Indeed, according to the New York Times, McCain’s people are quite dismissive of Ms. Huffington. Here’s their words from the New York Times, along with the accounts of two others who heard McCain at the Bergen Dinner say he did not vote for George Bush:

The McCain campaign swiftly quashed the account and said Ms. Huffington had a book to promote and would make anything up.

“She’s a flake and a poser and an attention-seeking diva,” Mark Salter, one of Mr. McCain’s closest aides, told The Washington Post.

Now two other guests at the same dinner, given by the actress Candice Bergen, at her home in Beverly Hills, say they heard much the same thing as Ms. Huffington. Both of them, the former “West Wing” actors Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff, were asked by Ms. Huffington to speak to The New York Times. Mr. Whitford said he would be supporting the Democratic nominee and had donated to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama; Mr. Schiff is supporting Mr. Obama.

Mr. Whitford, who played Josh Lyman, the deputy White House chief of staff on the NBC series, said in a telephone interview on Thursday that he was sitting across from Mr. McCain and next to Ms. Huffington at the small dinner and that he was startled to hear the senator sharply criticize Mr. Bush. The senator has long blamed the Bush campaign for smear tactics against his family in the 2000 South Carolina primary, but by the end of the campaign Mr. McCain was publicly supporting his rival.

“McCain was just sort of going off on how much he disliked Bush and the horrible things that the Bush campaign had done to his family in South Carolina, and his exasperation with Bush about his ridiculous tax cuts and he really wanted to talk to him about it, but he said the guy doesn’t have the concentration, and you talk for 10 minutes and then the guy wants to talk about baseball,” Mr. Whitford said.

Another guest then asked Mr. McCain, Mr. Whitford recalled, whether he had voted for Mr. Bush. “And he put his finger in front of his mouth and mouthed, ‘No way,’ ” Mr. Whitford said.

Mr. Schiff, who played Toby Ziegler, the White House communications director on “The West Wing,” said he was listening to Mr. McCain from the other of the two tables in the room.

“Someone asked, ‘What do you think of Bush?’ ” Mr. Schiff recalled. “My recollection, and I have to qualify this, because I’m not 100 percent sure he used this word, but my recollection is that McCain said that Bush was dangerous and he didn’t trust him. Then this person said, ‘Why did you support him?’ And McCain said, ‘It was my obligation as a Republican to support the Republican candidate.’ And the person said, ‘Did you vote for him?’ And McCain said, ‘No.’ ”

Now, Mr. McCain couldn’t bring himself to outright call Ariana Huffington a liar, not even in an interview with Bill O’Reilly. (But John McCain sure is denying the story!) So I’m thinking he’s not going to bring himself to calling the other attendees of that dinner liars. I’m here to say, though, that John McCain evidently lied, either in 2001 at the dinner at Candice Bergen’s house, or he is lying right now. Frankly, given that he doesn’t want to piss off the supporters of George Bush (as few as they are they are still a base he can ill afford to piss off), it makes more sense that John McCain, MC Straighttalker himself, is lying now.

Here’s the kicker. Nearly every day someone new is coming out of the woodwork with something derogatory about President Bush that John McCain told them. Here’s Al Meyeroff, who is claiming John McCain told him in 1999 that George Bush is “dumb as a stump.” Again, if McCain said it, he could hold that up to the world as an example of his good judgement. But he needs the Republican base that still loves George Bush, so he’ll deny Meyeroff’s claims, though McCain, who pretends to be a straight talker, will leave it to his campaign people to call Meyeroff a liar.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that Republican John McCain was “losing his bearings” for repeatedly suggesting the Islamic terrorist group Hamas preferred Obama for president.

That brought an angry response from McCain’s campaign, which accused Obama of trying to make an issue of McCain’s age.

Age is a touchy subject for McCain, who turns 72 in August and would be the oldest person to be sworn in as president if elected.

Man, what a bunch of stupid people. When one loses one’s bearings, that means one is lost. If McCain decides to continue and continue to insist that Hamas supports Obama, then that’s ample evidence that McCain is lost. As to the age thing, I’m hoping the McCain campaign continues to whine about that subject constantly. Nobody would have mentioned his ag, indeed nobody did, until the McCain people started to whine. Maybe they should practice some gun control so they don’t shoot themselves in the foot.

#25: Mark Levin: 6
#21) Hugh Hewitt: 7
#21) George Will: 7
#21) John Roberts: 7
#21) Ronald Reagan: 7
#20) Victor David Hanson: 8
#19) Antonin Scalia: 9
#18) John McCain: 10
#14) Glenn Beck: 11
#14) George W. Bush: 11
#14) Glenn Reynolds: 11
#14) Matt Drudge: 11
#13) Bill Kristol: 12
#10) Charles Krauthammer: 13
#10) Thomas Sowell: 13
#10) Laura Ingraham: 13
#9) Karl Rove: 14
#8) Jonah Goldberg: 15
#7) Bill O’Reilly: 17
#5) Newt Gingrich: 21
#5) Ann Coulter: 21
#3) Mark Steyn: 23
#3) Sean Hannity: 23
#2) Michelle Malkin: 24
#1) Rush Limbaugh: 49

One more comment from me before you folks have at it. How pathetic is it that Ronald Reagan dominated the Republican Primary debates, yet is ranked so low. And how pathetic is it that he’s been dead so long and still ranks at all? Dubya and McCain are pretty low on the list as well. I suppose this says something about the strength of the Republican Party, and also about the aspirations and dreams of those pathetic bloggers on the right who voted in this contest.

Rep. Vito Fossella of New York acknowledged on Thursday that he fathered a child from an extramarital affair, answering questions that arose from his arrest on drunken driving charges last week.

“My personal failings and imperfections have caused enormous pain to the people I love and I am truly sorry,” said Fossella, a Republican, who has three children with his wife in Staten Island,
N.Y.

Fossella’s private life came under scrutiny after he was arrested last week in the Virginia suburbs of Washington. Police said his blood-alcohol level was twice the legal limit, and he could face a mandatory five days in jail if convicted.

When Fossella was pulled over, police said he told officers that he was going to see his daughter in the area. That prompted questions about who the daughter was.

“I have had a relationship with Laura Fay, with whom I have a 3-year-old daughter,” Fossella said in his statement. It was Fay who got him out of jail after the arrest.

The disclosure clouds Fossella’s political future. He faced a surprisingly tough re-election challenge in 2006, and Democrats were hoping to unseat him this year.

“While I understand that there will be many questions, including those about my political future, making any political decisions right now are furthest from my mind. Over the coming weeks and months, I will continue to do my job and I will work hard to heal the deep wounds I have caused,” he said.

Yeah, man, it’s time to heal those deep wounds. I’m sure your radical Republican constituency is going to be happier that you are merely dallying with a woman than trolling bathrooms, as other Republicans do, but I’m thinking that isn’t going to help you in the long run.

One more Republican with weak moral fiber. That’s my take on it. I hope Rep. Fossella and his family is OK after this disruption he’s caused. But he’s surely not a good candidate for high office, is he?

The worst columnist in America returned to his obsession today. Rick Santorum returned to his obsession with Islamofascists, and he also wagged his finger at the Bush Administration for not using the term. Little Ricky, who has been on this Islamofascist kick for a few years now, so much that we may as well call him a “one trick pony,” is the Philadelphia Inquirer’s shame writ large whenever he produces his “Elephant in the Room” column. (With Ricky’s extreme current obsessiveness about Islamofascism and his previous obsession with gay sex, I’m tempted to suggest they rename the column “Pink Elephant in the Room.) Anyway, here’s the column, and a couple excerpts which I will try to discuss without retching at Santorum’s lapses of logic, history and sanity.

First, here’s Ricky’s criticism that President Bush didn’t listen to him close enough about using the right words when discussing the War on Terror:

At a White House meeting after my press club remarks, I handed the president my speech and told him I thought that we were more apt to lose this war in the streets of America than on the streets of Baghdad. We had to start winning the communications battle at home, and part of that involved coming clean with Americans about whom precisely we are fighting. I suggested, for example, that he abandon the word terror and replace it with Islamic fascism.

A few weeks later, Bush was responding to an impromptu question about a thwarted terror plot in England. For the first time, he described the enemy as Islamic fascists. Then came the backlash - in the media, the Muslim world, and, most important, the State Department. Sources told me that the bureaucracies rose up as one and persuaded the president to never use that term again. He never has.

The assumption here is that Bush’s language, his reticence at using the words “Islamofascists,” or “Islamic Fascism,” has both inhibited the President’s prosecution of the War on Terror and inhibited the public support of that war. Santorum is wrong on both points. Bush and his Keystone Kops prosecution of the war, along with his violation, time and time again, of civil liberties and tenets of international law are truly what have limited his prosectuion of the War on Terror. The Bush Administration ADHD approach of going after Osama, then shifting focus to bogus reasons for invading Iraq and leading our troops into a quagmire, are not timid moves on Bush’s part. His lack of use of Santorum’s pet terminology haven’t hindered Mr. Bush at all. Would that it had been the case. And the lack of use of those words have not chased the public away from supporting the President — the President’s FAILURES have moved the public towards record disapproval ratings for Bush. Santorum thinks some kind of insistence on “political correctness” is why the public no longer supports Bush. Nope, you’ve got it wrong, Ricky. You’re following the right-wing radical playbook well, but you’ve let the facts of disastrous policy escape your obsession with “Islamofascist and the radical right-wing playbook. Look to the facts, Ricky, instead of your obsessions.

This is to say little about Rick Santorum’s casting himself in the role of ignored hero. Man, someone surely can psychoanalyze that, huh? But how about this other tidbit from Ricky’s column today:

In speeches I give across the country, I ask basic questions about the ideology and motivation of the enemy. The response? Blank stares. Seven years into this war, that’s an indictment of our government rather than the intelligence of the public. Why should we learn about radical Muslims if they are not the problem?

This little paragraph is the funniest in the whole “Elephant in the Room” column. The reason Rick Santorum is met with blank stares is not because people aren’t aware of the reasons for terrorism. It’s because people like Rick Santorum have been wrong so often and so long that people are tuning him out. So many promises by the Bush Administration and those that back them, people like Rick Santorum, have failed, that these folks are skeptical of the words of Rick Santorum. Heck, people should be skeptical of Rick Santorum for one other reason — he suffered the biggest loss by an incumbent Senator in dozens of years. Why? Rick Santorum no longer has answers Americans want to hear. Indeed, Rick Santorum is just plain, flat out wrong.

Rick Santorum, the Pink Elephant in the Room, stands as the symbol of Republican incompetence in the early part of this century. The Philadelphia Inquirer should be shamed to carry his column.

Republican Primary ResultsTuesday, May 6
Real-time Race Results: Updated May 7, 2008 - 7:20 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
McCain 381,616 74%
Huckabee 62,798 12%
Paul 37,132 7%
No Preference 20,527 4%
Keyes 13,562 3%

The story here is that John McCain didn’t win 95% of the vote or more. He came 20% short of that total. Seems Mike Huckabee still has some following, and you can expect the 7% or so for Ron Paul, the last whack job standing. But check out that Alan Keyes! I’m thinking that might be some kind of Democratic crossover vote of people hoping to see a Keyes/Obama rematch — some Democrat who wants utter slaughter in November. Seriously, after John McCain has been on the campaign trail for practically three years, after numerous other candidates and far too many Republican debates, it is amazing to me that 4% of the North Carolina electorate chose “no preference.”

This is not the unanimous vote that McCain needs. Indeed, this vote is far from it. Yet nobody in the mainstream media has said a thing on the subject.

Edit: I was remiss in not noting that McCain also won a landslide in Indiana, with 78% of the vote. Yes, fully 22% of the Republican electorate in that state voted for someone other than McCain, the nominee. Meanwhile, 11% of Republican voters crossed over and voted Democratic in Indiana.

With the passage of the Patriot Act, the potential for the government to abuse its newfound authority to snoop on its citizens was expanded. Unfortunately, along with that expansion came the ability to prevent those who contest such inquiries…and succeed…from discussing the details of the case in question.

Hence, the FBI and other agencies have no deterrent to pushing the limits of their authority. In fact, recent successes in preventing such inquiries have all been met with the same strategy…a sudden withdrawal of the request accompanied by a gag order on the party served.

From Wired.com:

The Internet Archive, a project to create a digital library of the web for posterity, successfully fought a secret government Patriot Act order for records about one of its patrons and won the right to make the order public, civil liberties groups announced Wednesday morning.

On November 26, 2007, the FBI served a controversial National Security Letter on the Internet Archive’s founder Brewster Kahle, asking for records about one of the library’s registered users, asking for the user’s name, address and activity on the site.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Archive’s lawyers, fought the NSL, challenging its constitutionality in a December 14 complaint to a federal court in San Francisco. The FBI agreed on April 21 to withdraw the letter and unseal the court case, making some of the documents available to the public.

The Patriot Act greatly expanded the reach of NSLs, which are subpoenas for documents such as billing records and telephone records that the FBI can issue in terrorism investigations without a judge’s approval. Nearly all NSLs come with gag orders forbidding the recipient from ever speaking of the subpoena, except to a lawyer.

Brewster Kahle called the gag order “horrendous,” saying he couldn’t talk about the case with his board members, wife or staff, but said that his stand was part of a time-honored tradition of librarians protecting the rights of their patrons.

Though FBI guidelines on using NSLs warned of overusing them, two Congressionally ordered audits revealed that the FBI had issued hundreds of illegal requests for student health records, telephone records and credit reports. The reports also found that the FBI had issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs since 2001, but failed to track their use. In a letter to Congress last week, the FBI admitted it can only estimate how many NSLs it has issued.

The Internet Archive’s case is only the third known court challenge to an NSL, all of which ended with the FBI rescinding the NSL, according to the ACLU’s Melissa Goodman.

“That makes you wonder about the the hundreds of thousands of NSLs that haven’t been challenged,” Goodman said, suggesting that the FBI had collected sensitive information on innocent Americans.

The settlement with the government puts an end to that challenge and still keeps Kahle and his lawers from discussing — even in the most general terms — what the FBI was after and what public information the Internet Archive turned over to the FBI. For instance, the lawyers declined to say what kind of information the target was looking at or uploading — such as animal rights information or Muslim literature.

[…] The Internet Archive case is only the second time the courts allowed the recipient of a Patriot Act National Security Letter to reveal his or her identity.

The history of such efforts to surveil Americans was altered in the aftermath of the Nixon presidency and the events surrounding Watergate. At the time, the ability of the government to conduct such operations was curtailed and virtually eliminated. With 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act, the floodgates of federal snooping were reopened…and the evidence suggests that some of the same abuses that facilitated the ban in the past have reemerged under the new guidelines.

Unfortunately, the latest foray allows the government to silence those who may have been compelled to participate in committing the abuse. Under the auspices of national security, questionable activity isn’t allowed to reach the public’s view - thereby preventing any of the accountability that would naturally be driven by public outrage with any revealed improprieties.

A program of this nature, when coupled with an administration that is prone to misguiding voters and utilizing the mechanisms of government for political advantage, has the potential to trigger abuses that far exceed those committed under the Nixon administration.

With George Bush’s disapproval numbers surpassing those of all the presidencies previously measured, one can’t help but wonder if the unknown abuses also exceed those of his predecessors…especially those of Richard Nixon…who found himself in the unenviable position of being forced to make an early exit from the White House.

9/11 was a defining moment in American history. Sadly, we may never know the degree to which the current administration used it to restrict and/or remove our civil liberties. That possibility makes it difficult to endorse the efforts George Bush tells us are designed to protect our way of life from the terrorists. Preserving freedom and liberty at the expense of both should never be optional.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Don’t be fooled by the religious right’s assertion that they simply want to protect marriage and the family. Implicit in their efforts to pass legislation and constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage is an intention to slam the door on any measure that would grant rights or recognition to gays.

Should there be any doubt, take a look at today’s Michigan Supreme Court ruling. In a case designed to determine the scope of an amendment passed in the state in 2004, the court upheld an appeals court ruling that prohibits Michigan’s universities, colleges, and municipalities from providing health coverage to the partners of same-sex couples.

From The Associated Press:

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Local governments and state universities in Michigan can’t offer health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The court ruled 5-2 that Michigan’s 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks domestic-partner policies affecting gay employees at the University of Michigan and other public-sector employers.

The decision affirms a February 2007 appeals court ruling.

Up to 20 public universities, community colleges, school districts and local governments in Michigan have benefit policies covering at least 375 gay couples. After the appeals court ruled, universities and local governments rewrote their policies to try to comply with the gay marriage ban — so the effect of Wednesday’s decision is unclear.

The voter-approved law, which passed 59 percent to 41 percent, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.”

The language utilized by proponents of amendments to limit marriage to one man and one woman has been left intentionally vague in order to allow the restrictions to be expanded following passage. Ironically, the same people who accuse Democrats and liberals of favoring “activist judges” seek to use the courts to further their agenda to remove any recognition of rights for gays subsequent to the passage of these amendments.

The lack of clarity leaves the door open to arguing that these amendments actually intend to limit more than just recognition of same-sex marriages. In fact, the goal of those sponsoring such amendments is to nullify all prior state or municipal legislation that remotely seeks to recognize or codify the rights of gays. Specifically, these amendments are often targeted to overrule recognitions passed by large urban municipalities that have typically had a greater concentration of liberals or Democrats.

Time and again, the proponents of these amendments attempt to first pass the broadest possible language, and should that be struck down, they grudgingly expand the language…but only enough to pass judicial muster. The first such amendment to garner nationwide attention was passed in Colorado in 1992. Amendment 2 would have voided laws passed in cities like Denver and Boulder that were intended to grant protections to gays in housing and employment. Fortunately, the Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ruling that found the amendment to violate the equal protections discussed in Colorado’s constitution.

Amendment 2 was a miscalculation on the part of its proponents. They predicated their efforts upon an assumption that the courts were by and large unsympathetic to measures passed by city councils and their removal was simply a matter of forcing those items to be reviewed by the higher courts. The strategy failed miserably. Since the Colorado amendment drew so much attention, sponsors of subsequent amendments have used that case as a guide in crafting the language of future amendments. No longer could they count on the inherent bias against the passage of rights for gays that had previously dominated the court system.

The new strategy focuses on protecting the institution of marriage in order to win the approval of more voters. Knowing that a majority of Americans likely object to gays being able to enter into traditional marriages, these measures are designed to capitalize on that sentiment while secretly being crafted to allow them to go much further.

The Michigan case is a classic example of this bait and switch strategy. Most observers do not believe that the state’s voters intended to revoke the provision of health care coverage for same-sex couples…or to restrict or rollback any other measures intended to protect gays from inequitable discrimination. Unfortunately, the supporters of the amendment wrote the measure with such objectives in mind and they regularly consult with legal scholars to determine the eventual outcomes that can be achieved with the chosen language.

Look, I realize that politics is a contact sport. Nonetheless, I am troubled when these individuals, who seek to be portrayed as bastions of Christian values, become the primary purveyors of disingenuous measures designed to promote their discriminatory ideologies. And yes, I realize they believe they are simply seeking to enforce the precepts of their faith…as they choose to interpret it from the Bible. Regardless, I don’t recall that the good book endorses deception and deceit as an acceptable means to expand dogma.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

GRAFENWOHR, Germany — Legislation that would restrict the sale of certain men’s magazines on U.S. military bases around the world would be bad for morale, according to soldiers at Grafenwöhr.

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., has introduced legislation that would close a loophole in the current law that allows the sale of some sexually explicit material on military bases by lowering the threshold required to deem material “sexually explicit.”

A Department of Defense committee that reviews materials sold on bases ruled last year that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse are not pornographic. But Broun’s Military Honor and Decency Act includes language that could make those magazines eligible for the ban…

…Broun, a Marine veteran, told Newsweek recently that the magazines sold in military exchanges are partly responsible for a rise in sexual assaults in the military and other problems…

Being a veteran myself, I’m not quite sure where to start on this - but how about - STFU, Rep. Broun. You are part of a congressional coalition that is responsible for supporting the continuing quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, and taking the men (and women) away from their families for extended chunks of time. Maybe that has just a little something to do with sexual improprieties among the military? Or perhaps because the Army and Marines have had to lower recruiting standards so low that someone with a felony on their record can now serve?

At the same time, is Broun planning on banning Playgirl and Cosmo? Just asking. Personally don’t consider either Playboy or Penthouse “porn”, and I think it’s a very short trip from banning those two magazines to Maxim and similar mags. Here’s an interesting quote from a soldier:

Pfc. Greg Smith, 21, of Northboro, Mass., a regular Playboy reader, said soldiers should be allowed to buy nudie magazines at the exchange.

“Playboy is good entertainment while you are on the can. They have jokes and good stories,” he said…

“Entertainment”. Hmm, never heard it quite put that way, but no, Pfc. Smith, if you were reading torture porn on the can (which is what the senior leadership in Washington uses), you’d be A-OK with Rep. Broun.

ASZ readers can take it from here.

NOTE: If you’re commenting on this post, using the word “porn” will cause your comment to get picked up by the site spam filter, and it won’t show up right away - you might want to use p@rn, or something similar…

McCain led off his harangue about “activist” judges by calling out Barack Obama for opposing the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts. Yes, the Obama people are correct when they when they note that the “Straighttalk Express” to an extreme right turn with the speech. He wants this campaign enough to compromise every supposed principle he’s held. Then again, the desperation of old age that is driving McCain to pander in this election may just be a mirror of his constant bowing to the right. He did it yesterday, and he did it in his youth. But first, a bit of a blurb from his speech about the kinds of judges McCain would nominate, direct from the McCain web site:

Quite rightly, the proper role of the judiciary has become one of the defining issues of this presidential election. It will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds of qualified men and women to the federal courts, and the choices we make will reach far into the future. My two prospective opponents and I have very different ideas about the nature and proper exercise of judicial power. We would nominate judges of a different kind, a different caliber, a different understanding of judicial authority and its limits. And the people of America — voters in both parties whose wishes and convictions are so often disregarded by unelected judges — are entitled to know what those differences are.

Forget the notion that McCain disdains the appointment of judges altogether there, implying he would sacrifice their independence to the tyranny of the polling place. Believe me, I live in Pa where we elect judges, and it just isn’t a good idea, besides being completely contrary to the constitution McCain claims he wishes judges to uphold. What’s interesting here is that McCain claims he will appoint qualified judges. McCain’s vote for Clarence Thomas in 1991, perhaps the most unprepared nominee ever nominated, belies his claim to nominate jurists of quality. Indeed, McCain, the man who claims to be a maverick, walked in lockstep with Republicans in the close vote (52-48) to confirm Thomas’ nomination. It is plain McCain favors politically right-wing nominees far more than he favors “quality,” at least if you look at his record and not at his “straight talk.”

So what’s McCain going to say to defend his Clarence Thomas vote? Clearly Thomas is the second vote controlled by the right-wing ideologue on the bench, Antony Scalia. The man doesn’t even have his own philosophy. So on the issue of “quality” McCain claims he prizes, Thomas fails. Further, McCain claims he will not let political leanings get in the way of his nominations to the court, but his favoring of folks like Thomas clearly belie that stance.

Business as usual by MC Straighttalker. A pander here, a pander there, empty promises about avoiding politics in nominations, empty promises that he’ll favor “quality” on the bench. Clearly the pandering to the religious right wing trump McCain’s promises. My guess is that McCain would sacrifice our civil liberties if it would get him a vote.

WorkOUT Of Homosexuality - VIDEO

Honestly, when I first saw the video clip, I thought the program had to be a joke. However, after tracking down the site where it is advertised, it appears to be a “legitimate” attempt to offer services intended to “repair” homosexuality. Of course I know nothing about the credentials of the gentleman offering the program. For all I know, he could simply be an opportunist attempting to play upon the insecurities of men who feel compelled to reject their homosexuality. Even if he is sincere in offering this program, it doesn’t negate the absurdity in suggesting that homosexuality can be washed away.

Yes, I believe there are individuals that will go through the motions needed to assert that they have abandoned their homosexuality…but I have to say that I simply don’t believe they have actually changed their sexual orientation. Keep in mind that Ted Haggard (the minister from Colorado Springs who hired a male prostitute on numerous occasions) proclaimed his heterosexuality after completing a program that lasted just a few weeks.

Call me a skeptic, but are we to believe that a reversal of sexuality is the equivalent of joining Jenny Craig for two months? I’m sorry, but believing that would be an unrivaled act of faith. On the contrary, I see it as evidence of the sham that is being sold as “reparative therapy”.

On that note, there isn’t much more that can be said about these ridiculous programs. Instead, it is far more productive to exploit the humor that is so abundantly attached to this particular program and the video by which it is being marketed.

With that said, the following is a list of everything you need to know about the WorkOUT program:

Number Ten:

WorkOUT will help you find your manhood…though this process will require you to frequently drop your pants.

Number Nine:

While it may take several rounds of being in and out (of the program), men who participate in WorkOUT have proven they have the ability and the stamina to go much deeper.

Number Eight:

Every life coach is under 25, sufficiently buff, on standby for urgent emergencies, and very reasonably priced. “Happy endings” are always guaranteed.

Number Seven:

If your manhood doesn’t increase during the first phone conversation, you’ll have access to videophone encounters designed to jump start the process. Face-to-face meetings are available though the fees for these “meetings” are dependent upon the length of time it takes to maximize your manhood.

Number Six:

911 calls cost $1.99 per minute and the charges will appear on your credit card statement under the name - Meet Christian Singles.

Number Five:

Absolutely no women are involved in administering the WorkOUT program…every man is assured that treatment will be provided by a man who previously entered the treatment regimen and remained engaged until completion.

Number Four:

WorkOUT gear is available on the website. Access to this page requires confirmation that you are over the age of 18. All models have been verified to be at least 18 years old (though definitely not much older).

Number Three:

David Pickup is the founder of WorkOUT. This is his real name and it does not imply that David attends gay bars or frequents online gay chat rooms in order to solicit men for sex. Should you encounter Mr. Pickup in either setting, he is simply seeking men (attractive, fit, and well-groomed) who would be interested in joining WorkOUT and discovering the “benefits” of Christian manhood.

Number Two:

A full understanding of homosexual sex is a prerequisite for admission into the WorkOUT program. Men simply curious about gay sex will not be accepted.

Number One:

Participants in WorkOUT are discouraged from dating women during the time they are enrolled in the program as it may serve to deflate their emerging manhood.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Back to the flip-flopping, though. I read an article in this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer that got me thinking. See, it says Republicans in the Senate are wanting us as a nation to pull back on the production of ethanol and bio-fuels. Naturally, anything several Republicans get behind is sure to be a bad idea, but this one doesn’t sound too nutty. Seems all that land devoted to corn means that fewer acres are devoted to food crops, and with prices going up and up and up in the grocery stores. . . well, it is time for another flip flop by MC Straighttalker.

MC Straighttalker evidently has a long history of flip-flopping concerning ethanol. In 2000, for instance, when he was campaigning against President Bush, McCain was against ethanol subsidies, at least according to this piece from the UPI. In 2007 MCStraighttalker spoke in Iowa where, of course, he waggled a bit on the subject. Seems they grow a quarter of the corn for the ethanol industry there in Iowa, so MC Straighttalker shifted his stance, evidently purely to win Iowa voters. And he was very strong in his support of ethanol in that speech just six months ago, though he did not come out for subsidies. From the MC Straighttalker campaign web site:

If I am elected President, I will change the competitive landscape and finally give Iowans a fair chance and no need for existing subsidies. I have proposed a market-based approach that would set reasonable caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and provide industries with tradable credits. By reducing its emissions, a utility or industrial plant can generate credits it may trade on the open market for a profit, offering a powerful incentive to drive the deployment of new and better energy sources and technologies.

This approach will build the business case for alternatives to oil such as ethanol. It will promote the conservation and diversification of energy to include alcohol fuels made from corn, sugar, switchgrass and many other sources; fuel cells; biodiesel derived from waste products; natural gas; and other technologies. These are all promising and available alternatives to oil, and I’ll encourage the development of infrastructure and the market growth necessary for these products to compete, and let consumers choose the winners. I’ve never known an American entrepreneur worthy of the name who wouldn’t rather compete for sales than subsidies. I have great faith that many residents of this great state share that same confidence in our unmatched ability to compete anywhere with anyone.

We need to be at the cutting edge of green technologies. Our future prosperity depends on our competitiveness. Globalization is here and globalization is an opportunity not a threat. The American farmer is the most productive and innovative farmer on the planet and can compete with anyone. Period. But farmers can’t compete if they can’t get into the game. My friends, 95 percent of the world’s customers live outside the borders of the United States. While my Democratic opponents play politics with trade — using words like a trade “time out” to disguise their protectionism — I don’t intend to sit out opportunities and challenges of the world’s economy. I intend to seize those opportunities to ensure, as every American generation has done, that our children’s lives will be even more prosperous than were ours.

Now the MC Straighttalker line is that we must gear back on ethanol production. Here’s the MC Straighttalker line from the Inquirer this morning:

Twenty-four Republican senators, including presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona, sent a letter Friday to the Environmental Protection Agency suggesting it waive, or restructure, rules that require a fivefold increase in ethanol production over the next 15 years.

Congress passed a law last year mandating a ramp-up to 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2015 and 36 billion by 2022. But McCain and other Republicans said those rules should be suspended to put more corn back into the food supply for animal feed, and to encourage farmers to plant other crops.

“This subsidized [ethanol] program - paid for by taxpayer dollars - has contributed to pain at the cash register, at the dining-room table, and a devastating food crisis throughout the world,” said McCain, in a statement.

MC Straighttalker, of course, is no longer talking to Iowa farmers. Now he’s trying to get the votes of all Americans, and he’s appealing to pocketbook issues concerning higher prices in grocery stores. Mc Straighttalker says one thing to one group, and quite another thing when he’s not in Iowa.

Just to set my opinion down here, I think MC Straighttalker’s original policy, of no subsidies for either oil companies or ethanol producers, makes some sense, though he also calls for America to lead the world in green technologies, and to get that lead we need leadership. MC Strighttalkers flip-flopping back and forth on the issue is far from strong leadership.

I should note that democrats.org long ago noted MC Straighttalker’s flip-flopping on ethanol policy.

Mmmm!

For almost two decades, People’s editors believe they have been given the divine right to anoint who they believe to be the most beautiful people on the planet. The ethnocentric celebrity-fawning People editors are so secure in their self-imposed knowledge that they don’t even tell us what criteria they used to make their determinations. Not even an “editor’s note,” common in most magazines.

For the first few years, People etched their version of reality into our minds by attaching cutesy capsulated biographies to full page color pictures of the most beautiful. This year, the writing is minimal, the design is almost to the level that a good college journalism or graphics arts student could create and, except for a few full page and two-page spreads, most pictures are no bigger than thumbnail size.

Leading off the 69-page special section is actress Kate Hudson. Advance stories about her selection appeared in just about every American newspaper and major website, all of which think stories about celebrities are more important than stories about the recession. Also on the list are Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, Ashton Kutcher, and Norah Jones. The seven member cast of TV’s “Gossip Girl” made the list. “Onscreen,” People told us, “they are gorgeous, scheming, backstabbing high schoolers.” Just what America needs. More future business executives and politicians.

The first few years, when the magazine editors could find only 50 beautiful people, there was a fairly even split between men and women. This year, about 90 percent are women. Except for six athletes (three men and three women), the rest are actors, singers, dancers, and models.

Three years after the first list came out, People recognized the elderly. Of course, the elderly were Paul Newman, Faye Dunaway, and Barbara Babcock. This year, there’s a special two-page spread deep in the magazine on pages 174–175 for 40 celebrities, 10 in each of the categories of 20s, 30s, 40, and 50s.

People once selected size 5-foot-11 size14 model Emme as a beautiful person. It championed her as representative of the “burgeoning large-size modeling industry.” Of course, these vacuous editors have no idea that a size 14 isn’t large—it is the average size of American women. This year, the only large size models are in full page ads for Jenny Craig diets and Curvation underwear, which declared, “Style starts with the Side Shaper Underwire bra and shaping panty.”

Teachers, social workers, and medical researchers, no matter how beautiful, didn’t make this year’s cut. But, they shouldn’t worry about it. Neither did Miss America, Miss USA, Miss World, Mr. Universe, or, for that matter, Miss Crustacean, Ocean City, New Jersey’s, salty tribute to hermit crabs, and a spoof of the beauty contest that once inhabited next-door Atlantic City.

People magazine may need people to justify its $254,000 full page advertising rate. But, people, even with insatiable curiosity about celebrities, really don’t need People.

[Walter Brasch is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University, president of the Pennsylvania Press Club, and occasional contributor to ASZ. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available through amazon.com. You may contact Brasch at brasch@bloomu.edu or through his website at: www.walterbrasch.com]

Here’s some info from Dr. Jeff Masters at Wundergound (the best $10 you’ll ever spend on an online weather site):

A disaster of horrific proportions has befallen Myanmar, where the death toll is now over 4,000, with thousands more missing, in the wake of Cyclone Nargis. Nargis–a popular woman’s name in India–is the deadliest and most destructive tropical cyclone ever to hit Myanmar (Burma). The storm hit the coast of Myanmar Friday night as borderline Category 3/Category 4 cyclone, with winds of 130-135 mph. After passing over the low-lying and densely populated Irrawaddy River delta region, Nargis made a direct hit on the capital city of Rangoon (Yangon), as a Category 1 storm with top winds of 80 mph. Winds at the Yangon airport hit 69 mph, gusting to 138 mph, at 5:30am local time on Saturday. The anemometer failed at that point, and the winds likely rose higher.

(Figure 1. Population density of Myanmar, with Nargis’ track superimposed. Nargis passed over some of the most densely populated regions of the country. Image credit: Columbia University’s CIESEN.)

However, it was the storm surge, not the winds, that was the big killer in Nargis. The storm tracked over the low-lying Irrawaddy River delta region, which is highly vulnerable to storm surge deaths due to its low elevation, dense population, and limited hurricane awareness of the people. I could find no records of a major tropical cyclone ever making a direct hit on the Irrawaddy River delta. The ocean bottom off the coast of Myanmar is quite shallow (Figure 2). A large area of Continental Shelf waters with depth 200 meters or less extends far out to sea. This is a situation similar to the Gulf of Mexico, and is ideal for allowing large surge surge to pile up over the shallow waters. The counter-clockwise circulation of winds around Nargis likely built up a storm surge of at least 4 meters (13 feet), that then smashed ashore into the Irrawaddy Delta region, drowning thousands of people…

It almost sounds like an Asian version of Hurricane Katrina, without the levees. Here’s a photo gallery of the disaster.

Not surprisingly, it’s being reported that a humanitarian crisis is quickly developing. In a third world country which has received much criticism from the U.S. government, it’s unlikely that a tremendous amount of aid will be forthcoming from the Bush administration.

This kind of a situation, though, is where the U.S. government can not only shine, but truly make an impact in recovery operations. By doing so, the good will generated can make a difference in social change within the country.

Beyond whatever response the U.S. government provides, there are several NGOs that will most certainly be accepting donations in support of the victims of Cyclone Nargis. If you’d like to assist, try starting with this list of NGOs that responded to the 2004 tsunami disaster.

Update: I’ve been so moved today by what I’m hearing and seeing and streaming on the web that I decided to throw up a quick website - Myanmar Relief - and I’m thoroughly pissed by the news conference that Laura Bush held today. Go to the site to read more…