Our democracy is STILL a farce.

It's just another Saturday at the frat house that's supposed to be my home. I woke up to the President's weekly radio-address. There's nothing like being enlightened first thing in the morning... President's Radio Address - Sunday July 10, 2004

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. The United States Senate this past week began an important discussion about the meaning of marriage. Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to protect the most fundamental institution of civilization, and to prevent it from being fundamentally redefined. This difficult debate was forced upon our country by a few activist judges and local officials, who have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the state's highest court have ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. In San Francisco, city officials issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. Lawsuits in several states, including New Jersey, Florida, Nebraska, and Oregon, are also attempting to overturn the traditional definition of marriage by court order. In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and President Clinton signed it into law. That legislation defines marriage, for purposes of federal law, as a union between a man and a woman, and declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. Yet an activist court that strikes down traditional marriage would have little problem striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Overreaching judges could declare that all marriages recognized in Massachusetts or San Francisco be recognized as marriages everywhere else. When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution -- the only law a court cannot overturn. A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly -- yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice. A great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened. The Massachusetts court, for example, has called marriage "an evolving paradigm." That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure. On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions run deep. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another. All people deserve to have their voices heard. And that is exactly the purpose behind the constitutional amendment process. American democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America. The process has now begun in the Congress. I urge members of the House and Senate to pass, and send to the states for ratification, an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Thank you for listening. -George W. Bush

..and that's the way it goes, folks. One more thing: Oliver North is still a GOP cocksucker.

we report, we decide

My friends and neighbors have recently become concerned about my talk-radio addiction. I like both sides of the argument, and if that means taking a few hours out of my workday to listen to the bile that spews forth from Sean Hannity and his ilk, so be it. Usually, I start off with the Rusty Humphries Show on KVI 570. This morning, he was hitting up the Drudge CANT KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF EACHOTHER headline-point. "How about Kerry and Edwards being all over each other, doing everything but French-kissing? ...they're trying to appeal to the gay community." Other notable talk-moments: RUSH: Cheney's negatives are nothing more than leftist media-bashing. BILL O'REILLY: The ACLU is the most dangerous, fascist organization around right now, with the exception of a few, small, KK outfits scattered around the country. Oh...and O'Reilly wants to make sure everyone picks up one of his BOYCOTT FRANCE bumperstickers. They make a great gift, you know...

...and they sent him out to war to be slain, to be slain

With the exception of the ultra-right and the evangelical set, are there really people out there who get riled up by charges that political candidates are LEFT OF TED? The Boston Herald seems to be a hack job for the conservative crowds. Just today, they've blasted John Edward's youthful charm and southern charisma going head-to-head with Dick Cheney's experience and gravitas. They've also run an op-ed about his wife, calling her the anti-Hillary and making reference to Teresa Heinz-Kerry's East Coast elitist ways. Drudge put up a link to the 23 page Edwards attack run by the Republican National Committee. I tried to read the entire thing, but couldn't handle all the different font-sizes and Repub-rhetoric. The headlines are very Drudge-ish. It wouldn't surprise me if Matt Drudge was getting a few kickbacks by being a mouthpiece for the GOP. BURIED IN THE PAPER NEWS: -The 9-11 Commission has reiterated the fact that they could find no evidence of Iraq/Al-Queda ties. Cheney fought back, claiming that perhaps the commission didn't have full access to various documents on the subject, but the panel members came to the conclusion that they all had the same information. -