Every Which Way:

The rich and powerful can figure more ways to suck the money out of the working folks than anyone spending a lifetime trying to dream ways up could possibly imagine. Consider this one:

Best estimates for this year's presidential campaigns reach at least $2.5 billion spent by the candidates. At least half of that money will go into TV advertising, but lest you think that means your local affiliate stands to rake in the profits, think again. The vast majority of that money will end up in the hands of the few mega companies like Viacom and Ruppert Murdock's companies that control the so called free flow of information in the U. S.

So as you throw campaign money at your favorite candidate, remember this: What you are really doing is making the fat cats fatter.

"It's true because I said so!" "He was a state sponsor of terror. In other words, the government had declared, you are a state sponsor of terror." — George W. Bush, discussing Saddam Hussein in Manhattan, Kansas, January 2006.

Yes, boys and girls, George W. Bush never told a lie. That's because he never bothered to find out what the truth was. That's always the safest way, see?

An aside, or sledding uphill: Ain't it interesting that the Republicans are in a dither because their front runners in this years presidential elections have left leaning tendencies in a few areas, while the two front runners on the Democratic side try to appear the least left leaning as possible? Naturally, if you're a woman or an African American running for the highest office in the land, you'd better not appear to be someone who is about to sellout the country to a liberal constituency. Otherwise you'll never get enough votes to win. And if you're a Republican, well, you're traveling in the wake of the worst presidency in the history of the country.

The Case against the Clintons: Whether justified or not, the argument that may well set forth the deciding factor that keeps the Democrats out of the White House might well be the one set forth in today's New York Times by conservative writer Garry Wills.

Wills argues against the Clintons based on the notion that having two people serve as chief executive would undermine the country. His argument is two pronged. First, he argues that Bill could never be expected not to participate in some large capacity, nor could Hillary keep him from it. Second, he argues that a two headed chief executive is partly to blame for what's occurred in the past seven years. The Cheney/Bush presidency has allowed the office of chief executive to behave in a completely unchecked manner, precisely the thing that the founding fathers most feared.

Would a Clinton presidency end up the same way? It certainly seems unlikely that a Vice President would play a part in any way resembling what Cheney's part has been in the current White House. Imagine the scenario: Hillary is elected, then something happens to her. Suddenly Bill's out of office too. What would the writers of 24 do with this plot?

Bush Orders Expanded Network Monitoring:

Under the guise of national security, the Bush signed an executive order to increase network monitoring. According to The Washington Post, " The directive, whose content is classified, authorizes the intelligence agencies, in particular the National Security Agency, to monitor the computer networks of all federal agencies -- including ones they have not previously monitored."

The directive itself is classified, and even the congress, which has a Constitutional obligation to provide checks and balance to the administrative branch of government, has been refused allowance to see the order.

According to The Post, "congressional aides and former White House officials with knowledge of the program, the directive outlines measures collectively referred to as the 'cyber initiative,' aimed at securing the government's computer systems against attacks by foreign adversaries and other intruders. It will cost billions of dollars, which the White House is expected to request in its fiscal 2009 budget."

In other words, this administration that has brought the country to near bankruptcy is once again planning to generate even more massive debt, while enriching its friends. Remember, that defense spending ends up in someone's pockets. Those billions we've spent and your children will have to pay to fight a completely unnecessary war went into someone's bank account.

George W. Bush's View on the Oval Office: "See, one of the interesting things in the Oval Office—I love to bring people into the Oval Office—right around the corner from here—and say, this is where I office, but I want you to know the office is always bigger than the person." — Washington, D. C., January 2004.

Stimulus: So how do you plan to spend your tax rebate?