The Real OC

The Real OC Issue 3

Welcome back to the Real OC. Sorry that it has been so long since the last one. This issue, I will discuss my thoughts on the "Super Bowl of Debates." It was definitely an interesting debate. I will also have an Only In Orange County, a Quote of the Week and a Song of the Week.

My Thoughts: The Super Bowl of Debates
Since last week, Arnold went around telling the world that the only scripted debate was the "Super Bowl of Debates." He equated all the other debates to a "whimpy Mr. Muscle Beach contest." Lets see, he just insulted the Bay Area and LA Broadcasters Associations, the LA Times, CNN and MSNBC, who are hosting other candidate forums. Funny, isn't the front runner Cruz Bustamante, and isn't he attending all of these forums. For someone who is in second place in the polls he certainly is trying to talk tough.

Now onto the debate, if this was the Super Bowl of debates, then Arnold Schwazenegger was the 2002 Raiders. Never have I seen more scripted answers in a debate. He had little substance, and only said the same lines he has been saying the whole campaign, and not mentioning the specifics. The clear winner of the debate was Arianna Huffington. She tore into Arnold, yet she backed up her accusations with valid facts. When she was listing the ways Bush's policies were hurting California, Arnold's only response was for her to go to New Hampshire and campaign against Bush. Wait a minute, isn't Arnold a member of the same party as Bush, so would it not stand to reason that the policies Arnold wants to implement have already been doing damage in California under George W. Bush.

Cruz Bustamante turned in a somewhat disappointing performance. I think he treated this debate like the past forums where there was more order to the debate. He was not able to fully adapt to the format of this debate, and it showed. He was calm, which works in the more organized format, but here he needed to loosen up more. Also when Arnold and Tom McClintock directed attacks in his direction, Cruz would sit there and do little to defend himself. Arianna even came in to Cruz's defense a couple of times during the debate, bringing up the contradictions in Arnold's and McClintock's attacks. Cruz would have looked so much more better if he had struck back instead of allowing Huffington to speak for him.

Coming in second in the debate was clearly Tom McClintock. He started off weak, be quickly gained steam. He rarely challenged other candidates, instead only answering his question and defending his ideas when other candidates challenged him. I find it funny that Arnold is the only candidate that did not challenge McClintock on his ideas. I am sure that was an order from the puppetmaster Pete Wilson to avoid McClintock as much as possible. The high point for McClintock came at the closing statement. He did an awesome job distinguishing himself from Arnold as the "real Conservative" in the race. Although I agreed with virtually nothing he said, if it was making us Liberals squirm, it was definitely making the Conservatives cheer. McClintock is a good debater, and I think it reflects his solid beliefs and his refusal to break a promise.

It is obvious many Republicans are freaking out over the strong performance of McClintock last night. As I was channel surfing this morning, I stopped on the Fox News Channel AKA the Republican News Agency, and watched in interview with Tom McClintock. It was more of an interrogation. The news anchor was not asking questions, but outright telling McClintock that he should drop out of the race and that he was going to blow it for Arnold. I was in disbelief, this goes against all the rules of Journalism. Again I point out this was not a debate show but the normal news and what was supposed to be a normal news interview.

Back to the debate, my analysis of Camejo was that he did a good job, but sounded like the angry 60's radical at times. He gave some great points, especially on illegal immigration, yet he seemed to eager to "punish the rich." I admit the are not paying their fair share of taxes, but you do not want to come off as being too angry. Again good performance, needs to tone down on the anger a little bit.

Now for more on Arnold. What a joke of a performance, I expected better from him. He spent half his time quoting one liners from movies. But the low point of the debate came when Huffington pointed out how some of the problems Arnold is talking about fixing is the result of his co-chair Pete Wilson. His response was "On October 8th, there will not be a Governor Wilson, there will be only a Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger." This had to be a low point in the debate for him. No one had accused him of being a puppet of Pete Wilson, Huffington was simply pointing out some facts. I think this line proves to everyone who really will be in charge of California is Arnold wins. Personally I think Arnold should be barred from the rest of the debates and Pete Wilson should be required to attend one and face the other candidates.

Now back to Arianna. Talking with other average voters after the debate, many felt she did a great job while they were disappointed with Arnold and Cruz. This may actually help Gray Davis. With people seeing the poor performance by the two candidates most likely to win, there wil be a growing attitude that we should just stick with what we have right now. Arianna and Tom may have just saved Gray Davis from being recalled.

More on Arianna, I noticed a double standard on the way she was treated by the other candidates and even the moderator. She was the only woman in the debate and yet proved to be more strong willed than her male counterparts. The way Arnold would talk to her was so derrogatory, it showed that he still has a chauvanistic attitude from his body building days. The way Arnold would attack Arianna compared to the way he would attack Cruz was vastly different. There was a condesending tone towards her, while more respect was shown for Cruz. Even Camejo was guilty of treating her a little different than he did the other male candidates. Then I read the news reports and some letters to the editor today. In the OC Register, Huffington was portrayed as a "bitch" for daring to speak out the way she did. Why is there a double standard for women? Don't get me wrong, I still support Cruz Bustamante, but show Ms. Huffington the respect she deserves. I think Arnold and many men out there could not stand the fact that a woman did better than the men.

Overall it was an interesting debate. I felt it could have been organized better, they could have had a stronger moderator. The moderator, Stan Statham was weak and could not keep control of the debate. I was hoping for the Super Bowl of debates instead it seemed more like the WWF Smackdown of debates.


Only In Orange County
Only in Orange County is back. This time it is a follow up to an earlier OIOC about Liberals controlling the University system and indoctrinating the children. On a yahoogroups I am on, a couple who lives in Floral Park expressed this concern. Read their message and see what extremists they are. Below it was my respose to them. Enjoy.

I have been following this thread with interest and wondering where
it might lead. It occurs to me that the kind of problems Barry
described with his children's grade-school teachers have a direct
parrallel to the problems older students are dealing with at our
universities...

"Recently, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture conducted a
survey on professors' political views at universities nationwide,
including Penn. The results were astounding. Among those Ivy League
professors surveyed, 64 percent considered themselves either liberal
or somewhat liberal. A mere 6 percent considered themselves
conservative or somewhat conservative. In addition to this, 84
percent voted for Al Gore in 2000, with George W. pulling in just
ahead of Ralph Nader (9 percent for Dubya, 6 percent for Nader). At
Penn, of those affiliated with a particular political party who were
surveyed, 60 were registered Democrats and only five registered as
Republicans...As these statistics make clear, professors at Penn and
throughout the Ivy League are overwhelmingly liberal. This monopoly
on higher education is an extreme impediment to our education."

This article is titled "Leftists Academic Monopoly" and can be read
in its entirety at FrontPageMagazine.com:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9984

The group "Students For Academic Freedom" have begun a campaign to
promote intellectual diversity as a core value of academic freedom.
From their website, "The Students for Academic Freedom Information
Center is a clearing house and communications center for a national
coalition of student organizations whose goal is to end the political
abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic
mission as a disinterested pursuit of knowledge." Their main slogan
is "You can't get a good education if they're only telling you half
the story".

Our elementary school children are getting the same indoctrination.
From the v-e-r-y l-o-n-g report, "Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong?"
published by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation:

"Evidence kept accumulating that American kids were emerging from K-
12 education and then, alas, from college with ridiculously little
knowledge or understanding of their country's history, their planet's
geography, their government's functioning, or the economy's essential
workings.

"Evidence also accumulated that, in the field of social studies
itself, the lunatics had taken over the asylum. Its leaders were
people who had plenty of grand degrees and impressive titles but who
possessed no respect for Western civilization; who were inclined to
view America's evolution as a problem for humanity rather than
mankind's last, best hope; who pooh-poohed history's chronological
and factual skeleton as somehow privileging elites and white males
over the poor and oppressed; who saw the study of geography in terms
of despoiling the rain forest rather than locating London or the
Mississippi River on a map; who interpreted "civics" as consisting
largely of political activism and "service learning" rather than
understanding how laws are made and why it is important to live in a
society governed by laws; who feared that serious study of economics
might give unfair advantage to capitalism (just as excessive
attention to democracy might lead impressionable youngsters to judge
it a superior way of organizing society); and who, in any case, took
for granted that children were better off learning about their
neighborhoods and "community helpers" than amazing deeds by heroes
and villains in distant times and faraway places."

"...at the very time we most need our citizens and future citizens to
learn what it means to be American and why America is worth
defending, to become more conscious of the world they inhabit and the
conflicts that rock it, to grasp the differences between democracy
and totalitarianism and between free and doctrinaire societies, the
part of the school curriculum on which we must rely for help has
turned into a hindrance. It's not getting the job done. It's
wrongheaded. It may even be making matters worse. Yet we are
entrusting it ever more definitively to the hands of those who
brought it to this sorry state. The keys to Rome are being turned
over to the Goths and the Huns.

That's downright upsetting. And while a small private foundation such
as this one cannot hope to reverse such mighty forces, we can at
least lend a helping hand to those who are willing to take on that
challenge."

As for me and my family, we have completely given up on getting a
decent education through our public schools. I am currently
researching homeschool curriculums. Thank goodness my daughter is
only two years old--I've got plenty of time to figure out what course
to take.

Jill Wood
Fisher Park


Now for my response to these yahoos.

I do believe compulsory education in
government schools is a good system. I thinkn homeschooling, both
Secular and Christian is nothing more than a way for parents to
indoctrinate their children to their beliefs by sheltering them from
differing ideas. I know a couple of people who are involved with the
Democratic Party with me who are VERY Liberal, pretty much off the
scale. They homeschool their children and quite frankly, their
children strike me as wierd. They have little social skills and when
they discuss political issue, they honestly sound like robots.

On the other end, I have some neighbors that homeschool their
daughter in Christian homeschooling. I have read some of their
history textbooks, and never in my life have I read such bias. There
were claims that mistreatment of the Native Americans never took
place, and when it did take place it was cancelled by the fact that
at least the Natives were learning Christianity. It also criticized
Martin Luther King Jr. for allowing the Civil Rights movement to go
to far. It praised Prop 187 and PRO-CHOICE Governor Pete Wilson. It
was nothing more than a mouthpiece for the conservative wing of the
Republican Party. So on both ends I think homeschooling is a terrible
idea, parents on both ends of the spectrum only use it to
indoctrinate their children.
Alright some accusations against Liberal professor's have been made
here. Because they happened to vote for Al Gore, somehow that makes
them unqualified to be a professor. As a recent graduate in Political
Science at CSUF, I was in a major that would probably be affected
most by Liberal Professors. I will admit, all of my professors tended
toward a Liberal point-of-view and were admitted Democrats except for
two. Yet many of the professor's I did not find this out from in
class, but rather in private conversations. Since CSUF is in Orange
county, and since it is a commuter campus there were quite a few
Republican and Conservative students with a Political Science major.
Many would express their views in class, more so than the professors.
The professors would take them up on their challenges and many times
the student was hammered because they simply could not back up their
assertions with valid facts.

There were two classmates of mine who were conservative Republicans
who were very good at backing up their facts. And they were well
respected by the Poli Sci faculty at CSUF, even though their
ideologies clashed. I assume their grades were never lowered by these
liberal professors due to the fact that both were members of the
Political Science Honors Society, which one needs a 3.5 in their
major to join. One was invited to present a paper on violence in
Hollywood movies at a forum being done at CSUF. If there was a
conspiracy among Liberal Professors, why would these two students be
given the time of day.

As mentioned earlier I had two Republican professors while I was at
CSUF. Both were part time. There was only one full time Republican
professor at CSUF while I was there, and she was one of the most
respected professors at CSUF. The so called Liberal ones had nothing
but good things to say about her. In fact one Democratic professor
would do a class with her called Comparative Politics, which gives
students a view of both parties. Onto the two Republican professors
that I had. I had one in my last semester at CSUF, and he was a great
teacher. I enjoyed having him, he taught the class well and did a
great job. I gave him excellent marks on the student evaluation,
becaue overall it had nothing to do with ideology but how well he
taught the class. The other Republican professor I do not have good
things to say. I had this professor in Spring 2001 and never was
there a more biased and unfair teacher. The class was Public Policy
and Policy Making. When it came time to discuss abortion, he made his
anti-choice views known by stifling debate and requiring students to
find only the cons of abortion in the book and then reading them out
loud. I stood my ground and listed the pros. I got a D on the
assignment. On a test, there was a question on the energy crisis, and
I criticized Bush's policies and backed them up. He gave me a D. I
showed this essay to another professor who mentioned is was worthy of
at least a B. As a result I dropped the class to take it with a
professor who would do his of her job and not bring their personal
bias in to the class.

Having mentioned that, I notice that the Conservative wing tends to
be more biased when it comes to these issues. They notice that a
large majority of professors tend to be Democrat and supported Al
Gore in 2000 and seem to think this will affect their performance in
the classroom. I never saw this in all my time at Santa Ana College
or CSUF. I noticed only two unfairly biased professors in my college
years, one at SAC and one at CSUF and both were Conservative and
Republican. I am not saying that all Liberal and Democrat professors
are perfect, I am sure there are a few unfairly biased ones out
there. But there are definitely fewer than there are conservative and
Republican biased professors. Because they are in the minority do
some of them feel they must somehow defend themselves by punishing
students who dare to disagree with them?

One example where opposing opinion is squashed(or at least they try
their best to) is Biola University. At that college, every professor
is a Republican, except ONE. And that one has been referred to
as "the most dangerous man at Biola." Why is he so dangerous? Because
he offers a differing point-of-view. Because he focuses on real
Christianity and not the neo Fundamentalist Christianity that is
gripping the country today. I do not find him dangerous but
liberating. Since he is a tenured professor, it is nearly impossible
to fire him although there have been attempts. So I ask the question,
who is trying to squash dissenting opinion? In my experience it is
definitely not the Liberal professors.

On Hannity and Colmes there was a discussion on this. Sean Hannity
asked the question "What if you were forced to send your children to
a school where 90% of the faculty thought like me?" The professor
answered, and I managed to hear the answer over Hannity's attempts to
drown him out with his own ranting, "It did not matter to him, as
long as they taught the class they were required to teach, and taught
the student Plato, Aristotle etc." Exactly, most Liberals could care
less who is teaching their children. Most Liberals do not care who
from what party is on a school board. Most Liberal professors do not
care what ideology the student has, as long as they do their work,
turn it in on time and do well on the tests.

Quote of the Week
"Well-behaved women rarely make history"
- Anonymous

Song of the Week
The song I chose this week goes hand in hand with the editorial and the quote. I felt this was appropriate with the outrage that a woman had the nerve to be so strong-willed in the debate. This recall should force us to look at the old values that are entrenched in our society. It is no longer about Gray Davis, but an attack on the new values of accepting everyone regardless of Race, Religion, National Origin, Ideology, Sexual Orientation, Social Status, and most of all Gender. This is a recall on rights of the populace. We must stand up and say NO and let the Right Wing extremist know togher as Black and White, Jew and Gentile, Legal and Undocumented, Gay and Straight, Man and Woman that we will not be held down any longer. Arnold was right on one point, we are mad and we are not going to take it anymore!

Can't Hold Us Down
By Christina Aguilera

So what am I not supposed to have an opinion
Should I be quiet just because I'm a woman
Call me a bitch cos I speak what's on my mind
Guess it's easier for you to swallow if I sat and smiled

When a female fires back
Suddenly the target don't know how to act
So he does what any little boy will do
Making up a few false rumors or two

That for sure is not a man to me
Slanderin' names for popularity
It's sad you only get your fame through controversy
But now it's time for me to come and give you more to say

This is for my girls all around the world
Who've come across a man who don't respect your worth
Thinking all women should be seen, not heard
So what do we do girls?
Shout louder!
Letting them know we're gonna stand our ground
Lift your hands high and wave them proud
Take a deep breath and say it loud
Never can, never will, can't hold us down

Nobody can hold us down
Nobody can hold us down
Nobody can hold us down
Never can, never will

So what am I not supposed to say what I'm saying
Are you offended by the message I'm bringing
Call me whatever cos your words don't mean a thing
Guess you ain't even a man enough to handle what I sing

If you look back in history
It's a common double standard of society
The guy gets all the glory the more he can score
While the girl can do the same and yet you call her a whore

I don't understand why it's okay
The guy can get away with it & the girl gets named
All my ladies come together and make a change
Start a new beginning for us everybody sing

This is for my girls all around the world
Who've come across a man who don't respect your worth
Thinking all women should be seen, not heard
What do we do girls?
Shout louder!
Letting them know we're gonna stand our ground
Lift your hands high and wave 'em proud
Take a deep breath and say it loud
Never can, never will, can't hold us down

But you're just a little boy
Think you're so cute, so coy
You must talk so big
To make up for small lil' things
So you're just a little boy
All you'll do is annoy
You must talk so big
To make up for small lil' things

This is for my girls...
This is for my girls all around the world
Who've come across a man who don't respect your worth
Thinking all women should be seen, not heard
So what do we do girls?
Shout louder!
Letting them know we're gonna stand our ground
Lift your hands high and wave 'em proud
Take a deep breath and say it loud
Never can, never will, can't hold us down

This is for my girls all around the world
Who've come across a man who don't respect your worth
Thinking all women should be seen, not heard
So what do we do girls?
Shout louder!
Letting them know we're gonna stand our ground
Lift your hands high and wave 'em proud
Take a deep breath and say it loud
Never can, never will, can't hold us down
Spread the word, can't hold us down

Conclusion
Well this ends the third issue of The Real OC. The Real OC will be going on hiatus as I will be moving to Arizona for the next four months to work on the John Kerry campaign. I will be returning to California occassionally and plan to stay in touch with each and every one of you. I will be back in February. Take care.

Claudio W. Gallegos

Welcome to the latest issue of The Real OC. In this issue, will post a couple of editorials, issues that have been on my mind, the Yutz of the Week, Quote of the Week and Song of the Week. Sit back, relax and enjoy The Real OC.

My Thoughts: Gay Republicans

I was watching MSNBC last night and they had someone on from the Log Cabin Republicans which is a Gay Republican group, asking him questions about the recall of Gray Davis. He mentioned he was in support of the recall, mentioning several reasons, which was all the same generic reasons I have heard, bad economy, budget deficit, energy crisis, etc. For some reason I started thinking about the notion of Gay Republican, and suddenly I burst into laughter at the thought of such a notion.

If you look at the record of the Republican Party, one would have to be mystified as to why any open Homosexual would want to be a Republican. Earlier this year, Republican Senator Santorum from Pennsylvania made some very offensive comments towards Gays, saying if sex between gays is legalized, then you should legalize incest, polygamy and child abuse as well. When asked to apologize for the remarks, he responded he does not have a problem with gay people, as long as they don't have relationships with each other. Why the hell would anyone want to join a party where its members have total animosity towards them. In my honest opinion, a Homosexual joining the Republican Party is equivalent to an African-American joining Aryan Nation.

So that leaves the question, "Why would any self respecting gay person want to be a Republican?" I think it is the ultimate form of greed and selfishness. One of the biggest issues for Republicans is cutting taxes, mainly for the upper class. The logic I am getting out of this is "go ahead and insult us, discriminate against us, take money from gay hate groups as long as you give me a tax cut and get me more money." That has to be the height of selfishness and yet another example of why Greed is one of the seven deadly sins.

I got into a debate with a Gay Republican once and I asked him to name one STRAIGHT Republican elected official that has helped the gay community. He could not name one, and proceeded to ask the question back to me about straight Democrats. I began to name several, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Antonio Villaraigosa, Gray Davis, Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Willie Brown, Kenneth Hahn, etc. The list could go on and on. To make the long story short, I put him to shame.

Another example at the lack of backbone from Gay Republicans. I was active on an issue that was raised in the Santa Ana Unified School District over Sex Education. Of course the Right Wing Christians organized to shove their "Abstinence Education" down everyone's throat. A Gay Republican who led the recall of Nativo Lopez and regular gadfly at the meetings just sat there as people bashed gays in public comments He allowed a supposed ally and friend of his from the Nativo Lopez recall bash gays as immoral. Not once did he fill out a speaker card to defend himself. Yet I stuck my neck out on the line to defend the homophobic comments being said. One would ask, "why would any straight person do that?" Because I feel it is a moral obligation to speak out when one group is being discriminated against. You can call it a Right/ Left issue, I consider it a Right/ Wrong Issue.

In closing I would like to make one more point. AB 205, a bill in the California State Legislature that would legalize gay civil unions(not marriage). It has passed both houses and will soon be on Governor Davis' desk. I would like to point out not a single Republican voted for AB 205, it was carried by Democrats. So again I ask, Why would any gay want to be Republican? I await a logical answer.

My Thoughts:The OC

Some people have been asking why I call this The Real OC. The answer to your question is simple. The name was inspired by the Fox TV show The OC. I watched the first episode and I immediately thought the name should have been The Newport. They did not accurately portray what Orange County is all about. Lets set the record straight.

First, the public defender has a soft spot for this poor delinquent teenager and brings him to live at his home in Newport Beach. The fact that Newport Beach is one of the most Republican cities in the nation, the idea that a person living in Newport Beach having compassion for those less fortunate is comical. They are about as coldhearted as they come. One Councilman even has a problem with Mexicans coming to the beach there. I wonder if Rupert Murdoch will allow an episode that focuses on that kind of discrimination. I doubt he will, he probably cheered Councilman Nichols on.

Next the idea that all the kids are spoiled rich kids. That may be the case in Newport and South OC, but not all of Orange County. I do not recall living in a hilltop home and I do not recall my parents buying me a BMW. I have lived in Orange County since 1982, so I am sure I would have noticed these things by now.

Thats why I called this The Real OC. Because I will post topics that show the diversity of life in Orange County. I am sure the show will not depict the diversity of Central Orange County(Santa Ana) or if they do they will probably show it as some gang infested city where the rich kids go to buy their weed. If Fox does that they will definitely hear from me. So don't believe the pretty lies that Rupert Murdoch wants you to believe on the show The OC. Believe people who live behind the Orange Curtain. The Real OC and Orange Juice are two great perspectives from real people who live in Orange County. And no we do not live in Newport, live in an eight bedroom house, drive BMW's or party with the ladies from Girls Gone Wild.

Yutz of the Week

Well the Archie Bunker's have been quiet this week so this week I am awarding the "Yutz of the Week." The winner of this award is Torrance resident Melannie Guyton for her Letter to the Editor in the Daily Breeze expressing her anger at Madonna kissing Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera onstage at the VMA's. It appears she is concerned that they are sending a message that it is ok for Superstars to french kiss in public. I never knew it was socially unacceptable for superstars to kiss in public. Well unless her kids are going to be Superstars I do not think there is anything to worry about.

Listen lady, just because two people of the same gender kiss on television is not going to drive your kids to be gay. Would she have a problem is Madonna kissed Justin Timberlake on television? It seems she has a problem with gays and is concerned Hollywood is shoving their views down everyone's throats. I can just picture this lady thumping her bible and trying to shove her views down everyone else's throats. I remember she wrote a letter before to the Daily Breeze saying Clinton should have resigned because he lied about the fact that he messed around on his wife, while praising Bush because he lied about weapons of mass destruction.(I wish I could get it online, but it is not longer available) The only difference is which lie actually killed people. Looks like she has a warped sense of morals, two people of the same sex kissing and a President getting a hummer is detrimental to our kids, but a President sending our young men off to war on false pretenses is moral. This has earned her "Yutz of the Week."

Don’t kiss your morals good-bye

I was disgusted to read on Friday about Madonna and Britney Spears making a political statement at the MTV Awards last week by French kissing on stage while millions of young people watched from their homes.


The message being sent from the two music divas of our culture was that two superstar entertainers French kissing in public was acceptable and that it must therefore be OK for our daughters to do the same.


This is why my husband and I do not allow our four children to purchase any kind of music, books or magazines they desire. It’s not just about the music. It’s about an agenda that many in the entertainment industry have. They believe they have the right to influence our children and shove their beliefs down our throats simply because they can act or sing — undermining parental authority because of their arrogance that they know what is better for our children than we do.


We get one chance to raise our children with the morals and values that have made this country strong and the most successful in the world. I will not allow the Madonnas or the Britney Spears of the world steal my children’s virtues or innocence.
—MELANNIE GUYTON
Torrance



Quote of the Week

"To announce that there must be NO criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President Right or Wrong, is not only UNPATRIOTIC and SERVILE, but is Morally TREASONABLE to the American Public."
- Former Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt

Song of the Week

I chose Shoot The Dog by George Michael. Released last year, it caused controversy because the video depicted Prime Minister Tony Blair as Bush's lapdog. Bush and Ashcroft tried to get it banned from the MTV rotation. Here are the lyrics and a message from George Michael afterward explaining the song.

George Michael
SHOOT THE DOG
:
Written, arranged and produced by George Michael.
Released on August 12th, 2002

GTi, Hot Shot,
He parks it there, just to piss me off.
Bullyboy, gonna show ya who's tough,
I'm gonna shoot the dog, I'm gonna shoot the dog

It's party time, everyday
I spent Saturday night on Novocaine
Called the pigs, but nobody came
I'm gonna shoot the dog, I'm gonna shoot the dog...(come on ladies)

Nine nine nine gettin' jiggy
People did you see that fire in the City?
It's like we're fresh out of democratic,
Gotta get yourself a little something semi-automatic yeah...

That's why I'm always gettin' stoned yeah
That's why I'm out there havin' fun again
Good puppy, good puppy
Rolling on over...

Mustapha
Mazeltov,
The Gaza Boys,
All that holy stuff.
I got the feelin' when it all goes off,
They're gonna shoot the dog, they're gonna shoot the dog.

So, Cherie my dear,
Could you leave the way clear for sex tonight?
Tell him
'Tony Tony Tony, I know that your horny, but there's somethin bout that Bush ain't right'

Nine nine nine gettin jiggy,
People did you see that fire in the city?
It's like we're fresh out of democratic
Gotta get yourself a little something semi-automatic yeah...

That's why I'm always gettin' stoned yeah
That's why I'm out there havin' fun again,
Good puppy, good puppy,
Rollin' on over for The Man...

The Ayatollah's gettin' bombed yeah,
See Sergeant Bilko having fun again,
Good puppy, good puppy
Rollin on over for The Man....

I believe, I believe what the old man said
Though I know that there's no lord above
I believe in me, I believe in you
And you know I believe in love
I believe in truth though I lie a lot
I feel the pain from the push and shove
No matter what you put me through
I'll still believe in love
And I say

Cherie Baby, Spliff up
I wanna kick back mama
And watch the world cup with ya baby
Yeah, That's right!
We're getting freeky tonight
Stay with me tonight
Let's have some fun while Tony's stateside
It's gonna be alright
It's gonna be alright
See Tony dancing with Dubya
Don't you wanna know why?

Statement of George Michael to 'Shoot the Dog'

'Firstly, I would like to stress that I am under no illusion that my opinions are of more importance than those of any member of society who may be reading this right now. I am first and foremost a singer/songwriter and lucky sod, and I'm fully aware that people don't really like their pop music and politics mixed these days. Nevertheless, I have strong opinions on Britain's current situation and I feel that in a time when public debate is being surpressed, even something as trivial as a pop song can be a good thing.
"Shoot The Dog" is intended as a piece of political satire, no more no less, and I hope that it will make people laugh and dance, and then think a little, that's all.
I am truly a patriotic man. I have been lucky enough to travel the world, and I see Britain for what it is, a great and multiracial nation, one that I have never left and never would. And it is my love for my country that gives me the inclination to defend it right now, in any way I can, regardless of the fact that I know I will be attacked by some for doing so.
In the past few days, something very positive has happened, in fact it is the very thing that this song hopes to encourage. Mr. Blair seems to have found the strength to challenge the views of President Bush, for the first time since September 11th. I'm delighted and re-assured by this, and I'm sure that I'm not alone. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not anti-American, how could I be, I have been in love with a Texan for six years and we are still going strong.
My feelings about George W. Bush, however, are a little different. And I know I'm not alone in fearing his politics, and in hoping that our man Tony can be a calming and rational influence on him. But I have a question for you, Mr. Blair. On an issue as enormous as the possible bombing of Iraq, how can you represent us when you haven't asked us what we think. And let's be honest, we haven't even begun to discuss it as a society. So please Tony, much as we've all loved watching the best team we've had in 40 years at the World Cup, and much as we loved the Jubilee, now that we have some downtime, could we have a little chat about Saddam?'

Final Thoughts

Well I hoped you enjoyed this issue of The Real OC. Until next time I will be back with a hard hitting editorial on Proposition 54.