FLASH! Newsday Sucks And So Do I

Edwards just walked out of his house and told everyone he is marching forward with his campaign. Yes, his wife has cancer in a rib but they think it is a small and managable occurance.

Well okay then. I guess I'll quit listening to the early reports and wait for the words to actually come from the candidate's mouth.

In the words of Rossana Rossana Danna, "Never mind."

CNN's coverage of Edwards staying in the race he never left.

UPDATE: If you are interested in how this whole mix-up started, here is one account from an editor at Network World. According to him and the source he cites, the whole thing started with a blogger...imagine that.

Paul McNamara's Blog

FLASH! John Edwards Suspends Presidential Campaign

In a sad piece of news, it appears that John Edwards' wife is again facing a fight with cancer. Newsday is reporting that his wife, Elizabeth recently heard from doctors that her breast cancer may have reappeared in one of her lungs. Edwards is said to be debating between two public statements, one suspending his campaign and one completely withdrawing. Regardless of your preferences going into this primary season, this is bad news for everyone. The voters need choices and the marketplace of ideas needs as many voices as possible.

But, putting the politics aside, it is my hope that John Edwards and his family can get through yet another trying time with his wife's health. Our hopes and prayers are with them.

Newsday Article

UPDATE, Newsday was wrong and Edwards is staying in the race. Fool me once Newsday...

I Love A Good Non Sequitur

This is a good comic on the subject of Hollywood news coverage.

Non Sequitur

The Dreaded Trouser Newt

My wife, among others, is likely to accuse me of defending the actions of President Clinton. I'm not. I don't condone married men getting blow jobs at the office from twenty-something interns. In fact, I don't condone married men getting it from anyone but their wives.

Others may accuse me of doing to Newt what the Republicans did to Clinton. That is also not true. Honestly, I don't care if Newt gets married twenty times and decides to have sex with that Nemo doll he's holding. As long as it isn't obviously illegal, his sexual proclivities are between himself and his wife(s).

But this hypocrisy about feeling obligated to prosecute President Clinton because he lied under oath about getting blown at the office by an intern cannot go unexamined. To quote the Trouser Newt and the AP story:

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

"I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."

Gingrich acknowledges affair during Clinton impeachment

Bullshit. They got Capone on tax evasion and they went after Clinton for not wanting to publicly admit that he got blow job from an intern.

As an ex-bartender, I can say I've heard lots of guys out there deny that they banged the chubby/ugly/crazy/slutty girl.

But you all forget, I saw you two walk out together, plastered, at 2:00 am the night before, and I heard her and her friends the next day talking about how you don't know how to go down on a girl -- so I KNOW you're lying.

(Lest you folks get the wrong impression, I heard just as many of those types of denials from women. In fact, maybe even more because the women not only wanted to deny the sex, they wanted to deny that they were drunk when they did it.)

Frankly, I could give a rat's arse when it comes to who is blowing/boinking who, just don't get all pious and scream "perjury" when someone lies about it, you know you've lied about it too.

And that is exactly what Gingrich did. When asked about his wandering Trouser Newt, he refused to answer the question. Had it been in a regular court instead of the court of public opinion, he would have been cited for contempt. And contemptible is exactly the word I would use to describe his attempts to paint his actions as anything but hypocrisy.

Newt, you knew that the Republicans had a great issue in "family values" and you tried your hardest to make sure that the voters knew which side of the fence you and your party were on when it came to extra-marital sex. Unfortunately, you forgot the "He who has not sinned..." part of your Sunday bible class and now it's jumped up to bite you in the ass.

We all know the score. Obama paid off his 17-year-old parking tickets from college and Gingrich is trying to clear the air about his cheating on his wives. They both think they might be President and don't want these stories to dog them through the next two years.

Gingrich practically admits it in the AP story.

Gingrich has said he is waiting to see how the Republican field shapes up before deciding in the fall whether to run.

Translation: "I have to see if my well-traveled Trouser Newt is going to hurt me too much to get elected."

For some, particularly the religious right, it might be enough to keep them from supporting your campaign. But when you combine the sex with the number of people who just can't stand a hypocrite, then Mr. Gingrich I think your chances were pretty much doomed by the dreaded Trouser Newt.

Heros? Not!

Very much like Buddy from The Incredibles, my hero has let me down. After a whole week, the Associated Press has decided to cover Paris Hilton again. Well, like a case of herpes, I guess we're just going to have to suffer from the occasional outbreak of Paris.

I think I'll send a bottle of Valtrex to the AP headquarters, I'd hate to see them spread their disease more often than is absolutely necessary.

MSNBC.com

The Paris Hilton

I have a new hero. That hero's name is Jesse Washington, the Associated Press Entertainment Editor. Washington sent a memo to AP reporters telling them that Paris Hilton will no longer be mentioned on the AP Wire -- barring any major events. I'm hoping this ban includes any new photos of her "girlie bits" or the release of any more video tapes of her being naked/stupid/racist/drunk/stoned/or sexually engaged with some poor herpes infection waiting to happen.

Please let this be the beginning of a trend. CNN.com, are you listening? Leave this kind of reporting to the celebrity tabloids and stick to actual news.

AP Entertainment Editor Institutes Ban on Paris Hilton Coverage

By the way, that really is a photo of the Hilton Hotel in Paris.

A T-ShirtHumor.com Silly To Pass The Time

Civil Unions In Jersey And A T-Dude Flashback

New Jersey is offering civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. It's about time. The Tretonian: Civil unions available in NJ to gay couples starting today

(Image credit: 1010.com)

For those of you who may have missed it, I waxed poetic on this very subject in a little post titled "National Marry A Lesbian Day" last summer. I have reprinted it here for your enjoyment and because it seems rather fitting considering New Jersey's rational for offering this option.

National Marry a Lesbian Day (Originally published on 6/5/2006)

As I sat in front of my morning newspaper this morning (For all you children out there, that's the big paper thing with the words and pictures on it that your parents use to swat the dog.) I was reading about the biggest issue facing America today. How big you ask? So big that our President wants to amend the very document that shapes our rights as citizens, the very document that serves as the cornerstone of our legal system. So important is this issue that it can't possibly be left to the states or mere federal law but requires a change to the constitution itself.

That's right, I'm talking about Gay Marriage.

According to our President, "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

Exactly how stupid does he think we are? Does he honestly believe that the average American cares if the two women living next door with their three cats and two children from a third world country have been through some ceremony? I don't. What I do think is that most Americans would like to see that those children have all the rights and benefits to which they are entitled. And that includes the health and well being of their parents.

Bush and his political hacks are confusing the issue of marriage for political reasons. They are trying to shore-up the religious right and prove that the Republican's are still their horse in the race. They want to have a wedge issue that they can drive between the suburbs and the cities, the minorities and the Democrats. But it is a false issue, a phantom created to electrify a portion of the electorate. It is a Hallmark Holiday issue, created solely to sell the Republicans as the moral compass of the country.

The real issue here is whether or not domestic partners can receive and share the same benefits as straight married people. It is about rights, not religious morals. Should gays have access to healthcare? Should the children of lesbian couples be as secure as those of straight couples? Should gays couples be allowed the same rights in divorce and death as straight couples? Those are the questions, not whether or not the very existence of the lesbians next door is somehow eroding the sanctity of my marriage. As a married person, I can tell you that they aren't.

The bottom line is this. If a church will marry two people, it is none of the State's business. This country was founded on that ideal. Now we have to decide if those people should be given the same rights as other citizens, and as equal rights is also a founding principle of the US, then I say yes, regardless of what the bible thumpers may say about it.

Taking a short break...

I am off to Boston in a day or so for a five day conference so I'm not sure I'll be posting this week. However, if you have any thoughts on Boston please let me know, I've never been there before.

Like 'Shrooms On Shit, The Klan Grows On Hate...As Do Some Of My Neighbors

There are some groups that feel almost like fictional creations in today's modern world. Like the Boogieman, Nazi's and Klansmen sometimes feel like they have faded away to that dark place under the bed where nothing evil really lives. Then you read a story like this and suddenly evil crawls out and reminds you that it is alive and kicking in America.

CNN: Klan growing, fed by anti-immigrant feelings, report says

After reading the article, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The Klan hit its peak during the great flood of new immigrants during the 1920's. Fueled by anti-Catholic rhetoric, the Klan had nearly 4 million members back then. And now, we have a sudden influx of immigrants from predominately Catholic countries and the Klan is there to exploit it.

So many things bother me about this story, but what frightens me is the nationalist, anti-immigrant language they are using sounds an awful lot like some of the things I hear coming from the mouths of my neighbors here in the suburbs.

College educated professionals are openly talking about how the "Mexicans" are ruining the schools and killing the standard of living.

(Funny how everyone with a Hispanic name is suddenly Mexican. Ever heard of Ecuador? San Salvador? Do you think they should call all white people Canadian?)

Hey neighbor, I hate to point this out to you but the vast majority of your families came over in that wave of immigration during the 1920's. And you know what Americans did? They called those immigrants names; they denied them work and basically did everything they could to make sure that they got no quarter from the country your families had chosen.

Just ask my mother-in-law who is a first generation Irish-American. She tells stories about how businesses would have signs up advertising open positions except at the bottom they would say "No Irish". Remember, approximately four million Klan members wanted your relatives gone, and yet, here you are.

It scares me that the very issue the Ku Klux Klan is using to drive up membership is the issue that neighbors of mine are not only talking about, but in part, agreeing on with the Klan, despite what the Klan tried to do to many of their ancestors.

The difference they'll say is that they don't actually hate the Mexicans, they just don't want to share their city with them.

"I pay a lot of taxes and I don't do it to teach a bunch of damn Mexicans to speak English."

"The reason the schools are so packed is because of all the damn Mexicans."

Sound familiar? They do to me, and I feel the need to point out one little thing. Their being Hispanic as nothing to do with it. They are people. People who live in your city. They could be brown, white, green, or plaid and the results would be the same.Therefore, the problem isn't them, it's the community itself.

For example, tying school funding to property taxes is a sure fire way to make sure that wealthier kids get a better education than less-fortunate kids. Here's the thing, rich people like it that way. They like their smaller classes and better facilities (Who wouldn't?!) and don't really give a shit about how the rest of the world lives. Hell, they're paying for it, they should get what they want, just ask'em.

But when the rest of the world starts to move into the neighborhood, suddenly, the resentment comes out.

"Those damn Mexicans are ruining everything. The immigration problem is screwing up this country my friend and we need to do something about it."

Well neighbor, I happen to know of a few guys who agree with you. They're easy to spot. They're the ones wearing the designer hoods from Linens & Things.

I'm not completely idealistic. I understand the issues. Do we need to limit immigration? Yeah, we do. We don't have the infrastructure to handle an endless flood of immigrants.

Do we need to protect our borders? Of course, technology has given any individual the ability to be a weapon of mass destruction.

But do we blame the immigrants who have chosen to come to America to do work that many Americans refuse to do? Hell no. They are doing what our grandparents and great grandparents did nearly a century ago and we need to show these new immigrants a level of courtesy that our families didn't get.

Why? Because of some things called "progress" or "common decency" or "Christian values" to name a few. It's called all kinds of things depending on your perspective, but the common ground is this: it's the opposite of hate, exclusion, racism, and indifference.

Those are all things I feel comfortable being against, just like I'm definitely anti-Boogieman. You get a few of those in the neighborhood and everything goes to hell in a hand basket. Just you wait and see.