Rex Kickass

So what youre telling us, is that people living on Israeli occupied lands are taking low paying jobs to erect a massive barricade which will make it even harder for them to get to work, travel freely within their own home territory and will kill economic growth for years to come - because the economy is so bad, this is the only job they can get? Sounds like a responsible occupying force to me!

Sun-Times liberal? With Conrad Black owning it? Not likely. Any paper that keeps a link to the Jerusalem Post on every page is not liberal.

You know its funny. My reason for not supporting George Bush is pretty simple. Bush has made several references, including in his state of the union address to bypassing the Judicial branch to make sure that it is federal law that gay people can't marry. Because this is such a pressing issue of our time. In the same breath, Bush refers to "negative elements of our culture" and we know what that means. So I guess, as a law-abiding "negative element of our culture," I need to take my support elsewhere. After all, its apparently wrong for me to be able to seek the right to work. Wrong for me to be able to get private insurance for a partner, should I end up with one. That's the other side of this proposed amendment. It can make it much easier for people to discriminate against Gays. Lesbians, Bisexuals and others because of a ban on marriage. Just ask the Governmor of Ohio who is supporting such legislation. Even he is aware that it could violate the freedom of private industry to give domestic partner benefits to their employees. So he won't sign their defense of marriage act unless its protected specifically. I can't support this. Sometimes, I think the legalization of homosexuality in Texas may have been a bad thing, because it made a lot of powerful people look for ways to make it enforceably illegal.

Before Sept 11, 2001, it was a well circulated rumor that Rumsfeld was indeed on the way out, because he favored further cutbacks in the size and scope of the US Military, putting a huge wedge between him and the armed forces. The QDR was to recommend a further cutback of 50- 100 thousand troops before September 11th. In fact, it only didn't happen because of the terrorist act. The army that took action in Afghanistan was Clinton's army. Bush did not have the time in 12 months to shape an army. You can even say that the bulk of forces in Iraq bear more of a liking from "Clinton's" army than the current president. If you recall, the 2000 campaign featured Al Gore, who wanted to add a specific number of dollars and soldiers to "an already strong" national defense and to George Bush who knew little about specifics and the bulk of whose military service involving not reporting for duty for the National Guard in Texas. You could make the argument that with thousands upon thousands of reservists activated and serving near indefinite lengths of time, and half the US Army committed overseas that the Bush administration has put us in a VERY difficult position militarily. With 150,000 soldiers committed and not easily moveable in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 35,000 more in South Korea - unable to move because of the policy mess there - that America is less able to defend itself now than it was on September 10, 2001. Reservists activated are waiting months for their paychecks, veterans benefits are being cut, the Bush administration even proposed reducing the not-enough hazardous duty pay that you receive for being stationed in Korea, or Afghanistan, or Iraq. So before you say the Republicans are all about defense, think about whether or not they really have the soldier's best interest at heart. I'd say no.

Truer words were never spoken. Rumor is the President will call for a constitutional amendment this month in the State of the Union. I love this country, but if we seek to codify things like this - maybe it means my country doesn't want people like me.

I'm pretty sure that post was facetious dude. I wanna explain something that cw said about homosexuality being normal but not normative. I don't think some people quite understood it. I think what cw was trying to say was that although not present in MOST humans, many people think that a certain percentage of people are born gay. It is normal, not normative. What makes you gay, isn't having sex. What makes you gay is the same thing that makes other people straight. The problem with marriage is that a lot of people see it as a religious thing. That's fine. It should be. However, if its a civil thing, it shouldn't be exclusive to one type of people. As we learn more about humanity, a growing body of evidence suggests that the vast majority of gay people are not gay by choice. It is just WHO THEY ARE. And being that, there is no reason or need to discriminate. As someone who supports the concept of gay marriage in a civil sense, I am not asking you to support my lifestyle just let me have the same rights as you.

I haven't really said anything about this. I've been of two minds for quite sometime on it. I understand the point against homosexuals marrying within the auspices of the church... If a church chooses not to recognize a monogamous, loving, committed relationship between two individuals of the same sex, it is between their members and church leadership. Personally, I happen to think there is nothing stronger for the sanctity of the sacrament then two allow two consenting adults to pronounce their lifelong commitment to each other under the watch of God. Period. Other people in this forum disagree and good for them. They are free to believe what they wish. However, when it comes to the government, it seems to me that it should recognize all marriages - same sex or not, or it should recognize none. Let's say a gay American citizen works in Panama or France or the UK or any other country for an extended period of time and falls in love and gets married, in his partner's home state. When he comes back, his/her partner can not join him. This is wrong. There are married men and women who by the virtue of who they are (bi or homosexual) can not be visited by their husbands and wives in many hospitals across the country, because there is no legal right. They are routinely shut out of wills. They have no legal recourse whatsoever from a lifelong partnership. In most states, gay and bisexual people cannot marry. They can however be fired for their sexuality - even suspicion of it. We live in a country that values equality, except in this case - and a few others. And it bothers me. It bothers me that I can't let slip around work that I had a boyfriend for fear of losing my job. It bothers me that the same people that call for a reduced role in government now want to tell people who they can and can't spend the rest of their lives with or fall in love with. This bothers me. There is nothing in the constitution that talks about marriage or sexuality. Being a government document, and the framework for our system of government - based on the concept of all men being created equal - I think it should stay that way.

i prefer tampax, thanx for asking.

Currently reading: About a Boy - Nick Hornby Non Campus Mentis - some guy I can't remember at the moment In the Queue: Dog Years - Gunter Grass (attempt three)

So much good stuff in Chicago radio history. I still listen to Big 10 and Super CFL (pre my birth) as well as 1970s WLS on www.reelradio.com These guys were sooo good and my inspiration for what I do now. XRT 89 - 93, about the best on the block. Q101 93 - 97... when the morning show sucked, but was kept afloat by the rest of the day. They actually played stuff like the Pizzicato Five - even if you did have to deal with the Pumpkins and Live every 15 minutes. Z95 88-89. Even Hell 94.7 was good. But Randy Michaels (former Clear Channel Radio CEO) was a dumbass to blow the station up like he did. Jay Marvin on WLS 93-96. Best liberal talk show ever. And about the only listenable thing on WLS-FM when it was "Hot Talk" Who could forget the time Larry Lujack hijacked Steve and Garry in 85 or 86, I think, on WLS, just before it got blowed up. I'm actually enjoying WRLL 1690 "Real Oldies" when I blow through the occasional weekend. Not a huge fan of the music, but the jocks are sooo goood.

Reinstate the draft. Do the German method. You have a choice. 10 months in the Army, or one year in civil service. If the reality of going to war hit more people, the people would be more hesitant to go to war.

I go with Apu's choice. Iraq did have WMD, but were mostly gone by 1998. Libya isn't doing anything in reaction to Iraq. It's the natural progression that they have been on since 1999 when Libya turned over suspects from Lockerbie. North Korea isn't backing down either. Last I checked, their material offer had never changed - and they still have the nukes. So being reasonable wouldn't count, imo, as backing down.

The answer is simple. Israel controls the land, and as such controls the economy and movement of the people on this land. Therefore, as an occupying power - they are responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian. No American government official would dare say that they are NOT responsible for the lives of Iraqis affected by our occupation. We take an active role in improving their lives. It's something that the Americans have had a history of doing. See Germany, Japan, France in the 1950s. Even the Phillipines (although our efforts were hampered by World War II) and a corrupt leadership friendly to the US.

Welcome back to school and all. But stop calling me during the show to see if schools are cancelled. Shut up and go to school!

Well... then I better put my safety harness on. Oh wait, its just a leather one. Anchors away, sailor!

Responses to responses: If Israel has "refugees" living on Israeli controlled land, it either needs to take care of these people, who are forced to rely state support for their survival or expel them, but to let them continue to live in the manner in which they are forced to live is unacceptable. One could make the argument that it would politically unfeasible to expel the 3 million or so people that are not Israeli on the occupied lands. Doing so would probably mean the end of US aid, because although it stands behind Israel, it also needs the rest of the mideast to satisfy its energy needs. Opportunistic OPEC members in the gulf region would probably leverage its oil availability to the United States on its decision over such a matter. Not because these states actually care about the Palestinians but because this chip would be a tipping point to allow the state to gain more influence within that region. This leaves Israel with one viable political option. Take care of the people living within its borders, occupied or otherwise. Jordan may have persecuted Palestinians in the past - but Jordan has also relinquished claim for these lands and called for a Palestinian state to be established. Israel continues to allow an intolerable life for Palestinians. If life is better for Arab Jews, although they face systemic discrimination from within the Israeli state and are generally considered to be the least enfranchised Israelis, why isn't there the ability for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens? This argument doesn't address the fundamental issue here. Palestinians living in West Bank and Gaza live in a difficult environment that the Israelis have the best ability to improve. 2. The "disputed territories" stopped being disputed territories in the 1980s when Jordan gave up its claims on those lands and said that they properly belong to the Palestinians. Since the Palestinians actually live on these lands, this no longer makes them "disputed." Further, since these lands, outside of settlements sponosored by the government that are inhabited exclusively by Israel are not considered part of Israel, this would make them an occupied territory, or at least a colony. Another term loaded with negative connotations. 3. This is a chicken/egg argument. People have brains and can think for themselves. I was told in Catholic School that Luther's Reformation was a mistake. I disagreed. I was told in Catholic School that I should wait until marriage before I have sex. I didn't. I was told that gay people were evil. I disagreed, then I even realized I was gay! Wow! Independent thoughts! If people's lives markedly improve and the cause of this improvement is obviously Israeli, mindsets WILL change. Not all mindsets, but they will change rather quickly. A good case study would be that of Russia. Shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, the communists made a comeback and helped further destroy the economy there. After Yeltsin's equally corrupt political party made a comeback, and the economy started to improve, the fortunes of the communists declined. If people are fat and happier, they are less likely to bomb and be angry. At least at people other than themselves. Will this solve 100% of the terror problem? Of course not, but it will make it more difficult for radical islamists and terrorists to recruit their activists. 4. I wish I was a fry cook! They get paid better. I'm not one to discuss my education, but I too a have a degree (I didn't the "degreed", the second d cost extra) in French, I also studied for a while in a Masters program for Political Science, but I'm not gonna get in a pissing match about someone's education - especially from a school so poor that they give out "degreeds" rather than degrees. I bet the cover of the "diplomad" was probably in "pleatherd" too.

It's a hobby, not a profession. Thank you.

Another car crashes into a hairsalon. This story makes me laugh... mostly for these two paragraphs. Shortly after 3 p.m., a Cadillac driven by an 80-year-old minister who was taking his great-grandson for ice cream crashed through the front window of Ornare, a busy salon filled with customers and stylists. "This reminds me of a bad movie," said David Motley, Potter’s 11-year-old great-grandson, holding a chocolate ice cream cone.

This should have all the answers you need.

Apparently mall cop and hall monitor = Department of Homeland Security.

I loved the homicide story when I heard it on the radio. "Final numbers for Detroit aren't in yet..." They were right around the 400 mark I think.

They make a ton more than just the ones you have commercials for. Some of them are really really unfunny. Mr. Seasonal Mall Employee for example.

I know plenty of gay magicians, thank you very much.

He's a funny guy, but most of his music I find doesn't age well. If you are gonna get anything by Ben Folds, I would recommend the Ben Folds Five self titled debut album from 1995, clearly the best work they ever did as a trio. I would also recommend the nearly all instrumental Fear of Pop Vol.1, the song with William Shatner is one of the funniest pieces of music recorded in the 1990s.

Damn. It took 41 pages but finally, I'm bored with this. Here's what I learned. A lot of people are just plain out f***ed in the head. Especially some people who work in Homeland Security. Here's the deal: Israel has to be the "bigger man" here. You can argue about moral superiority until you're blue in the face but it doesn't create peaceful change or improve the situation. The problem is that Israel and Palestine both lack leaders who can get BEYOND the obvious intense emotion of the situation and look at what has to happen to effect the change that both sides say they want. My uneducated eyes tell me that only Israel has the resources to improve life for the Palestinian common people who (if they do indeed advocate violence against Israelis) may then change their mindset about what and who Israelis are if they finally see a side of kindness from the people who occupy the land they live on. The average Palestinian has few rights and resources with which to improve their lives. When Israel further exerts its occupational authority on the Palestinians, their quality of life falls. The time has come for Israel to exert its occupational authority to the Palestinians in a more positive way. Only then will the embers feeding the flames of terrorism begin to choke off the stream of terror. The IDF has every right to do what is necessary and morally correct to stem the immediate threat of terror. But what Israel and the US miss the boat on, is that both states fail to address the root causes of terror. We try to manage, not eliminate, in the name of elimination. And that leads to failed policy.