For those r-wingnuts who don't understand the concept of averaging as it may apply to polls conducted around a similar time period, let me explain: if one poll has 36% and another has 40%, you can always average the two and arrive at 38% -- you see? All polls have a +/- degree of error anyway so they're not exact. In fact, by averaging together several polls, you will arrive at a more accurate end result (more data is involved, more various methodologies are fused, etc.).

Of course, the r-wingnuts focus on questioning the polls themselves, attempting to instill doubt in their accuracy, but we all know 1) such polls were 100% accurate anytime (and rarely) they had bad results for Clinton, and 2) if it were Clinton right now with such bad poll numbers, the right would be out of breath repeating it. The fact is 36%, 40%, 38%, whatever, such numbers are dreadful.

The other common refrain is, "oh yeah, well who won the election?" Gads, just moronic. I got news for you: I'm a Yankee fan and plenty of times over the last few years they won the World Series; that doesn't mean come the next season, when perhaps they were in fourth place in May, I barked at someone "oh yeah, but who won the World Series last year?" That was then, this is now, and whatever the Yankees did in that prior year is past history and means nothing now.

And why do you think GW's poll numbers are in fact in the toilet? By simple logic it's because a large number of folks who voted for him this past November have changed their mind. In theory these poll numbers could go lower, but the reality is they'll eventually plateau at some level because there exists a large contingent of citizens who would vote for GW no matter what he did. The "Madness of King George" could devolve into him running around naked on his Crawford ranch, shooting pistols in the air and stopping to urinate on a tree, and it wouldn't matter: X% of his diehard followers will show up to vote for him. Sad but true.

I watched the recent Bill Maher show and he had on Cindy Sheehan. During her eloquent and intelligent replies to Bill's questions, she did mention the DSM as a reason for her outrage. As I've mentioned, the DSMs are one of a few things that have changed since Sheehan's first meeting with GW. The right refuses to mention this. If I had a son who died in Iraq, I would've already been distraught, angry, etc., but then to read the DSM and learn of what they confirm, that would've put my feelings at a whole new level.

Want to see two maps that look VERY similar? Go here. Note how the dots correlate with the blue areas.... Look closely.

I'm tired of the oil companies advertising in publications attempting to show just how environment-friendly they are -- oh really? Can they offer up some hard proof other than "soft" photos of animal and fish life? How about showing us evidence that you don't spend $$$ for lobbying against environmental regulations? One of the worst ads yet was by Shell, showing a pair of tropical fish in a crystal-clear blue ocean -- and yet the ad was about special detergents added to Shell gas to clean your engine. And what does this have to do with fish in the ocean?

Prediction: five years from now we will have realized that GW's "dream" for Iraq boiled down to $600 billion (to perhaps $1 trillion) of U.S. taxpayer's money spent, and the lives of 2000 (perhaps 3000 by that time) U.S. soldiers, all for an Iran-like theocracy (not democracy). As TalkLeft writes, "If our Government told you in 2003 it wanted your son to go to war in a foreign land to topple a regime and ensure that Islam had its proper place in the replacement government, what would your reaction have been?"

Read this and this about the Swift Boat-ish slime attacks against Sheehan. It's what they do.

Did you know that DisneyWorld and anywhere the Super Bowl is being played have no-fly zones in place, and yet the Indian Point nuclear facility near NYC does not?