Thursday, September 27, 2007

The terrible arithmetic of the Iraq war

In March 1864 [Ulysses S.] Grant was appointed General-in-Chief commanding all armies of the U.S. Throughout the War, President Lincoln had bemoaned the fact that although the North outnumbered the South in population, resources and finances, he could find no Union general to take advantage of this disparity. Lincoln had found his general who "knew how to do the arithmetic."
Mason-Dixon Chat Forum

We don't have to go back to the Civil War to find another U.S. general who knew how to do the arithmetic of war, only to February 2003.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki coyly stated, "...something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." The figures Shinseki would not openly state are estimated to be on the order of 300,000 to 500,000 "boots on the ground" to pacify a country of 25 million people in a territory as large a California. And since the United States military, at that time had, and continues to have, significant force commitments in Afghanistan, Bosnia, South Korea and Germany, as well as the U.S. Marine Corps la la-land of Okinawa and smaller numbers of U.S. troops scattered in the Central Asian "Stans" and Central and South American, there just was not enough volunteers in the All Volunteer Force to go around.

But as we know older but not much wiser heads in the Pentagon poo-pooed Shinseki's alarmist rhetoric and bit him a fond farewell into a well deserved retirement. Heck, "Big Daddy" Don Rumseld and Paul "Wolfie" Wolfowitz figured, America will only need 100,000 troops to secure Iraq, 150,000 tops!

Well, were did Rummy and Wolfie come up with their figures? Did they just pull them out of their asses? Could be? But I don't think so. They had to arrive at that number somewhere, somehow. According to a Global essay titled "Where are the Legions? [SPQR] Global Deployments of U.S. Forces"

As of January 2005, there are some 250,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen deployed in support of combat, peacekeeping, and deterrence operations. This figure does not include those forces normally present in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom or Japan unless bases at those locations are actively supporting a combat operation. Furthermore, tours of duty in these locations are routine and not considered hardship tours. If one were to include these forces the number of deployed troops worldwide would be around 350,000.

O.K. ask yourself, why do we need forces stationed in Germany? Japan? World War II has been over for 62 years now. Neither Germany or Japan has made any moves threatening world peace. Yet the United States still maintains troops in those two nations, as it does in the Axis Powers' little partner Italy. The rationale, I guess, is that troops in these nations serve as a first line of defense in case the Soviets get any ideas. Well, the Soviet Union went the way of the dodo fifteen years ago, so there you go. But I forget Bosnia. Again, why does the U.S. need military bases in Germany, Italy and Japan, since the U.S. military's established bases in Bosnia? I have read the absurd argument that if the United States shuts its bases in Germany and Japan, those two robust economies will greatly suffer!

So what I figure, and I am no expert, is, if the United States administration of George W. Bush, the Republican-dominated Congress and the Rumsfeld-led Pentagon were ever serious about a long-range occupation of Iraq why did they not do any pre-invasion groundwork, close some bases NATO bases in Europe, bases in Japan and cancel some of the Army's smaller worldwide "training" missions? I mean if Bush, the Republican Congress and the Rumsfeld Defense Department had not intended on a long term occupation why did it fire, first post-invasion administrator, Jay Garner? Why not follow George H.W. "Poppy" Bush's model of "regime change" ? Why did they let L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer carry out the de-Ba'athification of Iraq, thereby demobilizing both the Iraqi army and national and local police forces, the only native agencies of stability until a new civilian government could be constituted? And did Bremer act on his own or on orders from high up?

Stupidity? Hubris? There are two popular explanations for the Bush administration's post-invasion actions in Iraq. However, let us backtrack to the beginning for a second shall we.

In the run-up to invasion was it merely a speech writer's hyperbole that transformed two minor irritants to U.S. global hegemony into an axis-of-evil with Saddam's Iraq in the 2002 State of the Union Address? After all, Iran's leaders at that time wanted to be rid of Saddam as much as our boy king. And North Korea needed only one more famine before the skeletal masses toppled Kim Jong-Il off his elevator shoes.

Yet in that one speech Bush transformed "dear leader's" pompadour into a deadly nuclear mushroom cloud and the Iranian ayatollahs into Saddam's drinking buddies.

With threats such as these the United States could not redeploy out of Korea, Germany or Japan. The long suffering citizens of Okinawa would have to put up with 20,000 swaggering, arrogant U.S. Marines for a little longer. One never knew when the spectral, starving hoards of the diminutive North Korean dictator would stream down to engulf the well-fed, Brobdingnagian forces of our enfeebled, ally South Korea. And the Iranian ayatollahs, in support of their bosom friend Saddam, might try a flanking movement, sweep through the "Stans," gobble up Turkey and slide into Greece!

The architects of the Iraq invasion and occupation, with the exception of the president, had all been in and out of the higher echelons of federal governmental service for the better parts of thirty years, either in a White House staff, the Department of Defense and the CIA. So before the Iraq invasion they had to know the exact location, strength and readiness disposition of every American military unit on land and sea.

It was while watching the testimony of General David Betray-usPetraeus, overall commander of the MultiNational Force-Iraq (MNF-I), before the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services joint committees, that this political general was laying the groundwork for a protracted U.S. stay in Iraq. After all, he only promised troop "re deployments" "...until we reach the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams by mid-July 2008." Beyond that, "I do not believe it is reasonable to have an adequate appreciation for the pace of further reductions and mission adjustments beyond the summer of 2008 until about mid-March of next year." In other words from a "surge" high of 172,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq to around 140,000 to 150,000 combat troops. A great withdrawal indeed.

That's when I turned to my friend, with whom I was watching this televised dog-and-pony show, and said, "You know how Lincoln said Grant knew the terrible arithmetic of war? I think these guys know that they can keep this thing going without pissing off a significant portion of the American public. I think they know that the America public will put up with 100,000 to 150,000 troops in Iraq for a long time without massive protest."

"Aw, c'mon, Ernie, you don't think they'd be that cynical, do you?"

I arched an eyebrow, "Look that this administration's record."

My buddy turned reflexive, "Remember, I said at the beginning of this thing that the America people would turn against it once America deaths hit twenty a day. This last week 19 killed in Iraq, one of the worst weeks, but still not to a level that'll piss a lot of people off."

"Yeah, just enough boys coming home in boxes, " I said, "so certain segments of society can "honor" our fallen "heroes" on the local news but not enough that it really ramps up an anti-war movement."

"That makes sense, why else do we have all these bourgie funeral processions and sends offs and stuff." He added, "Ya can't go wrong playing on the American public's appetite for sentimentality!"

The terrible arithmetic the Bush administration has calculated is that anything greater than present troop levels in Iraq may tip the majority of the American people into the anti-war column. As it is combat deaths are low enough that the small segment who yet support the war are featured, at least once a month, on local television newscasts performing the rite of "welcoming the fallen hero home." These overtly sentimental funeral services always have a requisite avenue of American flags and, thanks in large part to Westboro Baptist Church leader Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps, for the fallen hero, motorcycle riding "honor guard" to drive away protesters. I'm sure this includes those who truly want an end to America's occupation of Iraq.

Yet, on the other hand, there are not enough young men and women serving in Iraq to activate those, who while opposed, have no personal investment in seeing the occupation end. All those who serve in Iraq are volunteers and they are there because they want to be there. Perhaps Richard Nixon's biggest mistake in his conduct of the Vietnam War was acquiescing to the anti-war movement's criticism of the Selective Service System, being too selective, and instituting a military draft lottery. When white, suburban college students were pulled out of class to train for combat in Vietnam that's when the shit really hit the fan.

The Bush administration knows this. As do the cowardly anti-warriors who resist any and all calls for a national service draft.

And so do the top three Democratic candidates for president. As witnessed in the recent debate of September 25, John Edwards, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton,"...refused on Wednesday night to promise that they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of their first term, saying in a televised debate here that they could not predict the future challenges in Iraq."(New York

As long as there is an All Volunteer Force. And as long as troop levels remain constantly around a 100,000 to 150,000 the American public will put up with the continued occupation of Iraq and subjugation of its people. This is the cynical and terrible arithmetic of Iraq.

Monday, September 24, 2007

We Take the "Mysterious Yellow Book Challange"


You know, I respect Greg Palast as the best investigative reporter in America, if not the world. But I just can't shake the feeling this kid, "The" Andrew Meyer, has taken him, and a goodly portion of the progressive/left blogosphere, in. And Palast and his crew, being Americans in America, has to make a buck. And his business is selling books.

So having a bunch of idiots show up at poltical rallies clutching Palast's "mysterious yellow book" is a very old, simple and effective marketing technique.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Greg Palast is setting himself up for pieing

Jesus, Greg Palast's ego is really clouding his judgement.

Ever since the "Don't Tase me, bro" incident (see below, ets), Palast has been egotripping over the fact that "The" Andrew Meyer clutched a copy of Armed Madhouse.

Well, on Thursday The Brad disclosed,
[Greg] Palast says he is offering the journalism student a job as a paid intern. [Andrew] Meyer had described Palast, in his question to Sen. John Kerry, asking why he conceded the 2004 Presidential Election so early, as "the top investigate journalist in America."

"His attorneys seem to be keeping him on ice," Palast told us, when we asked if he'd been able to officially offer the gig to Meyer.

Indeed, our note to Meyer sent Tuesday, inviting him to Guest Blog his experience here at The BRAD BLOG, has so far similarly gone unanswered.
Now, were I one of the English-speaking world's finest investigative reporters the fact that "His attorneys seem to be keeping him on ice," should raise some cause for suspicion. And, interestingly enough, "An officer, however, said in the police report that Meyer's "demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and that he was "laughing" and "lighthearted" on the way to jail[,]" in an AP story by Travis Reed.

But Palast, being an American, can't resist making a few buck off this deal so his Web site is offering the Mysterious Yellow Book Challenge. In shilling this "challenge" Palast producer Zach Roberts writes
So here’s the challenge. EVERYONE SHOULD DO AN ANDREW MEYERS. What we mean is, WAVE YOUR MYSTERIOUS YELLOW BOOK - Armed Madhouse - at the media sheep and the party hacks - and send us a photo or video.

You don’t have to buy the book. Just print out a copy (YELLOW!) of the book cover.
...Imagine a sea of mysterious yellow jackets waving at John Kerry everywhere he goes - and maybe a couple of signs, ‘ANSWER ANDREW’S QUESTION!’
I don't know why Roberts isn't more truthful by adding, buying the book is just the right touch to insure your video or photo is selected for posting.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

More on "The" Andrew Meyer and the paper tigers of the anti-war movement

Oh, jeeze, they just won't let it go. But I suppose anyone who has ever been the victim of a fraud or bought something totally worthless and paid too much for it just does not want to admit he has been played for the fool.

Today's font of rightous indignation over the "The" Andrew Meyer affair is Online editor Bev Conover, one of the oldest and better progressive/leftist commentary sites on the Web. But what has Conover's panties in a bunch is the growing number of journalists questioning "The" Andrew Meyer's motives in Gainesville Monday (see Simply Ernest below).

Writes Conover:

Now it's the victim's motives and not the cops' brutality that is being questioned. Even the Times of London got in on that act. Wrote the Times, "Critics have suggested that the entire incident was a planned attempt to win attention for a student who has already posted dozens of videos of himself on his website

Hey, he's a college student for crissakes! This is utter nonsense and beside the point.
Try clicking the link to It goes to the Web site for a manufacturer of upscale jewelry. What's up with that?

Conover directs part of her rant toward Air America radio host and Countdown with Keith Olbermann contributor Rachel Maddow with:

But free speech rights don't cut it with today's corporate media, in whose class we now have to put Air America's Rachel Maddow. Instead, it's questions about Meyer's background that has become the story.

Rachel Maddow, on Tuesday night's Countdown on MSNBC, also showed her hand by questioning whether Meyer's behavior was a stunt to gain attention, while expressing her support for police and brushing off First Amendment rights.
Sorry, but I heard and saw Maddow's piece Tuesday night and, no, she did not express support for the University of Florida campus police. And sorry, it has not been posted at yet. Or anyplace else for that matter, but it will be.

But ninteen paragraphs in Conover gets to what really chaps her ass:

Unlike the Vietnam War era, the only coverage of today's antiwar protests is negative. Rarely is anything shown of cops brutalizing protestors, who often are herded into "Free Speech Zones," and when it is covered, it's usually disruption caused by those clad in black government infiltrators the media call "anarchists." (Remember Seattle and Miami?) No peacenik in her right mind today would dream of sticking a flower in the barrel of an AK47 carried by a cop dressed as Darth Vader, without risking being shot.
Well, gee, Bev but what day did the latest, greatest anti-Iraq war/peace demonstration take place? September 15, 2007, a Saturday. And what do most Americans do on Saturdays in September? Watch college football! I mean if you peaceniks aren't media savvy enough to know that the vast majority of Americans are glued to the television set watching Ohio State or Oklahoma or USC kick the crap out of Miss Muffet's Finishing School for Girls on Saturday afternoons in the fall, you deserve to be ignored.

And as far as the "free speech zone" thing. Yeah, the whole idea of a "free speech zone" is odious. But I donot recall any mass breaching of "free speech zone" barriers by demonstrators at any time, anywhere. I guess the media didn't cover it.

And I also remember... gosh it must have been shortly after the Iraq invasion in 2003 because it was betterly cold that Sunday afternoon. Anyway, I went to a peace rally with a couple of friends at a "free speech zone" in my hometown. The organizers of the event explained ahead of time that they did not want anybody connected with the anti-war rally wandering outside of Noland Plaza or shouting anything angry or confronting anybody. Now, mind you, there wasn't a cop in sight.

So this thing starts and it's O.K. There were some groups who did some "comedy" skits followed by some local speakers. But nothing really to get the blood up. Except for the speakers it was all rather childish really.

Well, simultaneously in another part of downtown a pro-Iraq war rally was taking place and evidently it finished earlier than our little "peace" rally. Anyway, a car, perhaps coming from the pro-war, pro-Bush rally drives by our little "peace" rally and some one yells: "You people are nuts!"

Well, my buddy sitting next to me shouts back, "Republicans!" And the next thing we know we're surrounded by stern-faced, placard-bearing women and my friend's getting lectured by a guy he knows on keeping quite and respectful. After a few minutes of this, and as it was freezing cold and we heard the speakers we wanted to hear, I said, "This rally must be run by grade school teachers. Let's get out of here and go someplace warm."

Let me sum up by saying that the more I've thought about the actions of "The" Andrew Meyer the more I think he may be doing a reverse of what my friend, who yelled "Republicans" did thirty years ago. Back in the Seventies by buddy had a radio talkshow in Minneapolis-St. Paul and he successfully passed himself off as an arch-conservative until he decided to go back to law school. Then, the last night from his show, he revealed that everything he had done the previous year or so had been a lie and he was actually an anti-Vietnam war liberal. In today's parlance he had "punked" his most loyal radio listeners.

I cannot shake the impression that Mr. "The" Andrew Meyer has done the same.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Fool worship

By now we've all seen ad nauseam the video of one "The" Andrew Meyer being manhandled and tasered by University of Florida police at an appearance by Senator, and erstwhile presidential candidate, John Kerry.

The celebrated vedio was shot by one Kyle Mitchell, a U of F grad student and stringer for the Gainesville-Sun.

In a comment at Google News, which I copied, pasted and e-mailed at approximately 1:57 PM CDT, and now seemingly taken down, Mitchell writes:
As more and more inquiries are being made into who Andrew Meyer really is, the picture of a young man capable and willing to manipulate this weakness of modern media becomes ever more clear.

An avid prankster and politico (emphasis added, ets), Meyer is a regular at local Gainesville political events. In the past, he has stood on a major street corner with a sign proclaiming "Harry dies" in the final book of the Potter series. His personal website lists interests that include "getting wasted."

Moments before publicly berating Senator Kerry - who was gracious enough to allow the question beyond the allotted time available - he gave his own video camera to a complete stranger nearby, simply to ensure that the incident would be recorded. There are also some who have said that he was warned of his impending arrest, though he repeatedly asks "Why are you arresting me?" while it was happening.

Mitchell, however, forgets "The" Andrew Meyer's most unforgettable line, "Don't Tase me, bro!" And to my ears Meyer's plea is as sincere as Bre'r Rabbit's wish to not be thrown in the briar patch.

Yet many commentators in the blogoshpere averred that "The" Andrew Meyer is a First Amendment loving patriot, a new Patrick Henry. Some have even likened "The" Andrew Meyer to Christ. To which I can only say, Key-Rist!

Some bloggers, including esteemed investigative reporter Greg Palast, squarely place the lion's share of the blame for "The" Andrew Meyer's restraint, tasering and arrest on Senator Kerry's shoulders. Patently absurd. Yet to my rhetorical question, "What would you have Kerry do? Leap from the stage and throttle the cops with his barehands?," there has been more than one response to the affirmative. Again, patently absurd.

But finally the truth of this incident may be slipping out. Clarissa Jessup, the complete stranger to whom "The" Andrew Meyer handed his video camera to just before the incident said in a CNN interview:
"John kerry did try to interfere with the police. at one point, police where holding on to meyers. kerry got to a point where he almost lost his composure and said officer guy. you, let him go. i do want to hear his question, i do want to hear to what he has to say. i do want to answer him. that was at the point the officers said will pull you aside to ask your question. but as he was attempting to ask his question. the officers themselves appeared to me to make themselves clear not allowing him to stay and hear the question and yelling into his ear."
And as noted in a news story by Andrew Tran in The South-Central Florida, "The cameras did not catch Meyer cutting off a student five words into a question, said Kathleen Shea, a junior who attended the forum."

Concludes Mitchell, who was there after all:In the opinion of this eyewitness, both were just as wrong as they were right. Yet, in this instance, it is the police that are accountable to the public, and the ire they now face is the result. Meyer must only face jail, a judge, and himself in the mirror the next morning.

So, sorry, if I disappoint and conclude that this incident was never one of thwarting First Amendment rights or of stifling legitimate dissent but of overzealous, undertrained campus cops throwing their weight around.

So in my book, "The" Andrew Meyer is not a hero of the First Amendment but a fool. And he's laughing at us all.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

How much stupider can Americans get?

If this news doesn't illustrate the need for more comprehensive history and civics instruction in our public schools I don't know what does.
Most Americans believe the nation's founders wrote Christianity into the Constitution, and people are less likely to say freedom to worship covers religious groups they consider extreme, a poll out today finds.
The survey measuring attitudes toward freedom of religion, speech and the press found that 55% believe erroneously that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. In the survey, which is conducted annually by the First Amendment Center, a non-partisan educational group, three out of four people who identify themselves as evangelical or Republican believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. About half of Democrats and independents do.
That's bad enough but the study conducted by the First Amendment Center shows even more disturbing tends
  • 74% of Republicans endorse the notion of a constitutional provision for a Christian nation; 50% of Democrats and 47% of independent voters agree.
  • Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme — down 16 points from 72% in 2000.
  • 58% of Americans would prevent protests during a funeral procession, even on public streets and sidewalks; and 74% would prevent public school students from wearing a T-shirt with a slogan that might offend others.
  • 34% (lowest since the survey first was done in 1997) think the press “has too much freedom,” but 60% of Americans disagree with the statement that the press tries to report the news without bias, and 62% believe the making up of stories is a widespread problem in the news media — down only slightly from 2006.
  • 25% said “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” well below the 49% recorded in the 2002 survey that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, but up from 18% in 2006.
  • So there you have it. Americans are willingly walking into a fascist state with their eyes wide shut. But then why wouldn't they? Funding for public education has been under attack by anti-tax reactionaries for decades and has produced the excepted results. And an a population ignorant of its own history, fed the right propaganda, is easily lead.

    Saturday, September 08, 2007


    Robert Perry: Bush and bin Laden as Sylvester and Tweety Bird

    Robert Perry, the premire commentator on the Web today, writes:
    Just as Sylvester and Tweety Bird achieved lasting Hollywood fame from their comical cartoon chases, the less amusing duo of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden continue to benefit each other by reviving their long-distance rivalry, one posturing against the other in a way that helps them both.
    One without the other would be mere footnotes in history.

    And it is beyond interesting coincident that when President Clinton decided to "snatch" bin Laden out of Sudan in 1993 (see Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies pp 144-145) the Pentagon put the kibosh on the operation.

    Perry also notes:
    Fox News commentator Sean Hannity offered a taste of how the new bin Laden tape will be used against both Democrats and the American Left.

    “One of the things that also struck me is the language specifically that he [bin Laden] used,” Hannity said. “He seemed to adopt the very same language that is being used by the hard Left in this country, as he describes what’s going on in Iraq as a ‘civil war’; he actually used the word ‘neocons’; he talked about global warming; he denounces capitalism and corporations.”
    Giggling house conservative David Brooks, as if reading from Hannity's script, said of the new bin Laden tape on the September 7, 2007 edition of PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer:
    But you read this thing, and it's like he's been sitting around reading lefty blogs, and he's one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom the page, you know, Noam Chomsky and all this stuff.

    You can't help read it and not laugh at it, occasionally, because it is just absurd. It's flying this way, and that way, weird conspiracy theories, and mortgages, global warming. He throws it all in there.

    ...I mean, a lot of the worst ideas from the West have permeated in, and he's picked up Noam Chomsky, and he's picked up some of the anti-globalization stuff. And that's what infuses this.

    So now the scourge of the Western World has now become the darling of America's left. Jesus, how can you not begin to wonder if this whole thing hasn't been scripted from the beginning. It always seems a little more than coincidential that just when George W. Bush gets his political ass in a sling, up pops Osama to bail him out. So now it looks like Osama is helping the Bush boy, the Mainstream Media and our centerist political parties, from Hillary to Rudy, paint anyone in the United States who disagrees with the current administration's policy in Iraq, globalization and corporate agenda in general as a conspiracy nut, a leftwing moonbat or Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul!

    Concludes Perry
    In other words, any similarity in language between bin Laden and what many Americans say in common conversations will be used to discredit them. They will become bin Laden’s fellow travelers.

    All the better to get Bush and bin Laden what they both really want: a prolonged war in Iraq – and possibly a U.S. attack on the Shiite government of Iran.

    So I'm a dirty old man. Sue me!

    Look, I had no interest in Disney Studio's latest starlet until word filtered through the Internet that the young lady above, one Vanessa Hudgens, let a nude photo escape into the ether of the Worldwide Web.

    According to reports from Hollywood, Ms. Hudgens, "apologized Friday for the photos, which show her smiling as she posed naked and in underwear in a bedroom with a red curtain behind her."

    As far as I can see the 18-year-old Ms. Hudgens has no reason to apologize to anyone for anything.

    Wednesday, September 05, 2007

    Chester, Chester, Chester.........

    Just about the time when I'm beginning to think our esteemed governor, Chet Culver, is doing a fine job and is an all around good fellow he goes off and does this:
    Gov. Chet Culver said Tuesday that he supports a state law struck down last week by a Polk County judge, barring same-sex couples from marrying in Iowa.

    "I have said personally that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I've been consistent on that. At the same time, I think it's important we let the judicial process work itself out here," he said.

    Some Republican legislative leaders have renewed their call for protecting the ban on same-sex marriage by making it part of the Iowa Constitution. Culver, while campaigning for governor last year, said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary.
    Des Moines
    Now what, or who in the Hell is Chester pandering to? Closeted Republicans like I--not-da-homo Senator Larry Craig?

    Government on all levels has no legitimate right in dictating who may marry whom. The only ligitimate function of government in the marriage contract is issuing the license. Here in Iowa the base cost of a marriage license is $30, give or take, in cash only. I'm also lead to believe that county treasurers have considerable leeway in the setting the price of a marriage license. So cash strapped rural counties, if the treasurer is smart, should follow Polk Co.'s lead and immediately start issuing marriage licenses to committed pairs of limp-wristed homos and cigarette pack-rolled-up-in-the-T shirt-sleeve dykes!

    Imagine, county treasurers passing up money, cash! fer-krist's sake, because marriage is between a man and a women.

    Meanwhile untold hundreds of little bastards---whoopsie we don't use that term to describe "out of wedlock" children under current Iowa legal usage they are "biological" children-- biological children are living quite lives of desperate poverty with "baby-momma" while "baby-daddy" is out gallivanting around spreading his seed.

    But, you see, we are a society that "loves" children. We "love" children so much we don't teach "baby-momma" and "baby-daddy" how to have sex without producing a biological. We "love" children so much we send out manufacturing jobs to Mexico, China and India. We "love" our children sooooooooo much that if a little biological wants to get out of poverty, the best way to get into a college is by enlisting in one of the military services and going off to fight and die in senseless wars of aggression.

    But if Larry and Steve or Mary and Eve want to legally get married? Holy shit, Western civilization will collapse!