I'm not feeling human anymore.
Half connected all the time.
Each night I document the things I've done.
The pointless points I've made for stupid reasons.
Every night.

A dog's life.

What I wouldn't give for it. Three dogs live at my house. Two shelties and a black lab. They all posess varying degrees of sentience, but even the most self-aware among them, Dusty, has a consistent pattern of behavior: eat, shit, sleep. Iterate. Sure, she has moments of vanity and moments of affection (the latter of which I confidently feel are motivated solely by my food-providing abilities), but at the end of the day, she has her plan and she sticks to it. This plan will be good enough for her until the day she dies. When I find her lifeless and stiff body, feet up in front of the piano, I will be able to say with 100% certainty that the absolutely last thought on her mind will not have been her relationship to God. It will not have been on what she has contributed to the world. It will not have been whether or not she was an accomplished, self-actualized canine.

It will have been eating, shitting, or sleeping.

A while ago I was watching this comic on TV. I don't remember who he was, or a single thing about his routine, except for one thing. It involved a joke about a woman asking why men never share their feelings. His response was that the extent of mens' feelings were, basically, "bzzzzzzzzz".

What I wouldn't give.

You see, faithful readers, I am blighted - nay, cursed - with overwhelming sentience. Not only am I aware that I exist, but my every waking moment is consumed with it. Somewhere along the line in my life, and I would love to know who was involved so I could go find them and smack the living shit out of them, I became convinced of three things that have proven to be singularly debilitating in my life: a) that my life could have some degree of positive significance to others; b) that, quantitatively, my thinking could somehow affect the degree of said significance; c) that if my life had a high degree of positive significance to others it would be an inherently more rewarding place for me to live. The inevitable end-result of this being that I think about everything, all the time, no matter how pointless it always proves to be. At this very moment I am so self-aware I'm posting a blog about how self-aware I am, knowing full well that there is no realistic reason why anybody else should ever give a shit. Could I possibly be more boringly post-modern?

In all my life, there have been only three things that have ever been able to erase this hideous pox of sentience from my life: music, books, and drugs. Bereft of this holy triumvirate, I am cursed with myself, cursed with mirrors and fingerprints and report cards. Cursed with evidence.
Sartre once said that hell is other people. Don't I wish it were that avoidable. Hell is me. I would be perfect if I didn't exist.

One thing I have learned about myself is that there is no single thing in the world I find so desirable as that state of mind in which I forget I exist. This is why I know I can never try heroin. This is why I know I can absolutely never, ever, surrender my consciousness to any kind of hard drug whatsoever. Because my consciousness would be completely eradicated by any such experiment. And I would find that state of eradication to be the single most desirable thing I had ever experienced. When I forget I exist, all kinds of wonderful things happen to me. I play awesome shows, I beat previous high scores, I get laid. These things never happen to me when I'm thinking about it. Thinking is the single biggest impediment to doing. Ever. Thinking is highly overrated and, for me, utterly useless. When I think about what notes to play I play the wrong ones. When I think about how to approach a woman... I usually don't. When I start to think about anything at all is when it usually all goes to shit. Most people everywhere live their entire lives in a state of such insentience. And it fills me with gibbering, incoherent rage, born strictly of jealousy.

How to stop thinking? How to render myself supine and supplicant to every ecstasy life has to offer? Because I've seen enough of my life to know that rewards only come to me when I'm not seeking them. Is it even possible in this day and age to go in for a voluntary lobotomy? I'm pretty sure I'm the ultimate candidate.

One of the things I've been telling my friends lately, and one piece of my own wisdom I seem completely unable to take to heart myself, is that control is an illusion. We have little to no control over our own lives. The most we can affect is the most trivial of details. You can turn the boat, but you can't fight the current. To put it into the more abstract and pseudo-mathematical terms of which I am so fond of reducing my life and those of others, all of our lives, all of everybody's lives everywhere, are simply a manifestation of potential energy becoming kinetic, as all potential energy is wont to do. My most original, and favorite, prayer is this: make of me a plastic wal-mart bag, O Lord, and blow me in the wind of your will. Que sera sera. Let it be, oh let it be.

Every night I pay off my debts.
Trust me I don't forget.
Tonight
Every night
I will analyze everything
And make myself count the ways
I fucked up today.

check out www.myspace.com/theinstantwinners and check out my new song, mr silverstein. best thing i've done in years. go ahead, tell me how awesome it is.

Mr. Silverstein
I need something from you
Won't you tell me please
Say the story
Has another end
Where I don't lose my missing piece

Say you got a call
From Hollywood producers
In Heaven late last night
Who said this simply would not work
And demanded a rewrite

They'd shown the script
To marketing
And it wasn't testing well
And they needed you
To change some things
Around so it would sell

It's a picture Jerry Bruckheimer
And Tom Cruise want to do
And all these people
Have their reasons
And I have reasons too

Like everywhere I go
There are strangers with her name
And paintings with her face
Every drive I take
I pass by her house
She lives everyplace

And every song I hear
Would sound better from her lips
Every melody be sweeter
And every room
Would light up if it was
The room where I could meet her

And every radio
In every discount store
Sings her songs to me
And she's where I'm not
So change the plot
Mr Silverstein

(solo)

And the bittersweet
Still lingers in my mouth
As if it's wanting to
It'd be easier gone
But then I'd miss
The bittersweet of you

Just a Little Off
You scored 11 out of forty on the psychopathy scale Youre not mad by any means, but the average score for a "normal" person is around five. Look on the bright side; at least you've got enough corks to make you interesting. Try to cut back on the number of kittens you eatthey can give you poor digestion.


My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 50% on Maddness

Link: The Are You an Psychopath Test written by Elias_Killjoy on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

A - Accent:

70% General American English
15% Dixie
10% Yankee
5% Upper Midwestern

B - Breakfast Item: Oh geez, how are you gonna make me choose between bacon and pancakes? That's so wrong... I'll flip a coin. Bacon.

C - Chore you hate: Any that involve manual labor.

D - Dad's Name: John

E - Essential everyday item: Beer.

F - Flavour ice cream: Ben&Jerry's Mint Cookie.

G - Gold or Silver?: Gold.

H - Hometown: I was born in the Raleigh/Durham area, but Milwaukee will always be where I'm from.

I - Insomnia: Sometimes.

J - Job Title: Audio-Visual Technician Level 2.

K - Kids: I have yet to find a woman stupid enough to let me knock her up. Keep your fingers crossed for me.

L - Living arrangements: On the advice of counsel I decline to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself

M - Mom's birthplace: I honestly don't know.

N - Number of significant others you've ever had: Again, pleading the fifth... let's just say I can count them on my fingers...

O - Overnight hospital stays: None, actually.

P - Phobia: Being unlovable and dying alone.

Q - Queer?: contrary to popular opinion, no. Just Unitarian.

R - Religious Affiliation: See above.

S - Siblings: one, younger sister.

T - Time you wake up: 1.5 hours before my shift starts.

U - Unnatural hair colours you've worn: Ha, where to begin. Purple, blue, white, black, red, yellow.

V - Vegetable you refuse to eat: Broccoli, but only when cooked.

W - Worst habit: Being antisocial.

X - X-rays you've had: A few.

Y - Yummy: Brownies and milk. And girls.

Z - Zodiac sign: Cancer.

Poker with Dick Cheney

WHAT? ...cles of Narnia!

CHRISTMAS HAS TWELVE FUCKING DAYS. That's TWELVE. PLURAL.

Hence HOLIDAYS. You can, in fact wish somebody "happy holidays" and be speaking of no other holiday than Christmas.

Those who would claim to be faithful Christians while using Christianity itself as a wedge to drive people apart, are the worst kinds of charlatans, and should be driven from churches everywhere just as fast as we can make them run. Christmas shouldn't be a time of dividing people against each other and argueing over what words people use. It should be about peace and love, even towards those with whom you disagree. The Germans and British on the front lines in WW1 could find the strength of spirit to call a Christmas Day ceacefire. God forbid we should expect so much from the fundamentalist jihadists leading the culture war.

We now return you to your normal programming schedule. But the next time you hear some angry blowhard start bitching about "happy holidays", remind them.

Christmas has twelve days.

Check em out, submit your own, and tell your friends.

Why have I been so afraid of Ann Coulter? Why haven't I seen sooner that she's rapidly losing her already tenacious footing on the slippery slope of sheer lunacy? I saw this column in my local paper's editorial page - and thought to myself, for crying out loud, *I* can debunk this shit. This doesn't even rise to the level where Al Franken, Bill Maher or Eric Alterman is required. This is AMATEUR. So here goes.

"When Democratic Rep. John Murtha called for the withdrawal of American troops in the middle of the war, Republicans immediately leapt to action by calling Murtha a war hero, a patriot and a great American."

Well, all of these things are true, Ann. But that's not why the Republicans "leapt into action". Read on.

"I haven't heard Republicans issue this many encomiums to one man since Ronald Reagan died."

They actually issued many more to Reagan.

"By now, Murtha has been transformed into the greatest warrior since Alexander the Great and is probably dating Jennifer Aniston."

Actually, Ann, neither of these are true. Much to the relief of Jennifer Anniston.

"In response to Murtha's demand for the "immediate withdrawal of American troops" -- as The New York Times put it -- President Bush called Murtha a "fine man, a good man" who served with "honor and distinction," who "is a strong supporter of the United States military." He said he knew Murtha's "decision to call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops ... was done in a careful and thoughtful way." Vice President Dick Cheney called Murtha "a good man, a Marine, a patriot." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Murtha is "a fine man, I know him personally ... and it's perfectly proper to have a debate over these things, and have a public debate."

They're all correct. Plus, when talking about war, especially right now, it would be political suicide for Bush to question the authority of somebody who actually SHOWED UP for one.

"National Security Adviser Steve Hadley called in his praise for Murtha from South Korea, saying Murtha was "a veteran, a veteran congressman and a great leader in the Congress." During the House debate on Murtha's insane proposal to withdraw troops in the middle of the war, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said Murtha deserved an "A-plus as a truly great American," and Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., said "none of us should think of questioning his motives or desires for American troops.""

In the middle of the war? Ann, when the war has no end, it's ALWAYS the middle. Did the US withdraw troops in the "middle" of Vietnam? Did they withdraw in the "middle" of Korea?

Did they withdraw in the "middle" of Afghanistan?

Of course they did. They did so because, except in the case of Afghanistan, it was the only thing to do. Korea and Vietnam were unwinnable wars, as evidenced by the fact that the sides we were fighting on in both didn't, in point of fact, win, despite the efforts of the US, the most powerful nation in the world. Likewise, the side that the US is fighting on in Iraq, which is basically that of a prototypical, make-believe Arab democracy, will not win. Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrannical war criminal, much like Josep Tito. And, like Yugoslavia, Iraq has always been a make-believe country, one that defied the natural internal boundaries of race, culture, and tribe. And, again like Yugoslavia, Iraq wants to be, and will be, three countries. Or three parts of other countries. The best case scenario for the outcome of the current conflict in Iraq will be independant Kurdish, Shia and Sunni countries, content to co-exist alongside one another. The worst case scenario involves a three-way tussle between Iran, Syria and Turkey. Either way, we can not and will not stop it, no matter how badly we might want to.

Dick Cheney knows this, and has known it since 1991, when he said, and I quote: "I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

"What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

"I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

Dick Cheney's own words.

"On the House floor, both Republicans and Democrats repeatedly gave Murtha rousing standing ovations. There was so much praise for Murtha that one of his Democratic colleagues asked him if he still had to attend Murtha's funeral. What is this? Special Olympics for the Democrats? Can't Republicans disagree with a Democrat who demands that the U.S. surrender in the middle of a war without erecting monuments to him first? What would happen if a Democrat were to propose restoring Saddam Hussein to power? Is that Medal of Freedom territory?"

You see, Ann, the thing that you're conveniently omitting in your ranting diatribe is that the Republicans are adopting this posture of feigned praise and respect in response to two things: the unwarranted, inaccurate and defamatory attacks on his character by Scott McClellan and Jean Schmidt, and the rapid awakening of the American people to the fact that this war is, in all the important ways, Vietnam II. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would never have adopted such conciliatory, comprimising - dare I say it... PLURALISTIC AND DEMOCRATIC - rhetoric (and yes, it is just rhetoric, they don't really mean a word of it) for a second had Scottie and Jeannie not made such utterly asinine assaults on the proven patriotism of a fucking MARINE VETERAN - and had polls and media outlets not instantly reflected the immediate disapproval of these attacks by the American people.

Gee, now that I think about it, where on Earth could they have come up with such an incredibly stupid ploy? You know, attacking the patriotism of people who've risked their own lives on the front lines. It's almost like they're taking their cues from a media darling of the corpo-fascists. Somebody who's made their entire career and living out of assaulting the patriotism of people with whom they disgree. Accusing them of treason or slander, despite their proven patriotism.

Oh yeah. FROM YOU. And THAT'S why you won't even mention the scurrilous, groundless, pusillanimous attacks that brought on the ass-covering that you so abhor. Because, in very real ways, it's all YOUR FUCKING FAULT.

You know who else thinks it's disgusting to attack the patriotism of a military veteran with whom you disagree politically? Colin Powell. Somehow, his opinion carries just a little more weight with me, and with the rest of America, than yours.

"I don't know what Republicans imagine they're getting out of all this love they keep throwing at Democrats. I've never heard a single liberal preface attacks on Oliver North with a recitation of North's magnificent service as a Marine. And unlike Murtha, who refuses to release his medical records showing he was entitled to his two Purple Hearts, we know what North did. (These Democrat military veterans are hardly shrinking violets when it comes to citing their medals, but they get awfully squeamish when pressed for details.)"

What, you think medals just get handed out like candy at Halloween?

How many purple hearts do YOU have, Ann? How many wars have YOU fought in?

Oh, really? NONE?! Do tell! Well then, it would appear that you have no grounds upon which to question anybody else's service or sacrifice. So how bout you SHUT THE FUCK UP.

"We also know what Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., did to earn his medals. One of only two American Navy aces that the Vietnam War produced, Cunningham shot down five MiGs, three in one day, including a North Vietnamese pilot with 13 American kills. Cunningham never did something as insane as proposing that we withdraw troops in the middle of a war, but this week he did admit to taking bribes."

So let me be the first to say that I applaud what Cunningham did in Vietnam. Just like I applaud what John Kerry and Max Cleland did in Vietnam. My respect for military service and sacrifice, unlike yours, is real, and is unbounded by partisan loyalty. Thtat's because I'm an American patriot, Ann, born and bred. Through and through. No bones about it. America isn't perfect but I love her. And I have a deep and profound respect for anybody who's taken up arms in her service, whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal.

Unlike you.

"And yet, no Democrat breathed a word of Cunningham's unquestioned heroism before rushing to denounce him as "the latest example of the culture of corruption" -- in the words of Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Sen. Teddy Kennedy didn't issue a 20-minute soliloquy on what a wonderful man Judge Robert Bork was as a human being before attacking his judicial philosophy. Kennedy just laid into Bork like he was George Lincoln Rockwell."

I thought we were talking about those who had served their country in the military. I thought we were talking about patriotism, and sacrifice. So, Ann, what exactly ARE we talking about? You tell me.

"Speaking of which, George Lincoln Rockwell, former head of the American Nazi Party, served in the military during World War II. Are we obligated to praise his war service before disputing his views?"

That depends. Did he risk life and limb serving on the front lines of a war, any war, even one in which he may have been an enemy sympathizer? If so, then his service deserves commendation. Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathizer as well. There is no question in my mind that the good done to America and her economy by Ford and is company (you may have heard of it) far outweighed his political leanings, however misguided. Many contributors to America's greatness, in both military and civilian walks of life, were sympathizers to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. This does nothing to negate the concrete contributions they made to our society.

"CNN's Bill Schneider summarized the Republican love-fest for Murtha by saying that House Republicans "started calling him some very ugly names -- cowardly, shameful, he wanted to cut and run, he wanted to surrender to the terrorists, emboldening the enemy." Are we all looking at the same "intelligence"?"

Everybody but you, Ann. Everybody but you.

"The only Republican congressman who did not offer to have sex with John Murtha on the House floor"

Citations please? Or are we coversing entirely outside the bounds of reality at this point?

"...was Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio. While debating Murtha's own proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq in the middle of a war waged to depose a monstrous dictator who posed a threat to American national security, Schmidt made the indisputably true remark that Marines don't cut and run. (She was right! Murtha voted against his own proposal.)"

Schmidt made the remark?! Really?! Keep this in mind, boys and girls. We'll return to this later.

"Schmidt's precise words were: "I received a call from Col. Danny Bubp. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Bubp later said -- pointlessly -- that he was not calling Murtha a coward. Neither was Jean Schmidt. (These guys are very brave facing down the VC, but cower before the MSM.)"

OK, so now Jean Schmidt WASN'T calling Murtha cowardly. Got it.

"Now Schmidt is Emmanuel Goldstein, subjected to the liberals' Orwellian two-minutes hate, and not one Republican will defend her. If Republicans were one-tenth as rough with the congressman who wants to withdraw troops in the middle of a war as they are on a congresswoman who calls it cowardly"

Wait wait wait... now she IS calling Murtha's proposal cowardly? Let me get this straight. First you say the remark wasn't hers. Then you say it wasn't. then you say it was.

Why Ann, you're a... a... FLIP-FLOPPER!

"to withdraw troops in the middle of a war, we might have a functioning Republican Party. "

Oh, you're right. The Republican party only controls ALL OF CONGRESS, THE EXECUTIVE AND THE JUDICIAL branches of the Federal Goverment. It's obviously dysfunctional.

Oh, wait a minute, no it's not. It's horribly effective. It marches in lockstep to the beat of corpo-fascism's drum. But that's still not enough for you. You just won't be satisfied until either everybody you ever disagree with is swinging from trees, or until you are finally revealed to the public as the blithering, reality-divorced, hysterical, loony tunes, crazy psycho that you are.

I think I know which is coming first. Let freedom fucking ring, bitch.

From a post I made on the FP:

I'm 31. When I moved across the country to an area where I knew NOBODY, MySpace helped me meet people with similar interests. MySpace is the only reason I have any friends at all down here (yes, I'm a piss-poor socializer outside of an ASCII environment). The one venue where I've found to play my music on a regular basis down here, I found out about through MySpace. I've gotten some fans for my (unsigned, independant) music through MySpace, as well as become a fan of other unsigned, independant local musicians. I don't have a huge fan base, but thanks to MySpace, if I ever visit Seattle, Canada, Charlotte, Chicago, Orlando, or Texas, there's people who can help me hook up shows. MySpace is how I find out when good local acts are playing (do YOU really wanna wade through ten pages of 5-point type in the back of your free weekly? Me neither). MySpace is the reason people come to see me when I play. If MySpace ever adds the ability to email multiple people without the use of bulletins, it might just replace email for me. All of my friends here, and all of my friends in Milwaukee, and all of my friends in San Francicso, are on it. I need to check my MySpace messages multiple times a day. I only need to check my actual email once every day or two.

MySpace isn't completely original - it's basically LiveJournal meets Demostreams. But the idea of a multi-featured user community has come a long way since AOL, and it's a concept that's rapidly gaining traction in the marketplace. Slashdot itself is a user-community, just without certain features (music and pictures) and with others (a more specific and exclusive user base). MySpace, Slashdot, Livejournal, Friendster, etc etc are as successful as they are because the marketplace rewards their ideas.

Are there problems with MySpace? Sure. The ads are getting more and more intrusive. But if that's your argument against it, you might as well argue against the internet itself. There is plenty of ugly HTML on MySpace. Last time I checked, though, there was also plenty outside of it as well. The servers are getting slower and buggier. But again, MySpace is not unique in this regard - I can't even log into Friendster anymore, it's so slow. And yes, there are a bunch of little kids running around acting like morons. But if this is your argument against it, then you must also be against all IM as well. And, just like Slashdot, there are plenty of people who are idiots - and plenty who aren't. Bottom line, MySpace is very much worth the ZERO DOLLARS I paid to be there.

...but it says I write like a girl.

Answer this question here, then post to your own JE so I can read what your friends have to say.

What, in your mind, is the biggest thing that distinguished the American political left, or liberals, from the right, or conservatives?

I'll go first: to me, the most significant thing that defines the two is that liberalism is a belief in plurality; liberals are willing to concede that their opponents may be right about some things, and that reasonable people can disagree. Wheras conservatives, particularly the more modern ones, tend to march in lockstep and repress all dissent, internal and external.

Anybody else care to comment?

Feynman.

Um, Charles Krauthammer? Are we actually on the same side about something?

TruthOut does a good job of saying everything I think about ID here, in much better words than I could probably use.

That's all.

"In our system of government an accused person is presumed innocent until a contrary finding is made by a jury after an opportunity to answer the charges and a full airing of the facts. Mr. Libby is entitled to that opportunity." -Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America

WHOOOAAAAAA, don't go all ACLU on us there, Dick! We just can't take the cognitive dissonance anymore! Coming, as it does, on the heels of so much repeated cognitive dissonance from your - I'm sorry, from George W. Bush's - administration.

You know, you were against Homeland Security, then you were for it, except when it came time to actually fund it, then you were against it again. Some more things y'all have flip-flopped on: Campaign finance reform (apparently your good buddy Tom DeLay wasn't paying attention when you claimed to support it... I wonder why?), 9/11 Commission (whose members have stated repeatedly that they were stonewalled by the Pentagon and White House at several levels), invesitgation of WMD in Iraq (HA), the concept of nation building, defecit spending, free trade/steel tariffs, Palestinian statehood, states rights to make their own laws regarding gay marriage, negotiation with North Korea, and the relevance of the UN in the world today.

And let's not forget the big one - Osama Bin Laden, former Public Enemy Numero Uno, is now apparently not an issue: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care" - GWB. He has been allowed to get away scot free, while his friends, the militant Jihadists in Pakistan, have been allowed to invite the worst regimes in the world to a nuclear pinata party (from which we will surely reap the whirlwind).

And now, to add insult to injury, having wiped your feet on the Constitution in your hurry to make sure that there are no methods of torture - I'm sorry, "aggressive interrogation" - that can't be used on American citizens in Guantanamo Bay, nor against prisoners of war from a sovereign state in Abu Ghraib, after having then derided liberals and civil libertarians as america-hating teacherous sympathizers for daring to stand up for the very rights that our founders fought and died for (like, you know, the right to not have your arms torn from your sockets, that kind of thing) - after all that, you have the balls to say that Scooter Libby is innocent until proven guilty. I sincerely hope that the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of American democracy and the rule of law, is upheld for Scooter Libby - just as much as it was for Jose Padilla. I hope Libby's access to counsel is every bit as extensive and frequent as Padilla's is. Inasmuch as they are "enemy combatants", they are guilty of the same crime - Scooter Libby has tried to undermine the very morals and values on which American constitutional democracy is founded. But Libby's crimes trump those of Padilla, for while Padilla would have been happy to destroy hundreds or thousands of individual American lives, he could never have undermined the very meaning of what it is to be American in the same way as Scooter Libby tried to. While he could have destroyed buildings, he could not have destroyed democracy. While he could have taken lives, he could never have taken our liberty.

Only you, Mr. Vice President, and the President, and the rest of your relentlessly corpo-fascist neo-con administration, could do that. And you've come dangerously close. When you attempt to justify the drastic curtailing of democracy and freedom that has taken place on your - I'm sorry, on George W. Bush's - watch by claiming that you're trying to save American lives, it rings hollow for two large and looming reasons. Firstly, because life without liberty means nothing. Because, in the immortal words of Ben Franklin, those that sacrifice liberty to gain security will end up with neither. Secondly, because you continue to send more and more Americans to Iraq to die. You do this knowing not only that the original justification that was used to attack Iraq was wrong, but that there is no way that Iraq will not collapse into sectarian civil war once the occupation ends, thus rendering the tragic death of every American on Iraqi soil utterly pointless, and your claims of conern for Ameican lives utterly specious.

I have only one question for you, Mr. Cheney. Since it has been the repeated assertion of your - I'm sorry, of George W. Bush's - administration that the Constitution affords citizens no guarantee of a presumption of innocence when you can be shown to be an enemy combatant, and since Mr. Libby's actions on your behalf can be clearly shown to place him in that category inasmuch as he endangered the lives of a covert agent and every contact she ever made while simulateously rendering useless any future information that would have come from the considerable resources she cultivated in the field, where does his right to a presumption of innocence come from that the rest of ours don't?