Marc Perkel Rantz

Bush vs. Kerry comparison chart

Here's a Kerry vs. Bush Comparison Chart I'm working on. Take a look at it and add more comparisons.

Bush Flip Flop List

OK - Bush likes to talk about Kerry Flip Flops - so - let's list Bush flip flops. I want to build a collection and create a web site about it.

Here's one to start with. Bush was going to hunt bin Laden down and get him. Now he's not that interested in him. This a hell of a flip flop.

America is safer - but we might have to suspened elections for the first time in history.

Please list ohers.

Nancy Reagan won't Support Bush

The widow of former President, and Republican icon, Ronald Reagan has told the GOP she wants nothing to do with their upcoming national convention or the re-election campaign of President George W. Bush.

Nancy Reagan turned down numerous invitations to appear at the Republican National Convention and has warned the Bush campaign she will not tolerate any use of her or her late husbands words or images in the President’s re-election effort.

“Mrs. Reagan does not support President Bush’s re-election and neither to most members of the President’s family,” says a spokesman for the former First Lady.

Nancy Reagan

Reagan’s son, Ron, spoke at the just-concluded Democratic National Convention and writes in next month’s Esquire magazine that “George W. Bush and his administration have taken normal mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. They traffic in big lies.”

Ron Reagan is joined by his sister Patty in opposing Bush’s re-election effort. Only brother Michael Reagan, a conservative talk show host, supports the President and claims Ron is manipulating his mother.

Unlike the other Reagan children, Michael is not Reagan’s biological child. He was adopted by Reagan during the actor’s first marriage to actress Jane Wyman and often complains that his stepmother, Nancy, likes Ron best.

“He is her favorite,” Michael Reagan told Fox News. “Ron can do no wrong. I mean, basically that's it, Ron can do no wrong.”

Ron, however, claims George W. Bush has destroyed the Republican Party his father helped build.

“My father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself,” Reagan writes in Esquire. “His Republican Party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious right.”

The Reagans’ split with Bush and the party centers around stem cell research which many believe can help find a cure for Alzheimer’s, the disease that crippled President Reagan in his final years. Bush and the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party oppose use of new stem cells. The Reagans, with the exception of Michael, support such use.

There’s more to the feud than that, however. Nancy Reagan has told close followers she believes Bush and the current Republican leadership have divided America with their extreme views. She has told Republican leaders she wants nothing to do with the party or Bush.

During the week of Reagan’s funeral, the former First Lady “went ballistic” when she learned the Bush campaign was test marketing new ads that used Reagan’s photos and speeches in an effort to show he supported Bush and his re-election. She personally called Republican Party Chief Ed Gillespie to demand the ads be destroyed.

Republican strategists admit the ads were produced but never ran. They were pulled after scoring poorly with focus groups where viewers found them in “poor taste.”

“Mrs. Reagan doesn’t care why the ads were pulled. She just wanted to make sure they never went on the air,” says a spokesman for the First Lady. “She does care about whether or not the memory of President Reagan is used for political purposes.”

Dropping AT&T for Verizon cell phone service

I'm tired of the poor service and the dropped phone calls and audio so choppy that you can't make out what was said. After many many complaints I just decided that I can't take it anymore and need real cell phone service that works.

I don't know about other areas but in San Francisco AT&Y sucks. The are merging with Cingular which also sucks and they are already sharing relay towers. I had hoped the service would get better - but it's worse.

AT7T wants to try to confuse me claiming it might be my phone(s) and other things. But - I'm a tech and I know how this works. The problem occurrs mostly at peak hours - and it's clearly an overload problem.

Here's how it works. There is a limit to how much information that can be transmitted down a data pipe and AT7T's pipe is too small. This results in "packet loss" which means that chunks of words are just plain dropped or lost. That creates the "choppy" effect.

Signal strength is plenty good and the problem isn't related to my location. And I have two phones and they are both doing the same thing. The problem is that the service is oversold.

What AT&T is doing is probably illegal and certianly immoral. What they are doing is selling something they don't have. Here's an analogy. Suppose that a movie theather sold more tickets than they had seats. If enough people didn't show up - no one would notice. But - when the overselling gets to a severe point then people who pay for the movie don't get to see it.

In my case I'm paying for service 24 hours a day - but during peak hours I can't make or receive phone calls. I'm not getting what I'm paying for.

I have heard good things about Verizon - I'm hoping that they will be better. We will see. I would warn everyone though that AT&T - in the San Francisco area - is cheating their customers and if you are considering AT&T you might want to go elsewhere.

But not to Sprint - they are even worse!

PayPal Class Action and Proposed Settlement

PayPal sent me this about their class action lawsuit.

IF YOU OPENED A PAYPAL ACCOUNT BETWEEN OCTOBER 1999 AND JANUARY 2004, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re PayPal litigation
Case No. CV-02-01227-JF (PVT)

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

1. WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE?
You have been sent this Notice because the records of PayPal, Inc. indicate you are a current or former PayPal account holder. This means you may be eligible to receive a payment from the proposed class action settlement in the lawsuit In re PayPal Litigation, Case No. 02 1227 JF PVT, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose. This Notice provides a summary of the terms of the proposed settlement. It also explains the lawsuit, your legal rights under the settlement, what benefits are available to you under the settlement, and how to get them.

2. WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION?
In a class action, one or more people, called Class Representatives (in this case Roberta Toher and Jeffrey Resnick), sue on behalf of people who have similar claims. All of these people are members of the Class. One court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class. United States District Judge Jeremy Fogel is in charge of this class action.

3. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
In early 2002, Plaintiffs Roberta Toher and Jeffrey Resnick filed separate lawsuits against PayPal, Inc. These two cases were later consolidated into one lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, entitled In re PayPal Litigation, Case No. CV 02 01227-JF (PVT). The lawsuit alleges that PayPal violated the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 et seq., including provisions requiring PayPal to supply customers with information about dispute resolution procedures and to follow certain procedures when investigating complaints of unauthorized or incorrect electronic fund transfers. For example, the lawsuit claims that PayPal did not provide account statements in the manner required by the EFTA. The lawsuit further alleges that PayPal has placed inappropriate restrictions or other limits on customers' accounts and engaged in other improper practices. Based on these practices, the lawsuit asserts claims under California state law for conversion, money had and received, negligence, and violations of consumer protection statutes.

PayPal does not believe that it did anything wrong. In fact, PayPal disputes that the EFTA, originally passed in 1978, applies to its business. PayPal denies any and all liability for the claims alleged in the lawsuit. The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or PayPal. Instead, beginning in the fall of 2003, the parties began a series of settlement negotiation sessions mediated by United States Magistrate Judge Edward Infante. Eventually, in November 2003, both sides agreed to a settlement in principle. By settling their claims, both parties avoided the uncertainty and cost of a trial. The settlement provides money and other benefits to the Class. On June 11, 2004, the parties entered into a formal, written Settlement Agreement, which is on file with the Court and available on the Internet at https://www.paypal.com/settlement/. By entering into the Settlement Agreement, PayPal is not admitting any wrongdoing. PayPal continues to believe that it did not do anything wrong. The Representative Plaintiffs and the attorneys appointed by the Court to represent the Class believe that the settlement is fair to Class Members. By this notice, the Court is not expressing any view on the merits of the lawsuit.

4. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM PART OF THE SETTLEMENT?
On July 12, 2004, Judge Fogel entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and certifying the following class for purposes of the settlement: All Persons who opened a PayPal account during the period from October 1, 1999 through January 31, 2004. Excluded from the class are any judicial officer to whom the lawsuit is assigned; PayPal and any of its affiliates; any current or former employee, officer, or director of PayPal; anyone who resides in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, or United Kingdom; and all persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the class pursuant to this notice.

Thus, if you opened a PayPal account between October 1, 1999 and January 31, 2004, and are not one of the excluded persons listed above, you are a member of the class.

5. WHO REPRESENTS ME IN THIS CASE?
To represent the class, the Court has appointed Plaintiffs Roberta Toher and Jeffrey Resnick as Representative Plaintiffs and their counsel of record as Class Counsel. The Court has also appointed the following attorneys and law firms as Co-Lead Counsel:

A. J. De Bartolomeo
Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, California 94108

Robert C. Finkel
Wolf Popper LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022

6. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

A. Injunctive Relief
The settlement requires that PayPal consent to the entry of an order, called an injunction, that mandates various changes to PayPal's business practices. PayPal has already implemented these changes. The injunction includes PayPal's agreement to comply with certain notice and error resolution procedures of the EFTA, and to follow certain procedures for limiting accounts and responding to and returning funds to customers whose accounts have been limited. A copy of this injunction can be found as Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement, entitled "Form of Injunctive Order."

B. Monetary Relief
Under the settlement, PayPal will pay $9.25 million into a settlement fund, to be held in an interest-bearing account. The fund will be used (1) to make payments to class members who submit valid claims before the claims deadline; (2) to pay certain costs of giving notice to the Class and of settlement administration, as approved by the Court; and (3) to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel in the amount awarded by the Court. Class Counsel have proposed that, after deduction of notice and administrative costs and Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, the balance of the fund ("Net Settlement Fund") be applied in accordance with a written plan of allocation. (The following explanation is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Plan of Allocation attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit C, a copy of which is on file with the Court and available on the Internet at https://www.paypal.com/settlement/.)

1. Certain Definitions
Certain capitalized words are used in this part of the Notice to describe the way in which the Net Settlement Fund will be allocated. These capitalized words have the following meanings:

(a) "Released Persons" means PayPal and its past and present partners, affiliates, predecessors, successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, attorneys, and employees.

(b) "Fund Claimants" are class members who submit timely, valid claims in accordance with the procedures described in this notice.

(c) "Dispute Resolution Claimants" are Fund Claimants who contend that, prior to February 1, 2004, they:

(i) experienced or reported to PayPal an unauthorized or incorrect electronic transfer to or from their PayPal account including, without limitation, electronic transfers initiated by (a) the Fund Claimant; (b) PayPal in connection with, among other things, chargebacks, refunds, buyer complaints, PayPal's Seller Protection Policy, Buyer Complaint Process and/or Buyer Protection Policy; or (c) any third party;

(ii) had access to their PayPal account improperly, incorrectly or erroneously limited or restricted, in whole or in part;

(iii) made a request for information in connection with PayPal's restriction or limitation of the Fund Claimant's PayPal account or regarding an incorrect or unauthorized electronic transfer to which PayPal did not respond at all or did not respond to the Fund Claimant's satisfaction.

(d) "Statutory Damage Fund Claimants" are all Fund Claimants who are not Dispute Resolution Claimants.

2. Statutory Damage Fund Claimants
The plan of allocation designates $1 million of the Net Settlement Fund to a "Statutory Damage Fund," to be distributed equally among all Fund Claimants who are not Dispute Resolution Claimants. This means that if you are a member of the Class and do not fall within the definition of a "Dispute Resolution Claimant," as set out above, you can make a claim for a payment from the Statutory Damage Fund. The Statutory Damage Fund provides compensation for potential statutory damages under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 et seq. Statutory damages under the EFTA are limited by law to no more than $500,000 for any class of individuals claiming "the same failure to comply." Plaintiffs' counsel contended in the litigation and for purposes of settlement that PayPal was potentially liable for multiple failures to comply, a position PayPal vigorously opposed.

The Statutory Damage Fund Claim Form requires you to provide certain identifying information and sign a statement under penalty of perjury authenticating your claim, which may be subject to verification by PayPal's records. To make a claim for payment from this fund, please complete and submit the Statutory Damage Fund Claim Form available on the Internet at https://www.paypal.com/settlement/ in accordance with the instructions on the form.

3. Dispute Resolution Claimants
The balance of the Net Settlement Fund will be allocated for distribution to Dispute Resolution Claimants. If you fall within the definition of a "Dispute Resolution Claimant," as set out above, you have the right to make a Dispute Resolution Claim. You can choose to submit either the Short Claim Form or the Long Claim Form available on the Internet at https://www.paypal.com/settlement/. If the Court awards attorneys' fees and costs in the amount requested, Class Counsel estimate that there will be approximately $4.3 million to pay the claims of Dispute Resolution Claimants. Half of the money allocated to Dispute Resolution Claimants will be allocated to pay Short Form Claimants (the "Short Form Fund"). The other half will be allocated to pay Long Form Claimants (the "Long Form Fund").

a. Short Form Claimants
The Short Claim Form requires you to provide certain identifying information and sign a statement under penalty of perjury, which may be verified using PayPal's records, that you experienced an unauthorized or incorrect electronic transfer or an account limitation or denial of access to your account. If you make a timely, valid claim using the Short Claim Form, you will receive a payment of $50, unless the amount needed to pay all of the Short Form claims exceeds the Short Form Fund. In that case, the Short Form Fund will be divided equally among all Short Form Claimants. If the amount needed to pay all of the Short Form claims is less than the amount of the Short Form Fund, the money left over will be added to the Long Form Fund.

b. Long Form Claimants
The Long Claim Form requires you to provide certain identifying information; give the details of the account restriction(s) and/or unauthorized electronic fund transfer(s) you experienced; state the amount of your claim, and sign a statement, under penalty of perjury, which may be subject to verification by PayPal's records, that you actually suffered the claimed damages. You should also provide any documentation you have that will support your claim, as explained in more detail on the Long Form.

If you make a timely, valid claim using the Long Claim Form, an independent, court-approved claims administrator will evaluate your claim and determine the amount you should receive. In making this determination, the claims administrator will take into account the amount of damages you claim; the nature of your complaint; the quality of the supporting documentation you provide; your recoverable damages; the probability that you would be successful on your complaint; and such other factors that the claims administrator considers relevant. If the amount needed to pay all of the Long Form claims is less than the amount of the Long Form Fund, the money left over will be added to the Short Form Fund.

c. Balance after payment of Long Form and Short Form Claimants
If there are sufficient funds to pay all Short Form and Long Form Claimants in full in accordance with the written plan of allocation, any remaining funds will be divided equally among all Dispute Resolution Claimants to supplement their recoveries.

7. HOW DO I MAKE A CLAIM AND GET A PAYMENT?
To make a claim for payment, please complete one of the claim forms (Statutory Damage Claim Form, Short Claim Form, or Long Claim Form) available on the Internet at https://www.paypal.com/settlement/. To make a valid claim, you will need to (1) fill out the claim form electronically and (2) print the signature page of your claim form, sign it and return it by mail to the address provided on the claim form. You must complete the claims procedure no later than October 23, 2004. Your payment will be transferred electronically to your PayPal account. If you do not have a current, unrestricted PayPal account or you indicate on the claim form that you prefer to receive a check, payment will be made in the form of a check, sent by first class mail to the address provided on the claim form. If you are paid by check, a $1.00 charge will be deducted from your payment to cover the cost of issuing and mailing the check. The claims administrator will not issue checks for less than $1.00. Such amounts will instead be reallocated to those claimants who are entitled to receive distributions.

8. WHAT AM I GIVING UP IF I PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT?
If you do not exclude yourself from the class and the settlement is granted final approval, the judgment entered upon approval of the settlement will dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, and will release any and all claims, demands, rights, liabilities, and causes of action of every nature and description whatsoever, known or unknown, matured or unmatured, at law or in equity, existing under federal or state law, that were or could have been asserted in the Litigation against the Released Persons, including without limitation, claims under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.; and for PayPal's alleged conversion, breach of the User Agreement or other contract, money had and received, unjust enrichment, and negligence under California law or any other state or federal law arising out of, among other things, PayPal's restriction or limitation of accounts; PayPal's dispute resolution policies, practices and procedures; PayPal's debit of accounts following the receipt of chargebacks, buyer complaints, reports of unauthorized access or in connection with its Seller Protection Policy, Buyer Complaint Process or Buyer Protection Policy; PayPal's alleged conversion of funds; and PayPal's compliance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 et seq., or any similar legislation arising under the laws of any state. You will be permanently barred from bringing any such claims that arose prior to February 1, 2004. With regard to accounts that were limited prior to February 1, 2004, however, you will not be releasing claims to recover any balance that remained in the account 180 days after the account was initially limited.

In summary, if you do not exclude yourself, you will not be able to sue, continue to sue, or be part of another lawsuit against PayPal relating to the legal issues in this case. You will be bound by all proceedings, orders, and judgments entered in connection with the settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and will be represented by the Representative Plaintiffs and Class Counsel for purposes of the settlement. If you do not exclude yourself from the class, and the settlement is granted final approval, your claims against PayPal and its affiliates will be released as described above. If you are a class member, you may, if you wish, appear in this lawsuit through your own attorney at your own expense. You need not do so to participate in the settlement, however.

9. WHAT IF I WANT TO EXCLUDE MYSELF (OPT-OUT) FROM THE SETTLEMENT?
If you do not want to remain a member of the class and participate in the settlement, then you must mail or deliver (email is not considered adequate), such that it is RECEIVED on or before September 7, 2004, (1) an original written, signed request for exclusion to Co-Lead Counsel at the following address:

Co Lead Counsel:
PayPal Class Action Settlement
A. J. De Bartolomeo
Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, California 94108

and (2) a copy of the written signed request to PayPal's counsel at the following address:

PayPal's counsel:
PayPal Class Action Settlement
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
One Market
Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105

This request for exclusion must contain your name and address; be signed by you; and include the reference "In re PayPal Litigation, Case No. CV-02-1227-JF (PVT)."

If you exclude yourself from the class, you will not participate in the settlement and cannot receive any payment from the settlement. Your claims will not be released.

10. HOW WILL THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS BE PAID?
>From the inception of the litigation in early 2002 to the present, Class Counsel have not received any payment for their services in prosecuting the case, nor have they been reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses. If the Court approves the proposed settlement, Class Counsel will make a motion to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees of up to $3,332,500 and reimbursement of expenses of up to $135,000, to be paid from the $9.25 million settlement fund. Class Counsel will also seek reimbursement from the settlement fund on behalf of certain of the named plaintiffs in the litigation for reimbursement of their expenses related to their service as class representatives in the litigation, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $15,000. The motion will be heard at the settlement hearing described below in Section 11.

Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses is based on various factors that include the benefits obtained for the class through litigation. These benefits include the $9.25 million cash settlement and PayPal's agreement to the injunctive relief requirements. In addition, certain changes to PayPal's business practices are attributable in part to this litigation, including PayPal's decision to undertake to return to its customers approximately $5.1 million in those accounts to which access was limited for 180 days or more; modifications to PayPal's arbitration provision in its User Agreement and its replacement with a clause that limits PayPal's ability to compel arbitration where the total amount of the award sought is $10,000 or greater; and various other changes in PayPal's business practices during the pendency of the litigation.

Class Counsel submitted their proposed request for attorneys' fees to the Magistrate Judge who had previously presided over discovery and settlement discussions. Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees is equal to the amount recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

11. WHEN AND HOW WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT?
The Court will hold a hearing on September 24, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Jeremy Fogel, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113. The purpose of the hearing will be to determine (a) whether the proposed settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) whether the application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be granted; and (c) whether the lawsuit and class members' claims should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the settlement. The Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue the hearing without further notice to the class.

You may attend the hearing if you wish, but are not required to do so to participate in the settlement.

If the settlement is not approved by the Court, the lawsuit will proceed. If there are further actions taken in the case that affect your rights, you will receive notice as determined by the Court.

12. CAN I COMMENT ON THE SETTLEMENT?
If you decide to remain in the class, and you wish to comment in support of or in opposition to the settlement or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, you may do so by mailing or delivering your written (non-email) comments, such that they are RECEIVED on or before September 3, 2004, as follows: (1) the original must be sent to the Court at the following address:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
280 South First Street
San Jose, California 95113

and (2) copies must be sent to Co Lead Counsel and PayPal's counsel at the addresses listed in Section 9, above.

Your written comments must contain your name and address; be signed by you; and include the reference In re PayPal Litigation, Case No. CV-02-1227-JF (PVT). If you wish to appear and present your comments orally at the hearing, your written comments must contain a notice that you intend to appear and be heard, a statement of the position you intend to present at the hearing, and any supporting arguments.

If you do not comply with the foregoing procedures and deadlines for submitting written comments or appearing at the hearing, you will not be entitled to be heard at the hearing; contest or appeal from approval of the settlement or any award of attorneys' fees or expenses; or contest or appeal from any other orders or judgments of the Court entered in connection with the settlement.

13. HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT?
You can get more information by writing Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel electronically or by first class mail at:

paypalsettlement@settlement4onlinepayments.com

Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, California 94108

Wolf Popper LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022

This notice is a summary and does not describe all details of the settlement. For full details of the matters discussed in this notice, you may wish to review the Settlement Agreement dated June 11, 2004 and on file with the Court or visit https://www.paypal.com/settlement/. Complete copies of the Settlement Agreement and all other pleadings and papers filed in the lawsuit are also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours, at the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113.

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: July 12, 2004

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior

From Capitol Hill Blue

Bush Leagues
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
Jul 28, 2004, 08:09

President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.

The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President’s mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” says one aide. “We can’t have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.”

Angry Bush walked away from reporter's questions.
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.

“Keep those motherfuckers away from me,” he screamed at an aide backstage. “If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can.”

Bush’s mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President’s wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.

Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a “paranoid meglomaniac” and “untreated alcoholic” whose “lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad” showcase Bush’s instabilities.

“I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed,” Dr. Frank said. “He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.”

Dr. Frank’s conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.

The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.

“President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies,” Dr. Frank adds.

The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article.

Although the exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known, White House sources say they are “powerful medications” designed to bring his erratic actions under control. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President’s annual physical, details of the President’s health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President.

Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush’s health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan’s second term when aides managed to conceal the President’s increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer’s Disease.

It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon’s final days when the soon-to-resign President wondered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn’t emerge until after Nixon left office.

One long-time GOP political consultant who – for obvious reasons – asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.

“We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes,” he says sadly. “That’s not good for my candidates, it’s not good for the party and it’s certainly not good for the country.”

I thought tonight was going to be boring ...

... but I was wrong. I really like Teresa Heinz Kerry a lot. I think she's going to make a great first lady. But the men are going to beat her up for having an opinion. They'll continue to demonize her like they do to Hillary.

I enjoyed Ron Reagan's speech education all of us about the sciense of stem cells. And I liked that it wasn't political. Quite frankly - if he were invited - he would give the same speech at the Republican convention. All they woulfd have to do is invite him. So - it's not that he chose the Democrats - it's that the Democrats chose him and the Republicans rejected him.

Dean and Kenedy were a little boring. I wanted to see Dean do the screch!

I liked Barack Obama a lot. I'd never heard of him before and he's a great speaker. Really helped get the "we are all in this together" theme across.

All in all the Dems are on a roll. Doing much better that I expected.

Reagan's Legacy Continues

Tonight we'll hear Ron Reagan - his son - and speaking in behalf of his mother - the former first lady Nancy Reagan - will give up the fetus fetish and endorse stem cell research. Ron Reagan is not endorsing the Democratic Party. He is speaking to people who are reasonable enough to listen to good sense. If the Republicans would listen to good sense he would speak there too.

Something I didn't Know About the National Debt

Letter to the Editor

Bill Clinton - in his speech last night told me something I didn't know. I knew that Bush was stealing our Social Security to fund tax cuts for the rich. But I didn't know Bush was borrowing money from the Chinese to fund tax cuts for the rich. Who would have ever thought America would see the day when the greatest democracy was funded by borrowing money from the Communists?

Text of Clinton's Speech

Thank you. I am honored to share the podium with my Senator, though I think I should be introducing her. I'm proud of her and so grateful to the people of New York that the best public servant in our family is still on the job and grateful to all of you, especially my friends from Arkansas, for the chance you gave us to serve our country in the White House.

I am also honored to share this night with President Carter, who has inspired the world with his work for peace, democracy, and human rights. And with Al Gore, my friend and partner for eight years, who played such a large role in building the prosperity and progress that brought America into the 21st century, who showed incredible grace and patriotism under pressure, and who is the living embodiment that every vote counts -- and must be counted in every state in America.

Tonight I speak as a citizen, returning to the role I have played for most of my life as a foot soldier in the fight for our future, as we nominate a true New England patriot for president. The state that gave us John Adams and John Kennedy has now given us John Kerry, a good man, a great senator, a visionary leader. We are constantly told America is deeply divided. But all Americans value freedom, faith, and family. We all honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.

We all want good jobs, good schools, health care, safe streets, a clean environment. We all want our children to grow up in a secure America leading the world toward a peaceful future. Our differences are in how we can best achieve these things, in a time of unprecedented change. Therefore, we Democrats will bring the American people a positive campaign, arguing not who's good and who's bad, but what is the best way to build the safe, prosperous world our children deserve.

The 21st century is marked by serious security threats, serious economic challenges, and serious problems like global warming and the AIDS epidemic. But it is also full of enormous opportunities-to create millions of high paying jobs in clean energy, and biotechnology; to restore the manufacturing base and reap the benefits of the global economy through our diversity and our commitment to decent labor and environmental standards everywhere; and to create a world where we can celebrate our religious and racial differences, because our common humanity matters more.

To build that kind of world we must make the right choices; and we must have a president who will lead the way. Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on that choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must.

We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.

They think the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on matters like health care and retirement security. Since most Americans are not that far to the right, they have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America. But Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all wanted to be one nation, strong in the fight against terror. The president had a great opportunity to bring us together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in common cause against terror.

Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice: to use the moment of unity to push America too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty, the International Court for war criminals, the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Now they are working to develop two new nuclear weapons which they say we might use first. At home, the President and the Republican Congress have made equally fateful choices indeed. For the first time ever when America was on a war footing, there were two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top one percent. I'm in that group now for the first time in my life.

When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note -- until I realized they were sending you the bill.

They protected my tax cuts while:

-- Withholding promised funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving over 2 million children behind

-- Cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of job training

-- 100,000 working families out of child care assistance

-- 300,000 poor children out of after school programs

-- Raising out of pocket healthcare costs to veterans

-- Weakening or reversing important environmental advances for clean air and the preservation of our forests.

Everyone had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, who wanted to do their part but were asked only to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts. If you agree with these choices, you should vote to return them to the White House and Congress. If not, take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats.

In this year's budget, the White House wants to cut off federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police, including more than 700 on the New York City police force who put their lives on the line on 9/11. As gang violence is rising and we look for terrorists in our midst, Congress and the President are also about to allow the ten-year-old ban on assault weapons to expire. Our crime policy was to put more police on the streets and take assault weapons off the streets. It brought eight years of declining crime and violence. Their policy is the reverse, they're taking police off the streets and putting assault weapons back on the streets. If you agree with their choices, vote to continue them. If not, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter, and stronger.

On Homeland Security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for Weapons of Mass Destruction. The one billion dollar cost would have been paid for by reducing the tax cut of 200,000 millionaires by five thousand dollars each. Almost all 200,000 of us would have been glad to pay 5,000 dollars to make the nearly 300 million Americans safer-but the measure failed because the White House and the Republican leadership in the House decided my tax cut was more important -- If you agree with that choice, re-elect them. If not, give John Kerry and John Edwards a chance.

These policies have turned the projected 5.8 trillion dollar surplus we left-enough to pay for the baby boomers retirement-into a projected debt of nearly 5 trillion dollars, with a 400 plus billion dollar deficit this year and for years to come. How do they pay for it? First by taking the monthly surplus in Social Security payments and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to cover my tax cut. But it's not enough. They are borrowing the rest from foreign governments, mostly Japan and China. Sure, they're competing with us for good jobs but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? If you think it's good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them. If not, John Kerry's your man.

We Americans must choose for President one of two strong men who both love our country, but who have very different worldviews: Democrats favor shared responsibility, shared opportunity, and more global cooperation. Republicans favor concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves and more unilateral action. I think we're right for two reasons: First, America works better when all people have a chance to live their dreams. Second, we live in an interdependent world in which we can't kill, jail, or occupy all our potential adversaries, so we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists. We tried it their way for twelve years, our way for eight, and then their way for four more.

By the only test that matters, whether people were better off when we finished than when we started, our way works better-it produced over 22 million good jobs, rising incomes, and 100 times as many people moving out of poverty into the middle class. It produced more health care, the largest increase in college aid in 50 years, record home ownership, a cleaner environment, three surpluses in a row, a modernized defense force, strong efforts against terror, and an America respected as a world leader for peace, security and prosperity.

More importantly, we have great new champions in John Kerry and John Edwards. Two good men with wonderful wives-Teresa a generous and wise woman who understands the world we are trying to shape. And Elizabeth, a lawyer and mother who understands the lives we are all trying to lift. Here is what I know about John Kerry. During the Vietnam War, many young men -- including the current president, the vice president and me-could have gone to Vietnam but didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me.

When they sent those swift-boats up the river in Vietnam, and told them their job was to draw hostile fire-to show the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight-John Kerry said, send me. When it was time to heal the wounds of war and normalize relations with Vietnam-and to demand an accounting of the POWs and MIAs we lost there-John Kerry said, send me.

When we needed someone to push the cause of inner-city kids struggling to avoid a life of crime, or to bring the benefits of high technology to ordinary Americans, or to clean the environment in a way that creates jobs, or to give small businesses a better chance to make it, John Kerry said send me.

Tonight my friends, I ask you to join me for the next 100 days in telling John Kerry's story and promoting his plans. Let every person in this hall and all across America say to him what he has always said to America: Send Me. The bravery that the men who fought by his side saw in battle I've seen in the political arena. When I was President, John Kerry showed courage and conviction on crime, on welfare reform, on balancing the budget at a time when those priorities were not exactly a way to win a popularity contest in our party.

He took tough positions on tough problems. John Kerry knows who he is and where he's going. He has the experience, the character, the ideas and the values to be a great President. In a time of change he has two other important qualities: his insatiable curiosity to understand the forces shaping our lives, and a willingness to hear the views even of those who disagree with him. Therefore his choices will be full of both conviction and common sense.

He proved that when he picked a tremendous partner in John Edwards. Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect, and charisma. The important thing is how he has used his talents to improve the lives of people who -- like John himself -- had to work hard for all they've got. He has always championed the cause of people too often left out or left behind. And that's what he'll do as our Vice President.

Their opponents will tell you to be afraid of John Kerry and John Edwards, because they won't stand up to the terrorists -- don't you believe it. Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values -- they go hand in hand. John Kerry has both. His first priority will be keeping America safe. Remember the scripture: Be Not Afraid.

John Kerry and John Edwards, have good ideas:

-- To make this economy work again for middle-class Americans

-- To restore fiscal responsibility

-- To save Social Security; to make healthcare more affordable and college more available

-- To free us from dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs in clean energy

-- To rally the world to win the war on terror and to make more friends and fewer terrorists.

At every turning point in our history we the people have chosen unity over division, heeding our founders' call to America's eternal mission: to form a more perfect union, to widen the circle of opportunity, deepen the reach of freedom, and strengthen the bonds of community.

It happened because we made the right choices. In the early days of the republic, America was at a crossroads much like it is today, deeply divided over whether or not to build a real nation with a national economy, and a national legal system. We chose a more perfect union.

In the Civil War, America was at a crossroads, divided over whether to save the union and end slavery -- we chose a more perfect union. In the 1960s, America was at a crossroads, divided again over civil rights and women's rights. Again, we chose a more perfect union. As I said in 1992, we're all in this together; we have an obligation both to work hard and to help our fellow citizens, both to fight terror and to build a world with more cooperation and less terror. Now again, it is time to choose.

Since we're all in the same boat, let us chose as the captain of our ship a brave good man who knows how to steer a vessel though troubled waters to the calm seas and clear skies of our more perfect union. We know our mission. Let us join as one and say in a loud, clear voice: Send John Kerry.

CNN - On the other hard ....

... after Clinton giving the defining speech of the election, what does CNN talk about? The talk about Teresa Kerry telling a right wing rag to shove it. It clearly shows how biased CNN is and how they are owned by the Republicans.

During Al Gore's speech CNN was running a crawl under his picture talking about the "shove it" story. Now - when they cover the Republican convention - what do you think the chances are that they will run a crawl about his "get fucked" comment? See what I mean? They are so much Bush's puppet at CNN.

I remember when there was a free press in America. I think the news in Russia is more accurate than America.

Clinton was so powerful - even Fox News is Praising him!

This is amazing. Even Fox is praising him. They look real worried. Some of them look like they are even going to vote for him. I think a lot of right wingers are really afraid tonight. This looks like a turning point to me.

Fox calls Clinton a rock star. Nothing but praise. The only digs were against Hillary saying she did nothing for her presidential run.

Clinton's Speech was so great!

Letter to the Editor

For those of you out there who are speculating that Clinton's speech will overshadow Kerry's speech - well - you may be right. Clinton gave a hell of a speech. I don't think there's any way Kerry is going to top that. But if he does - Bush doesn't stand a chance. Oh how I miss Clinton and the peace and prosperity we used to have. America has fallen down and we must get back up. Clinton has inspired me to do whatever I can to get rid of Bush.

I was worried ...

... that the Democrats would wimp out at the convention. But they are doing REALLY well - MUCH better than I expected.

Fuck the News Media

I was talking to Bartcop about the debate as to if blogs like mine are more accurate that the news media - and clearly I get it right more often than they do. And that's not hard. I made the point that if I had a blank page I could win that battle.

Now they are talking about the next first lady telling some right wing rag to "Shove it" and it has already gotten more coverage that Vice President Dick Cheney telling a fellow senator to "Get Fucked". Lets see if the news media at the Republican convertion in their coverage runs a grawl at the bottom referring to Cheney's remark to get fucked. But you won't see anything like that happen.

Al Gore Sounds Good Tonight

I wish he sounded that good 4 years ago. I was also concerned about reports that the Democrats weren't going to go negative - which caused me to worry that non one would bring up all the problems of the Bush administration has caused. But Gore came out hitting Bush hard and I'm hopeful this convention will do better than what I thought it would do.

And - Gore finally mention Clinton in his speech and praised him. Something that cost him his chance at being president. Something that I was deeply offended by 4 years ago. So - so far so good.

9/11 Report Misses Real Problem

Letter to the Editor

The 9/11 report fails to address the real problem that lead to the disaster. The real problem isn't just the CIA and FBI - it's the president. Bush was told and he ignored it. Even after the attack had begun and he was told the second time - he just kept reading a story about a goat. What the American people need is a president who will put down the goat book and deal with a crisis. Bin Laden is still free. So - I'm voting Bush out for the safety of the country.

Have you seen JibJab.com?

If you haven't seen it - it's great. Check out this flash cartoon.

Bush to dump Cheney for Hillary

OK - you heard it here first. I bet there's a Pulitzer prize waiting for me but here's the BREAKING NEWS!

Bush is not only going to dump Cheney - but he's going to try to woo Democrats by putting together a unity ticket. And what Democrat is Bush going to pick to be his running mate? None other than HILLARY CLINTON!!!!

A Bush / Clinton ticket would be a very powerful ticket because it will attract a lot of women voters and Clinton supporters. It would alienate the Right but if its part of a plan to hold onto power - they might go for it. Besides - who else are they going to vote for? Hillary however wants to have Cheney's power and use Bush as a puppet president the way Cheney does. Bush himself doesn't have a problem with that - but Carl Rove and Donald Rumsfield hate the ticket and want to stick with Cheney.

Did you wonder why Bush was so nice to Bill Clinton last month when he came to the White House? Well - that's when Bush and Clinton struck a deal to put Hillary on the ticket. And - the real reason that the Democrats didn't want to put Hillary on the schedule originally for the Democratic Convention is because they believe the rumors might be true.

So - you might be thinking - "Perkel - you are a whaco! Do you think anyone is going to buy a story like this? Is anyone really that stupid? You're hardly a real journalist!" Well - they bought the Kerry / McCain ticket story that was just as far out and kept running it even after Kerry and McCain denied it. And you don't hear Bush denying a Bush / Clinton ticket. I may end up being wrong on this - but if Bush doesn't run with Hillary - it won't be because he didn't want to - it will be that Hillary backed out and he got stuck with his second choice.

Feel free to post this story on other blogs.

Why is anyone still Catholic?

It amazes my why anyone is sticking with the Catholic religion. What is with this cult? It appears that the Catholic Church's idea of "reform" is to overturn the laws that make them responsible for priests fucking children.

So - if you are Catholic - how can you justify giving money to an organization that opposes church responsibility for priests fucking children? The church stood by for decades knowing what was going on - covering up what was going on - and not that they are being held accountable they continue to side with child molesters.

You might ask, "Why should the whole church be held responsible for what a few preists did?" The answer is - it wasn't just a few priests - and - the church knew about it and allowed it. The church took an active part in moving these priests around to cover it up. The didn't even kick them out. The moved them to a different community where they found new fresh young boys to fuck.

So if the church didn't know about it - that would be somewhat different. But in this case the church was an active participant. So if the church has to suffer for it - that's a good thing. It sends a message to other churches that you can fuck children.

I don't think the penalty is harsh enough because the Catholics still don't get the message. The are still fucking boys - and they are still transfering and promoting the criminals who are fucking children. Cardinal Bernard Law was reciently promoted to the Vatican after being run out of town in Boston for his role in covering up for priests who were fucking children. This appointment shows clearly that the Church doesn't take the matter seriously.

If you give money to the Catholic Church - you are supporting priests fucking children.

Bishops Support Move to Overturn Law

Sat Jul 17, 4:55 PM ET

Sue McGuire for KCBS-740 AM

(KCBS)--The priest sexual abuse scandal is moving forward on two legal fronts as cases of alleged clergy abuse wend through California courts.

Some Catholic bishops are supporting a request in federal court to overturn a law that allows decades old allegations to proceed.

KCBS reporter George Harris says the so-called Burton Law, named for its sponsor Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, drops the statute of limitations on claims of sexual abuse.

But California Catholic bishops call the law "unconstitutional."

"All of the bishops in the twelve diocese in California approved taking this position," said Maury Healy a spokesman for the San Francisco Archdiocese. He says the Burton Law unfairly targets the Catholic Church.

"In January 2003, the bishops issued a statement which warned against the effects of this law," Healy said.

He says by supporting a challenge of the Burton Law in federal court, bishops are not trying to avoid paying the enormous judgments that have been levied in lawsuits brought by alleged victims. "Portland has paid off 53-million-dollars alone."

The Southern California U.S. District Court is hearing the appeal of the Burton Law.

IRS holding up approval of my Church of Reality

Still waiting for the IRS to make a decision about if they consider the Church of Reality a real church. It's supposed to take 3 months and now it's 7 1/2 months and no word. Last time I called the IRS person said they were behind and didn't know when they were going to catch up.

I'm beginning to wonder if they are giving Christians preferential treatment and staling on non-christian applications. Or - at least part of the IRS is collapsing into totall disfunctionality. Is the IRS really 5 months behind normal approving 501c3 organizations? If so - why? Something funny is going on at the IRS. Does anyone out there have any information on why they might be taking so long?

Formal Request for UN Election Observers

As a citizen of the United States of America - a nation that is supposedly "of the People, by the People, and for the People" and as a former candidate for the US House of Representatives (1998) and as a former candidate for United States Senate (2000) I - on behalf of the People of the United States request that the United Nations request that the United Nations formally observe the U.S. elections on Nov. 2.

I ask that I be recognized as a proxy voice for the people of the United States because the US House of Representatives passed a measure barring any federal official from requesting United Nations elections observers. If federal officials are prohibited from requesting UN observers then it is the right and the duty of the People to do so. And the prohibition itself should be justification for the UN to act.

Bush stole the 2000 election and was illegally appointed president by the Supreme Court who had no constitutional authority to do so. Since then Bush has defied the UN's authority by waging an illegal war in Iraq and has violated International Law by issuing orders to torture, rape, and murder prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. In short - our president is a war criminal and is intent on doing whatever it take to hold onto power. Our president is a threat to the security of the world and the sovereignty of all nations.

Additionally - the president of Diebold - the largest maker of electronic voting machines used in America promised at a Republican fund raiser to deliver the election to Bush this year. These voting machines are known to have "back doors" that allow people to change the results of an election after the votes are cast.

I therefore - and on behalf of the People of the United states of America - formally request all interested nations to send election observers to monitor the November 2nd US elections.

References:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20040716/ap_on_go_co/house_florida_fight
http://marc.perkel.com/pdf/torture.pdf
http://blackboxvoting.com/

Bush rapes young boys

Secret film shows Iraq prisoners sodomised

Young male prisoners were filmed being sodomised by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to the journalist who first revealed the abuses there.

Seymour Hersh, who reported on the torture of the prisoners in New Yorker magazine in May, told an audience in San Francisco that "it's worse". But he added that he would reveal the extent of the abuses: "I'm not done reporting on all this," he told a meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union.

He said: "The boys were sodomised with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking. And this is your government at war."

He accused the US administration, and all but accused President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney of complicity in covering up what he called "war crimes".

Bush Moves to Steal Another Election

Letter to the Editor

The Bush administration is moving to steal the election again by postponing the election in case of an attack around election day. If this passes and Bush is behind in the polls - there will be an attack to delay the election.

A president who is crooked enough to go to war with Iraq based on lies is crooked enough to fake a terrorist attack to usurp the election process. Bush has already stolen one election when he got the Supreme Court to halt the vote count and appoint him president. This time the people should choose our own president.

Keeping us safe from terrorism is a test of the presidency and if Bush can't figure out how to keep America safe then he doesn't deserve to be president. The Constitution is clear on the subject and it doesn't provide an exception to move the election if Bush decides to create a fake attack. We need to resist tempering with the election process and prevent Bush from stealing the election again. Bush can not be trusted with any process to delay the election for any reason. And we sure don't need to give Bush a reason to blow up buildings if he's behind in the polls.

A FlyBoy's Story - Over and Over and Over again!

It's the story of Bush's father being shot down in WWII and CNN is playing it over and over again. It's bad enough that they are running this propaganda in the first place - but now they are showing it several times a day - every day - over and over.

Bush is in real trouble politically and CNN is trying to prop up his sagging poll numbers by showing what a hero he father supposedly was like 50 times. Never in the history of CNN have they repeated a single story so many times. You'd think that Bush Sr. was the greatest hero of all times.

Some day Americal will have a free press again. but for now it's all Bush ads - all the time.

Republicans want to spy on what you read

Letter to the Editor

I remember when the Republican Party believed in less government - personal liberty - and keeping the government from spying on it's citizens. How different things are today as the Republican congress blocked a measure that would have ended the government watching everything we read at the library and what we buy at book stores. Maybe if we had a president who was smart enought to read at a level above "My Pet Goat" we would have a government that had something better to do than spy on people who read books.

Bush Issues Politically Terrified Alert

The Bush administration today issued another terror alert triggered by the popularity of the Kerry / Edwards ticket. This is yet another fake terror alert providing no useful information.

Homeland security chief Tom Ridge had NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION and had nothing new to say other than be scared of the boggyman. But is any of this real - and does any of this make America safer? No!

First - it's clear that Bush will issue fake terror alerts because we know he lied to us about Iraq and started a war for political purposes. We are actually in more danger of being attacked by Bush than real terrorists.

But - what if this is real? What if this time they aren't faking it? Well - in that case we are in trouble because the Bush administration is totally incompetent and is totally clueless as to how to prevent it. And if there is a terror event that is actually caused by terrorists - our current government isn't going to stop it.

Bush is not pursuing bin Laden. Bush has personally received millions of dollars from the bin Laden family and Bush's family is partners with the bin Laden's in the Carlyle Group. So the real terrorists are getting a pass putting America in danger.

The theme of Ridges speech is about "disrupting elections" and bush is setting the stage for seizing power if he should lose the election again. He's going to try to invalidate the elections based on a terrorist event.

One think I'm really worried about is if Kerry is ahead in October - Bush WILL do something spectacular in order to create some diversion as a plot to sieze power.

So - it's not the terrorists we should be watching but our own unelected war criminal who will do anything to keep his grip on power. Osama bin Laden is to be feared - but the real threat to the electroal process comes from Bush.

Of course - this is also a distraction from the fact that Bush's buddy Kennyboy Lay is being led into court in handcuffs. So Bush needs a terror alert distraction

Ken Lay will never see justice

Letter to the Editor

Although it's nice that former Enron chairman Kenny Boy Lay will finally be charged with a crime - he'll never go to prison. That's because he's the reason Bush is president and he's Bush's biggest contributor. There's no doubt that Bush is going to pardon him - especially if he loses this election. Republicans take care of corporate criminals like Ken Lay. Some people like Bush and Ken Lay are just above the law.

Working on church of Reality Doctrine

As some of you know - I am the First one of the Church of Reality and I'm working on an interesting question that many people are asking. The question - will the Church of Reality lose it's focus and become corrupted like all the other religions.

Isn't it inevitable that if the Church of Reality becomes successful that it has to become corrupted by its success? That's what most people believe - and - am am attempting to address this issue. The real question is - what can I do now to prevent it from happening. How is the Church of Reality different than other religions?

Other religions are based on mythology. Thus if one myth evolves into another myth it's really not a significant change. How does one argue that one myth is better than another myth? But the Church of Reality is dedicated to reality. So if the Church of Reality converts to mythology then that is a more fundamental form of change that from myth to myth.

Reality doesn't go away after you stop believing in it. So if the Church of Reality gets off course - it can always come back to reality. Reality is the solid rock - the lighthouse - and it is always there no matter if people believe in it or not.

I have a joke about if a Christian who believes he can fly and a Bhudist who believes he can fly both jump off a bridge at the same time - who will hit the water first? The point you see is gravity applies equally to all religions and belief doesn't change reality. So - there is reason and hope to believe that the Church of Reality is different in that it is a religion that is grounded in the real world and therefore has a way to repair itself and get back to it's roots.

Reality is like a rock - it's solid - it's real - and it can be found if someone get lost. All you have to do is let reality back into your heart and let it guide you back to realism.

But - that doesn't mean that it can't be corrupted. So - I'm working on a plan - some tests - so that these become automatic clues that the Church of Reality might be straying off course. And - I'm looking for suggestions on how to keep reality real - and not become RINO - Reality In Name Only.

So - for example. If the Church of Reality becomes about me - Marc Perkel - then it's off course. I am not a diety - I have no special "powers" and I'm just a guy with an idea. If this doesn't work out someone else - hopefully - will come and do it right. But reality is still there no matter what. So - if the Church of Reality starts worshiping me - it's off course.

Or - if you are being forced to believe in things that are not supported in logic or science - that's a bad sign. The Church of Reality is to be judges by it's fruits and not just on what is being preached. It has to produce results.

Suing PayPal

Update on the PayPal situation. On June 13th PayPal closed my account because they didn't like the material on my web sites. Yesterday I filed a small claims court case against them for $5000 - the mex you can sue for in California. Here's the details of my encounter with them and there's a recording of my phone conversation about their policies.

My suit is based on the fact that I have 50000 web pages that I need to change - and that I was actually in compliance with their policies, and that 10 cents a web page is reasonable consequential demages that should be awarded to me.

Like I said in my phone recording - I did get my money back that they froze for 180 days. I put the pressure on and they caved in. Got my refund check a few days ago.

What PayPal did was very slimy and I'm not done punishing them. I want to file another lawsuit for injunctive relief forcing them to reinstate my account and to force them to alter their User Agreement to something that's legal. I live in the next county over from San Jose and I'm looking for a free lawyer to represent me and put PayPal in it's place.

News Media Kerry / McCain Ticket Fiction

It's amazing how the "legitimate press" fabricates news. If you listen to them you would get the idea that Kerry had offered McCain the VP slot and McCain turned it down. But Kerry never made McCain any offers according to both Kerry and McCain. This was a media fabrication because either they wanted to see that ticket - or - they wanted to be able to say Edwards was Kerry's second choice after McCain.

The truth is - it's fiction. It never happened. But the Republican owned news media will create any story to help Bush steal the election. And this is yet another example of it.

It's Edwards!

I am so glad he didn't pick Gephardt! One of the defining moments of the Gore campaign is the really bad decision he made in picking Joe Lieberman. It weas one of many really bad decisions Gore made that led to him failing to become president. So I was worried that Kerry might make a similar mistake.

Edwards is a good choice because - among other things - he has the folksy demeanor that people like in Bush. Kerry is somewhat stiff and arrogant as compared to Edwards so he fills in some gaps and will be able to help take the south. So far - today is a good day.

Bush Seeks Political Control of Churches

In yet another example of why the separation of Church and State is a good thing - Bush is making a blantant attempt at controlling the politics of churches. And - like he does with corporation that support him I'm sure he will dole out his faith based rewards based on the support the church provided during his election.

If this were legal - can you imagine the implications? Suppose Kerry were elected. Then he could pass out faith based initiative money to churches who support democrats and help them spread the word of God as seen by Christian Democrats as opposed to Christian Republicans.

Here are some of the things Bush wants churches to do for him.

• Send your church directory to your state Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters or give to a BC04 field representative.

• Identify another conservative church in your community who we can organize for Bush.

• Recruit 5 people in your church to help with the voter registration project.

• Talk to your pastor about holding a citizenship Sunday and voter registration drive.
  

Think about it. If you go to church - do you want your pastor to turn over your name to the Bush campaign - or to the Kerry campaign - or to ANY campaign? In fact - if your church turns over it's directory to ANYONE especially the government then the pastor should be fired and defrocked. When a person decides to choose a church, that is a private matter, and it's none of anyone's business. I would encourage members of churches who turn their church directory over to political campaigns to sue their pastor and to inform the IRS of tax exempt status violation.

Clinton Beats His Wife!

Thanks to Bartcop for this idea. This is how the right wing news media would spin this headline. The story is that Bill Clinton's book has beat Hillary's book in the New York Times Bestseller's list.

Did Saddam Gas the Kurds? Or was it Reagan?

It was the 1980s. Saddam was America's puppet in Iraq fighting the Iranians who has just turned into an Islamic state after America's puppet - The Shaw of Iran - died of cancer. Osama bin Laden was our buddy in Afganastan and the Teliban was know as the MujaHadine Freedom Fighters. Reagan was trading arms for hostages to fund an illegal war against the Sandinista-controlled government of Nicaragua. And now Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield was makking oil deal with Saddam Hussein. (pictured here)

We now accuse Saddam of gassing his own people and we want to put him on trial for it. And - if he did it - he deserves to die for it. But America gave Saddam the poison gas that he used to hill the Kurd - gas that he was supposed to use to kill Iranians.

Poison gas is illegal under International Law and America making it is illegal. But Americans are above the law - or specifically Republican presidents are above the law - and we make nerve gas and we gave it to Saddam to use to kill people in Iran - which Saddam also did.

So - you see - Republicans interpret the law differently than the rest of the world. It's OK to gas Iranians - but it's not OK to gas Kurds. If Saddam if found guilty then i- in my view - his partner Ronald Reagan is also guilty. Reagan gave Saddam poison gas to kill Iranians and Saddam did what Reagan wanted - but he just gassed some Kurds on the side.

Reality is different than American political fiction. Under International Law it's just as illegal to gas Iranians as it is to gas Kurds and the criminals include everyone who was involved which includes those who supplied Saddam with the gas with instructions to use it.

Reagan is dead now - and beyond the reach of the law. But Reagan was Saddam's partner in the gassing of the Jurds and a conviction of Saddam is also a conviction of Ronald Reagan - both of whom are criminals of war.

What are War Crimes?

Here's a little something I snagged off of CBS News - what are War Crimes? Their story is in reference to Saddam - but look at the list and see how many of these apply to Bush. Look to me like Bush has committed most of these crimes himself. No wonder Bush was so interested in trying to get the US to pass a resolution excusing Americans of War Crimes in Iraq. Glad they didn't pass that! Now Bush might some day be put on trial for his criminal acts.

Saddan is a bad man and deserves to be pout on trial. Bush is far worse and is the most dangerous terrorist on the planet.

The following definitions of these crimes were taken from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

---

Genocide
This crime occurs when "the perpetrator killed one or more persons" who "belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group," if the perpetrator "intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

Genocide can involve any of the following acts: killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births, by forcibly transferring children.

Crime Against Humanity

This crime involves conduct that "was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population." The possible elements of crimes against humanity are:

• apartheid
• deportation or forcible transfer of population
• enforced disappearance of persons
• enforced sterilization
• enslavement
• extermination
• forced pregnancy
• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty (Abu Ghraib - Guantanamo Bay Cuba)
• murder (Abu Ghraib)
• persecution (Abu Ghraib)
• rape (Abu Ghraib)
• sexual slavery or enforced prostitution (Abu Ghraib)
• sexual violence (Abu Ghraib)
• torture (Abu Ghraib - Guantanamo Bay Cuba)

War Crimes

War crimes cover offenses against soldiers as well as civilians that take place in the context of armed conflict. In addition to the elements listed under crimes against humanity, the possible elements of war crimes are:

• attacking civilian objects (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• attacking civilians (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• attacking objects or persons using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions
  
• attacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission
  
• attacking protected objects
  
• attacking undefended places (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• biological experiments
  
• compelling participation in military operations (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• compelling service in hostile forces (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• cruel treatment(Abu Ghraib- Guantanamo Bay Cuba)
  
• denying a fair trial(Guantanamo Bay Cuba - Patriot Act)
  
• denying quarter
  
• depriving the nationals of the hostile power of rights or actions (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• destroying or seizing the enemy’s property (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• destruction and appropriation of property (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• displacing civilians (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• employing poison or poisoned weapons
  
• employing prohibited bullets (Uranium Shells)
  
• employing prohibited gases, liquids, materials or devices (Uranuim Shells)
  
• employing weapons, projectiles or materials or methods of warfare listed in the Annex to the Statute
  
• excessive incidental death, injury, or damage (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• improper use of a flag of truce (Tricked into disarming - then attacked)
  
• improper use of a flag, insignia or uniform of the United Nations (Falsely Claims Justification by UN Resolution)
  
• improper use of a flag, insignia or uniform of the hostile party
  
• inhuman treatment (Abu Ghraib - Guantanamo Bay Cuba)
  
• killing or wounding a person hors de combat
  
• medical or scientific experiments
  
• murder (Abu Ghraib)
  
• mutilation (Abu Ghraib)
  
• outrages upon personal dignity (Abu Ghraib)
  
• pillaging (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• sentencing or execution without due process (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• starvation as a method of warfare (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• taking hostages
  
• treacherously killing or wounding (Fake War with Iraq)
  
• unlawful confinement (Guantanamo Bay Cuba- Abu Ghraib)
  
• unlawful deportation and transfer (Guantanamo Bay Cuba - Patriot Act)
  
• using protected persons as shields
  
• using, conscripting and enlisting children
  
• willfully causing great suffering (Abu Ghraib)
  
• willful killing (Abu Ghraib)
  

Can Republicans say "Go Fuck Yourself"?

I guess so? That's what Vice President Cheney said on the Senate floor. And - he refuses to apologize for it. So - I'm confused. I thought that the Republicans were the party of family values and that we had a Christian nation? What kind of example does it set for Christian children when Cheney says "Go Fuck Yourself" and doesn't even apologize for it?

On a side note - in the 1990s if Al Gore told a Republican to go fuck himself - do you think that the press would have given him a pass or do you think they would have carved it on his tombstone? You would think that the press would have covered Cheney saying Go Fuck Yourself as much as Deans screech - wouldn't you?

Price of Freedom Fries keeps going up

When France opposed the illegal war in Iraq and led the coalition of the unwilling against being suckered - Bush started calling them "Old Europe" and renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries. Now he goes crawling on his hands and knees begging the French to forgive him and give him money and troops to help bail him out in this important election year.

Now Americans are hated everywhere. He has empowered our enemies and alienated our friends. And his stunts like Freedom Fries will cost the lives of more Americans because he hasn't figured out that if you piss people off they aren't going to do you any favors.