honest here...if that had been anyone else, that person would have been given the breathalyzer test, and more than likely, taken into custody for DUI. What happens to Kennedy? Higher ranking capitol police than those at the scene show up, tell the on-scene officers to put up the breathalyzer equipment then drive Kennedy home.

Are you kidding me?

So tell me, what is the big difference here between Kennedy's experience and Cynthia McKinney's experience a few weeks ago? I didn't see the preferential treatment there, did you? Granted, McKinney was a little arrogant in not stopping for the officer when he asked her 3 times to stop, but I believe that she was treated a lot differently than Kennedy was.

So is there a double standard here? I think so.

Appearantly, so does some in the Capitol Police Department.
The Capitol Police statement said an investigation of the crash was still under way.

"Upon review, it has been determined that in the initial stages supervisors employed improper judgment," it said.

"Corrective administrative and personnel action has been taken. The Capitol Police remain committed to impartial and fair enforcement of laws and impartial and fair treatment of all citizens."

So maybe, just maybe, someone finally realized that the incident was handled improperly.

About time.

First Weekly "What the Heck?" Award Winner

I have thought about doing this now for a couple of weeks, but I held off doing it because I could not find that one “right” story that would start off the weekly awards with a bang (pun intended). Until now. So without further ado, I present my first Weekly “What the Heck?” award to the government of Australia and their Tax Officers. This award shows the idiocy of governments from around the world for their unbelievable actions that are taken. This award shows us just why we should question our government leaders as to just what the heck they think they are doing.

So here is the very first winner: The Australian Taxation Office.
What have they done? You can click on the link to read the whole story but the short version is that they are allowing prostitutes, strippers and lap dancers to claim sex toys, condoms, gels , oils and lingerie on their tax forms as deductions for “work related expenses”.

So congratulations to the Australian Taxation Office for being the first winner of the “What the Heck?” award.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Where Moussaoui Will Spend the Rest of His Life

I think that today is a really good day for justice. Moussaoui once again lambasted our country today, asking his god to curse America and to bless Bin Ladin. But I absolutely love what the judge in the case said to this jerk. (I am paraphrasing here)

You came to this country to become a will die in this country with a will never talk to anyone else again.

I read this article a little while ago and smiled at the new home of this wannabe terrorist. He will spend the rest of his life alone with only his thoughts to keep him company.

I know that most people wanted him to receive the death penalty, but I think once you read the article I read, you'll understand the irony of where he will eventually die.

US Navy Has Lost It's Mind Too

Appearantly the Episcopal Church isn't the only organization that has lost it's mind. It looks like the US Navy has done the same. In a story reported by NBC 4 out of Los Angeles, Lt. Gordon Klingenscmitt might face a court-martial for praying outside the uniform while outside the White House. It looks like the Navy has nothing better to do than to issue orders forbidding its military chaplains from invoking the name of Jesus Christ while praying and the Lieutanent was supporting his cause to protest this order while in uniform...and that is appearantly against the rules as well.

With a war on terrorism going on, and the morals of the nation going to heck, now our military is joining the gang on keeping Jesus out of the picture.

You can read more about the story here.

Episcopal Church Loses Collective Mind

There are times when I wonder why God hasn't judged America yet. I realize that He is patient with us, that He wishes for that one last lost soul to surrender to His Son, Jesus the Christ, but it just seems lately that we (collective we mind you, not as individuals) are constantly thumbing our noses at Him, in utter disregard and contempt. The latest nose thumbing is coming out of California (go figure) which is in a Bishop election race to elect the next Episcopal Bishop for the Diocese of California.

Now, normally this wouldn't be something that I would want to blog about, as I don't consider myself to be a person who really affiliates myself with a denomination, but just the headline itself off of was enough to make me want to throw up my hands in disbelief. The headline said "Election of Gay Bishop in Calif. Threatens Episcopal Church Unity". You can read the whole story here
. The seven persons who are up for election to this post are pictured above. Three of them are openly gay, and live openly with same sex lovers. The three are the Rev. Canon Michael Barlowe of San Francisco, and the Very Rev. Robert Taylor of Seattle and the Rev. Bonnie Perry of Chicago.

As with all issues that are decisive and this is a big issue dividing not just this denomination but others as well, there are two sides to this story. I will summerize them here:
The Conservative's View:
The delegates know their actions will be closely watched by Anglicans around the world. But conservative Canon Bill Atwood of the Ekklesia Society, an Episcopal aid network based in Carrollton, Texas, predicts the Californians will "totally ignore the consequences" of their actions.

"I don't think there's any question they'll be compelled to elect a partnered gay," Atwood said. "I think they've got a mistaken understanding of issues of justice. Huge portions of the Episcopal Church are theologically adrift.

"I'm not saying there isn't religion, but it's not the historic Christian faith."
The Liberal's View:
But the Rev. Susan Russell of Integrity, the national gay and lesbian Episcopal caucus, said the Diocese of California has no obligation to elect a heterosexual as the Communion struggles to remain unified. She argued that a "radical conservative fringe" within Anglicanism is determined to bring about a split no matter what concessions the American church makes.

"For any elector to allow the current political climate in the global church to hamstring the Holy Spirit would be working against who we are when we're at our best as a church," Russell said. (emphisis mine)
All I can say is "HUH?".

The "radical conservative fringe"...You know just who that sounds like?
(Joh 2:15) And having made a scourge out of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and He overturned the tables.

(Joh 2:16 ) And He said to those selling the doves, "Take these things away from here! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!"
Sounds like the carpenter that I chose to surrender my life to. Remember Him? Jesus the Christ, the only Son of God? I think that he would qualify as a member of the "radical conservative fringe".

And just when did the Episcopalian Church decide to stop following the Bible?
(1Ti 3: 2-6 ) It is necessary, therefore, for a bishop to be irreproachable, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, well-behaved, hospitable, skillful at teaching;

not given to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not loving money;

one ruling his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence;

(for if one does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);

not a new convert, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.
Does that sound like Bishops will be selected from "openly gay" men or women? So I suppose that Paul is a member of that "radical conservative fringe".

Or how about this?
(1Co 6:9 ) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

(1Co 6:10 ) nor covetous, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor abusive people, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
So what is going on here? I suppose then that according to what Paul says here, that an openly homosexual bishop won't go to where do you suppose he or she would go?

But the good news is that you can be forgiven as Paul continued:
(1Co 6:11) And such were some of you! But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
So some were openly gay back then, but renounced that sin and were cleansed and santified and washed by the blood of the sacrifice of the Son of God. I hope too that the members of the Episcopal Church who aren't of the "radical conservative fringe" starts reading the Bible again and soon, before it really is too late. And I hope that they elect a Bishop who does fulfill the requirements as set forth in the Word.

And yes, I suppose you can call me a card carrying member of the Radical Conservative Fringe.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Moussaoui Gets Life in Prison

Al Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui was handed a life without parole sentence today by the jury deliberating his case. Now some, like Rudy Giuliani believe he should have received the death penalty, but I think he got the right sentence.
Why you may ask? Well, if I understand the muslim religion correctly, muslims don't have a clue as to where they will be going in the afterlife, except when they blow themselves up, killing innocent bystanders in their neverending jihads.
Anyway, when they die this way, they go to Paradise and have 70 virgins and wine and song and all that good stuff, but for Moussaoui, he won't have that chance to kill himself for the jihad. Now he's a "guest" of the Nation he hates the most and you know that he has to be hate that. I am sure that he wanted to die, to become that next martyr. So for him, the punishment now and eternal, fits the bill.

As Bush the junior is quoted as saying, this case is closed, but the war goes on.

National Day Of Prayer

Tomorrow is the National Day Of Prayer. I highly encourage each and every person out there to join in and pray for this Nation, and if you aren't living in America, then pray for the Nation you are in. I am blessed to work for an organization which not only allows for its employees to pray during the noon hour for this day, but actively promotes it as well.

The Nation Day Of Prayer website is here.

Please take the time out of your schedules to join with us who will be praying tomorrow.

Massachusetts, Parents and MySpace.Com

I fully recognize the need for our children to be safe and secure when they start surfing the web, and especially when they place profiles and such on sites like MySpace.Com. My oldest daughter has just now started going to some sites that my wife and I have approved of and only under the supervision of one of us (Meaning yes, we do litterally stand over her shoulder).

An article on which you can read here, outlines the concerns of state officials about the safety of young teenagers on the MySpace site. Now, I do agree with their concerns about the threat of online child predators that are using the MySpace site to try and lure young victims into harms way. However, I do not think that it should be up to MySpace exclusively to provide for the security of the younger users of that site.

The State of Massachusetts did offer some good suggestions to MySpace and I do agree that they should implement some of those ideas, but I firmly believe that it should be the responsibility of the parents of the younger users to monitor what sites their children are going to, who their online contacts are, view their online messages and generally, just be in their life so much that the parents are viewed as nuisances to their children. They might be viewed as such but I guarantee that the kids will be much safer than "Stand offish" parents.

If the parents aren't sure how to monitor instant chats, or block websites, or filter sites or if they just aren't internet savvy, then for pete's sake, GET THAT WAY! Doing so means that you do love your kids...after all, Love is a VERB and verbs require action.

MySpace can not guarantee the safety of children; they can put into place safeguards to help, but it is really up to the parents to provide the safety and safeguarding of the children.

How Young is Too Young...

I'm the father of two very beautiful girls whom I love dearly and this post is not one of outrage, but of disbelief. Take a look at the picture below and ask me and yourself, "just what is wrong with this?"

This is the latest "fashion" in infants and children's clothing. It's called Pimpfants wear.

I think the best comment that I have read about this travesty is from Beth Teitell of the Boston

Britney wannabes - rev up your credit cards, there’s a double-wide load of styles to choose from. There’s the winsome ‘‘Baby Beater” tank tops, the mini basketball uniform with ‘‘Jr. Pimp Squad” across the jersey or the T-shirts that read ‘‘My Mom Is a MILF.” (I’d explain MILF, but this is a family newspaper.)

Speaking of families, parents who dress their kids in Pimpfants might as well start saving for pole-dancing lessons - and therapy sessions - now. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the kids aren’t begging for the stuff. ‘‘But mom, all the other toddlers have ‘Pimpfant’ onesies.”

So I wonder what's next? I remember a Saturday Night Live Skit some time ago that had babies in "Thong Diapers", but that was a skit. Or was it a sign of things to come.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Iran and the Latest Lunacy

Will the bearded men in the White Straightjackets please step away from the Iranian Government?

You have to love the latest press release out of Iran. The headline reads "Iran will hit Israel if US does 'evil'" Uhh, I realize that Israel will not confirm the presence of nuclear weapons but according to the latest intelligence out of the various agencies around the world...that is the "intelligence that they will release", Israel has about 200 nuclear weapons in their inventory. So the idiots in Iran who run the country must have a death wish.

Do they NOT realize that if they try to attack Israel, the Israelis will fight back? This isn't Gulf War I ladies and gentlemen. Back then Bush the first was able to dissuade the Israelis to not retaliate against Saddam for his lunacy in attacking Israel, but I really don't think that Bush the second will be able to accomplish the same thing in the here and now. In Iran, we have the Iranian Lunatic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for the complete destruction of not just the country of Israel, but the genocide of the Jewish people. Here is a madman with a death wish who not only denies that the Holocaust happened, but also wishes to bring about the Muslim version of Armageddon. So perhaps he doesn't really care about his country's destruction.

But the most disturbing aspect of this whole report is this: What exactly would the Iranians view as "evil"?

Would they view UN Sanctions against them as such? Probably.
What about a US led boycott? More than likely.
What about a US led attack? Definately.

So what would happen to a country that is working on producing nuclear weapons, (peaceful my Aunt Fanny) calls for the total destruction of an entire people and their country, attacks that country?

Can anyone say 10 dollars a gallon for gas and no more Iran?

While on the subject of the Day Without

I came across this pretty interesting website that I thought we all might want to take a look at. The group is called FAIR which stands for Federation for American Immigration Reform and their website is

You just might find some good information there. I haven't looked at the site in depth, but on the surface, it looks pretty fair (no pun intended) and informative.

The Day After the Day Without (Illegal Aliens)

Here are a couple of photos from yesterday's so called rallies. I suppose in the first picture, the person who created the sign doesn't realize that perhaps we really don't need Illegal Aliens here in our country to make Burritos?

And this picture here is really note worthy just by the URL on the poster...Hmmm the URL says "Socialism and Well now, I suppose the true colors of the so called immigration reform proponents are beginning to show through. So what's next for the Illegal Alien reformists? Are they going to call on the people to revolt against our Democratic Society and bring in their failed verison of government? Puhleeze.

Once again, these are the true colors of the people behind all of the protests.

Monday, May 01, 2006

The Day without Illegal Immigrants Part 2

It has been said that those of us who think like I do, meaning that we really DON'T want to spend over 3000 dollars per family on illegal aliens (see my post below), would really like to see them come here the legal way and be productive members of society and pay taxes, are nothing more than Bigots, xenophobes, or racist people.

Hmmm. Well, if that means that I don't want to support illegal aliens on welfare, or medicare, or free school lunches, that I could spend that 3000 + dollars on my own family and have a darn good time doing it, that I would rather not have people here illegally, demanding to be granted amnesty for breaking the laws of My country, then yes, I guess I am. And Proud of it too. (No, I am not really Politically Correct)

Some of my best friends are Hispanic, their families from one Latin country or another, and they came here Legally. They work, they pay taxes, and they are not a burden to those of us who pay taxes. And they don't like what is going on today either. Believe me they don't. They are more vocal than I am at times. So there you have it. Are those of us who would rather the illegals come here legally and live the American Dream racist, or bigots, or xenophobes? You decide.

The Day without Illegal Immigrants

It is now happening across America as thousands of people are marching in protest because some of us would like to see millions of people who have BROKEN THE LAWS OF AMERICA by ILLEGALLY entering our country convicted and deported back to their home countries. So that means that some are skipping school, skipping work, skipping whatever, to Demand that we give in to their extortion.

I came across an article today on Human Events Online that showcased a piece by Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican for Colorado. I would like to list some of what he said here. (You can read the whole story here

The net cost to the federal government in 2002 for public services provided to illegal aliens was $10.4 billion or $2,736 per household according to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies. Estimates for 2005 put the amount at $11.7 billion or $3,080 per household.

Illegal Alien Costs By Social Service

  • Lost Revenue: The U.S. may be foregoing up to $35 billion in lost tax revenue because of the growing size of the underground labor market using illegal workers in the cash economy, according to a January, 2005 report by the Wall Street firm Bear Sterns.

  • Health Costs: Medicaid costs for illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children are $2.8 billion annually, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies. Approximately 70% of households headed by illegal aliens have at least one person without medical insurance, compared to 20% of all other households. The federal government spends $250 million each year reimbursing states for emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens, which is less than 10% of the true cost of those services.

  • Education Costs: The Center for Immigration Studies has shown that federal aid to K-12 public schools for the education of the children of illegal aliens is $1.4 billion annually, not including the cost of free school lunches. The total cost to state and local taxpayers for educating 3.5 million children of illegal aliens is estimated at $28.6 billion, according to a Federation for American Immigration Reform study.

  • Incarceration: Illegal aliens account for less than 5% of the U.S. adult population, but were 17% of the federal prison population in 2004, imposing a net cost of $1.8 billion in court and incarceration expenses.

Mr. Tancredo goes on to say that most Americans have seen through or are beginning to see through the protestor's half truths and are fed up. I happen to agree. I am fed up with it as well.

Let's build a real fence and start deporting.

Gas Prices Part 2

I wanted to comment quickly on the responses by the two political parties on high gas prices in our country.

The republican response is to mail out 100$ rebate checks to about 100 million Americans who would qualify for the checks. Note that those who don't qualify are the individuals making 140 thousand plus a year and couples who make more than 220 thousand plus a year. Yeah, I would really think that a single 100 dollar check from the government would not be much help to these Americans. My family doesn't make that much and to be quite honest, 100 bucks isn't really going to help either.

So what do the Republicans believe us to be?

    A: Stupid to actually believe them and take the money and then vote them BACK into office

    B: Prostitues/Whores that can be bought off cheaply.

    C: Ignorant of why the gas prices are so high

    D: Don't Care about anything and that we have short memories

    E: All of the above

To the Republicans, they would love to beieve E. But I have news for them. There are people like me out here that are none of the above...There are people who DO NOT have a price, ARE intelligent enough to know economics, and ARE NOT ignorant of the facts and DO CARE about what happens.

To the Republic Party, I am not a whore whose vote can be bought off for 100 bucks, but an intelligent voter who WILL work to vote your sorry self seeking selves OUT of office. Do you really expect me, and others out there like me to effectively screw us like prostitutes for that 100 dollar check and then thank you profusely for "thinking of us?" Give me a break here people.

To the Democratic Party I say this: at least you have the courage to start thinking in the right direction. The temporary repeal of the federal gas tax for a couple of months would be somewhat helpful. Perhaps you could take that thought and then stop the unnecessary tax breaks on the oil companies away, and allow them to start drilling in ANWAR and off the coast so we would be LESS dependent of Foriegn oil. Perhaps you could start voting as a party to actually think of Greener energy sources instead of lining your local pockets with Unnecessary Pork projects...but that is a different post.

So to the collective House and Senate: Get off your lazy butts and DO SOMETHING for a change that will benefit all of us, and not just certain demographic representations that you wish to target.