And I'm freeeee...

Free fallllinnnnn....

A new poll just released lists shrub's overall job approval rating at 34%. That's an all-time low, babycakes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml

Still, I suppose that's to be expected. Shrub was riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave, and now that it's finally broken and rolled back, he's looking for his water-wings. The thing I'm curious about is whether the Dems are going to be able to capitalize on this monstrous downswing in GOP popularity. The scandals are just piling up, one on top of another, and yet there's been no good noise from anyone on the Left.

I mean c'mon, we can do better than Hillary, for chrissake.

Or maybe we can't. Hm.

***

Other fun news:

This is just absurd: on Feb. 24, Chris Matthews of MSNBC compared Bush to Atticus Finch.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602270010

Right. But of course, being a pillar of unbiased reason, I guess he doesn't need to acknowledge that the terms "political" and "strategic" are in many ways identical. This morning, in a news conference held with the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, shrub claimed that he didn't have a "political relationship" with the Italian PM. What he did have, he said, was a "strategic relationship."

Uh-huh. Okay. Thanks for clearing that up, big guy. I can hear Jon Stewart doing his Bush laugh right now.

Anyway, to hell with unbiased news reports. No such thing as fact, anyway, right? I learned that back in undergrad! There is no fact, only different versions of the truth, eh? Arg.

This, though, is a great example of why and how the majority of the American populace has no real idea about what's going on. It takes an unbelievable amount of time and energy to get good solid info about what's going on in the world, and part of the reason it takes a long time is because one has to check multiple sources (preferrably a mix of internet, television, and print), filter out the weak stuff, pick out what's reliable, recognize what's not, and above all, be able to know the difference. And there's the rub.

And this kind of crap, Mr. Matthews, isn't helping the situation. Not if you actually believe that the definition of Democracy is a system by which the people rule themselves. Because if you did believe that, you'd want the people of this country to have the best and most accurate information possible, and not your pathetic starry-eyed drivel.

***

This is probably total bunk, but it's interesting to think about:

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Insight_Mag_Cheney_to_retire_after_0227.html

Insight Magazine, which is owned and run by the Washington Times, claims that Cheney's going to retire in 2007, shortly after the 2006 elections. The article says he's become too much of a "liability" to the administration.

The article referred to both Libby's indictment as well as the recent bang-bang incident with that old lawyer guy. And the new poll I mentioned above does list Cheney's approval rating at only 18%. Perhaps shrub thinks he can do the party a favor by retiring Halliburtonman and replacing him with, oh, I dunno, someone even crazier. How about Rick Santorum? That'd be hilarious. Tragic, perhaps, but still hilarious.

I can't see the grizzled old bastard stepping down, though. He's too damn stubborn. We'll see.

***

How about some biscuits 'n gravy? With scrambled eggs. I feel like a good down-home kinda meal today. Yeehaw.

I now pronounce you Man and Goat

Wow. This was just too good to leave alone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm

The best part was they never even mentioned the animal's gender.

Disrespect for Authority

Libby's starting to flail like a drowning rat.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060223/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc
or, for more detail,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022302087_pf.html

Yesterday, his lawyers requested that his trial be completely dismissed because they contend special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't properly appointed.

Their argument is that since he was appointed by the Justice Department but didn't have to report to the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, Fitzgerald's authority is held "improperly."

Pshaw.

That's weak, man. That's really weak. They know the fucker's dead in the water if he gets to trial, and so instead of concentrating on a solid defense, they're trying to find technicalities on which the case could be dismissed. It's a common tactic (to my knowledge, which admittedly is not vast), and it's one that's used when there's no better defense. Oh, wait, except for the claim that inconsistencies in Libby's testimony were due to a faulty memory.

This is also highly ironic, given the administration's eager claims of full support and cooperation when the investigation first began. They were quite eager to play the part of the innocent bystander, but now that Fitz has laid (at least some of) his cards on the table, the tactic is to attack Fitz's credibility and "authority." What balderdash.

All in all, I take this as a good sign. It looks to me like a move of desperation, and that means the bastards are starting to feel the walls closing in around them. And don't forget, Rove is still under the microscope...

I could go for some coq au vin, I think. Extra bacon. And a glass of Carneros pinot noir.

Persona non grata

I can't help it. I love poking fun at the heavyweights.

In today's online edition of the New York Times, in one of the four headline stories, the Times printed this paragraph:

He also said it was important "not to send mixed messages" to foreign allies around the world with whom the United States put together a coalition on the war on terror."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/politics/23cnd-port.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I can't help but think that if I was the reporter who wrote this, and I checked my copy, and there WASN'T that typo, I'd be goddamn hell-raising furious. That's just poor editing, my man.

But, onward...

***

This is an alarming and almost unprecedented story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/national/22cnd-dakota.html?ex=1298264400&en=0a8b2d741e683d33&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

South Dakota, it seems, is poised to ban almost ALL ABORTIONS. And this, it seems, is the beginning of Bush's and Alito's legacy. The backers of the bill, which passed the state senate by a 2-to-1 margin, don't just expect the bill to be challenged in court if the governor signs it into law, they WANT it to be challenged.

"Optimistic about the recent changes on the United States Supreme Court, some abortion opponents say they have new hope that a court fight over a ban here could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal around the country."

And so it begins.

Backers of the bill have made no secret that they waited for Roberts and Alito to be appointed. With the balance of the court thrown slightly to the right, they have more of a chance to succeed. They're even vocally hoping Justice Stevens will retire soon so they can get ANOTHER right-winger.

I'm not even hungry now. Dammit.

***

And proponents of free speech have another case to bitch about now: in Austria, a crazy-ass British historian who has claimed that the Holocaust never took place has been sentenced to THREE YEARS IN PRISON.

http://www.denverpost.com/guestcommentary/ci_3536328

This is just as egregious an overreaction as rioting because of some stupid cartoons. In other words, the Jews AND the Muslims are out of their fucking gourds. While we're at it, yeah, sure, the Christians are all wacko too. Religion does strange things to people. Glad I stayed away from it.

God is dead, motherfucker.

I can't stand Mormons either, but c'mon...

Shrub's trying to slide more irresponsible budget cuts past us. The Denver Post editorial board had this to say about it:

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_3529511

Apparently, there's an enormous toxic waste dump near Moab, UT. Anyone who knows that area knows that Moab was carved out of sandstone by the Colorado River over a process of a few millennia. Now, the Colorado River feeds the water supplies of Las Vegas, San Diego, Los Angeles, and upper Arizona. A single flash flood could help leech toxic waste from the dump near Moab straight into the Colorado, and then carry it on to poison every major water supply in the Southwest and Southern California.

And in his new budget, shrub calls for funding for Moab's toxic cleanup to be slashed. I guess making nukes is more important than cleaning up after them.

It's back to the fish today. The ones with three eyes. Yummy yummy, Mr. Burns.

Plausible deniability in the News

Here's another good example of Bill O'Reilly's pathological self-removal from reality.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602170008

Last week, O'Reilly said, well, he said lots of things. But this is one of the stupidest/funniest: with regard to allegations that Cheney had been drinking and/or drunk when he shot his lawyer pal Whittington, O'Reilly said that if anyone was to see someone on television discussing those allegations "you've got to click that off and never watch them again because there you have defamation -- character assassination based on nothing."

He must not have watched Brit Hume's interview with Cheney last Tuesday, when Cheney acknowledged having a beer with lunch.

And to top it off, later in the evening, Fox's very own political analyst Dick Morris brought the subject up and said, "[Cheney] admitted to drinking at lunch," and there's been no clarification as to what exactly happened afterward in terms of alcohol consumption, and none of the eyewitnesses to the entire afternoon will say a thing. This is all according to Morris.

Hey, Bill, better talk to Murdoch about shuttin' that troublemaker up. Crazy liberals.

And though I think this whole story, while compelling, is ultimately pretty trite, one interesting facet of the scene has been the total collapse of any coherent version of events from any quarter. The one thing Cheney's accomplished by shooting a 78-year-old man is to demonstrate how fluid and absolutely full of shit political cover stories are. There were spins on the spins. First it's Whittington's fault. Then it's Cheney's fault, but he's really sorry. And nobody was drinking anything except Dr. Pepper. Oops, wait, no, we forgot to mention Dick had a brewsky. Just one. We promise. What about Whittington? Oh, he took a few hits off the peace pipe, but no booze. Honestly.

a good summary of the monstrous fuckups and complications from most everyone involved:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602160007

Oh, Dick, what have you done? And can we please get over this whole thing? Seriously, these fuckers have lied and contorted the truth on any number of much more serious matters. Let's get back to those stories.

***

Like this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021901031_pf.html

Senator Rockefeller said of the White House's intrusion onto the House Intelligence Committee's meetings over shrub's supposedly illegal wiretaps: "The White House has applied heavy pressure in recent weeks to prevent the committee from doing its job."

In other words, they're still trying to cover their asses, which is a good sign, because it means they still think they're in trouble. Keep it up, Rocky.

***

And as a postscript to the earlier posting about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060219162909990010

Chavez had this to say to Condoleeza Rice: "Don't mess with me, girl."

HA! BIATCH! GIT DOWN!

I can see it now: the latin socialist punk versus the house negro. Oh, lordy...

Fried chicken and collard greens. Oh, and some corn bread.

Dirka dirka!

"Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."

-Flemming Rose, editor of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that commissioned the incendiary Muhammad cartoons which has led to worldwide protests and riots.

You can read his whole article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499_pf.html

So far, 45 people have died because of Muslim outrage over these perceived insults.

Personally, I get outraged whenever I'm told what I can or cannot say.

Lookin' out my backdoor

So Condi has called the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, "one of the biggest dangers facing Latin America."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4723902.stm

Why is Washington so pissed off at Chavez? It's fairly simple. He refuses to be their lapdog. The BBC story mentions only a few things in passing concerning Chavez's history with shrub & co., not the least of which is the last paragraph of the story:

"Mr Chavez accuses the Bush administration of trying to orchestrate his removal, a charge denied by Washington."

The story neglects to mention that Chavez was deposed for literally two days in 2002, by a U.S.-backed group.

It also neglects to mention that Venezuela is OPEC's fourth largest oil producer. It also neglects to mention that Chavez has openly criticized U.S. foreign policy, how he's a figurehead for Latin independence, how he railed against Bush's "free trade" plan for Latin America at the summit of the Americas last year, how the U.S. has tried to block Chavez from buying arms from Russia and making oil deals with China, how the U.S. takes serious issue with his close ties to Fidel Castro (for no good reason except that of ideological difference, apparently), and lastly, how in his last election he won a legitimate landslide victory. His social programs have brought doctors and schools to peasants that have never experienced such simple benefits before.

In short, the only reason the shrub administration is unhappy with Chavez is because he won't dance to ther tune. There's a substantial amount of money to be made from controlling Latin America (as we have for the past two centuries). The Monroe doctrine, for instance, was not a friendly extension of our protection to our Southern brothers. It was a move to protect economic interests. That's exactly what this is.

Mmmmm, huevos rancheros.... And don't forget the tabasco.

Nummy nummy

Here's some amusing bits:

China offers horse penis gourmet dish:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/17/wfood17.xml

Cheney copycat strikes without warning:
http://cbs4denver.com/local/local_story_047101455.html

Ganja has become Washington State's number 8 agricultural product:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/17/marijuana.harvest.ap/index.html

What fun!

Cheney's got a gun....

Guys, check this out:

Cheney is the first vice president to shoot anyone while in office since Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton in 1804. I believe that makes him the only person to hold either the presidency or the vice presidency of the United States of America to have EVER SHOT ANYONE "ACCIDENTALLY." EVER. THE ONLY ONE.

Why? Because Cheney sucks THAT MUCH.

Here's some more stories about Aaron Burr that are fun to read with Cheney in mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr

Oh, and on Fox News' interview with Cheney, they made reference to this, but they called Burr's duel with Hamilton "other circumstances." As in, Burr shot someone under "other circumstances" than Cheney shot Whittington under. They can't say that the only other vice president who has ever shot someone while still in office was fighting a DUEL to the DEATH. Because Cheney fucked up badly enough to actually shoot someone without meaning to. If Cheney had wanted the fucker dead, he'd be dead. He wouldn't be holed up in Corpus fuckin' Christi with a goddamn heart attack. No, the fucker'd be dead. Flat out. And Dick wouldn't be telling Brit how badly he felt on primetime cable. He HATES that shit! He fucking HATES being in the spotlight! He shuns it like vampires shun the SUN!

So, Cheney is a vampire. It all makes sense....

I feel like some blood sausage. Rare.

Cigar, anyone?

This is the last one for today, because after this I'm leaving work.

But the following article is the best summary of the injustice at Guantanamo I've encountered yet. It's concise, to the point, and devastating to any argument the administration might try and put up in defense of their "right" to hold "enemy combatants" without representation or trial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4708946.stm

Here, the BBC's world affairs editor, John Simpson, writes about how the Pentagon distributed flyers in Afghanistan and Pakistan that read, "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."

He points out that of the 517 "enemy combatants" being held at Guantanamo, 92% had not even been captured in battle. Of those, 40% had no clear connection to Al-Qaida, and 18% have no connection to either Al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Yeah, we're a country that stands for freedom and human rights and civil liberties. Uh-huh. Sure.

Liberty, shmiberty

Speaking of shrub's reference to a foiled plot to fly a plane into Library Tower, here's something interesting:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602100011

Apparently the NY Times, USA Today, and the Associated Press all decided to just flat out ignore very plausible doubts about shrub's claim that the plot had even gone past the conceptual phase. Only the Washington Post and the LA Times reported that there were divisions in the intelligence community over the veracity of those claims.

Disgusting. One more example of shrub's people trying to scare us into obedience, and one more reason to get as much information from as many sources as possible...

Hurricane Brownie

HAHAHAHAHA! It just keeps getting better and better. Now the House Republicans, fueled by Michael Brown's fingering of the shrub house and the dept. of homeland insecurity, are going to release an official report flailing the president alive for post-Katrina failures!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/politics/13katrina.html?hp&ex=1139893200&en=0f4dfbff654a1111&ei=5094&partner=homepage

This is great. It's just one thing on top of another. Abramoff, plamegate, iraq intel breakdowns, illegal FISA wiretaps, a rising body count in the Middle East, and now this. No wonder the dumb bastard sounded so apologetic in his State of the Union.

Oh, and was anyone listening to Bush's speech last week when he outlined a terrorist plot to fly a plane into Library Tower, the tallest building in L.A.? He called it Liberty Tower.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1410002.cms

I think that says something about shrub's regard for books and knowledge. How Orwellian...

Man, I could really go for some freedom fries right about now. Extra ketchup.

Bring me my ranch dressing hose!

And here's a few more good ones:

The CIA fired its head of counter-terrorism recently because he refused to support the CIA's torture program, and to hell with the Geneva convention. They're not even bothering to hide the reason:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036182,00.html

***

Ann Coulter refers to Muslims as "ragheads":

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Ann_Coulter_describes_Muslims_as_ragheads_0210.html

The Establishment Strikes Back

This is probably a repeat theme, but in my humble opinion, the most crucial threat to shrub and co. these days is not Libby rolling over. It's the wiretapping scandal. Why? Because though Libby WAS an insider, there's no real hard evidence to back up any allegations he MIGHT make at some point, IF he completely rolls over, which in and of itself is unlikely.

But the wiretapping bit gives the establishment (even the Republicans) a real solid chance to stand up against Bush. No matter what issue of shrub's they're sick of, this finally gives everyone a chance to stand up against him without fear of being labeled "un-American," because there's almost nothing more American than the right to privacy.

In keeping with this, here's a new story from Newsweek about a handful of key Republicans who are taking sides against shrub over the wiretaps:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11300384/site/newsweek/

And one of the most subtle and unkown (but still right-wing and impressively influential) is Rep. Heather Wilson, R-New Mexico. This is a woman who's been deeply entrenched in the military-industrial complex for decades, has worked for Reagan and the elder Bush, and is now (a la Murtha, perhaps?) taking sides against Bush. This is the real threat to the administration, and this is where the real possibilities for change are coming from. Bush & Co. have pissed off and alienated so many of the people they should be utilizing as allies that they're almost to the point of no return.

This, of course, is going to have immense repercussions for the Republican party, but only if the Democrats can come up with a viable candidate in '08. For my money, and I'm just speculating here, Hillary ain't gonna git it done. This is an invitation for discussion, if no one picked up on it.

***

Oh, hey, and here's a hypothetical question, for all the two of you who are reading my blog on any kind of regular basis: in response to Mehlman's recent allegations that Hillary Clinton is "too angry" to be elected president, should she just say, "Yes, I'm angry. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore," and then use that as an intro for an anti-Bush rant? I think she should. Granted, "angry" candidates have not historically been succesful, but still, I can't help but think of Network. A lot of people are pissed off, and they could use a pissed off leader.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/nyregion/07hillary.html

***

One other interesting bit, for those of us who are (at least slightly) interested in the furthering of gay rights:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3500275

There's two sides to this story: first, there are two ballot initiatives likely to be on Colorado's ballot this November, one to add an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, and a referendum giving the same legal rights as married couples to gay couples with domestic partnerships. The interesting bit is that both are mutually exclusive. If Colorado bans gay marriage, there's nothing in the current initiatives that would preclude the domestic partnership referendum from bestowing legal benefits on gay couples. So it's both a step forward and a step back. And right now, both measures are looking like they're going to succeed. Majorities of Coloradans support both the gay marriage ban and the domestic partnership bit.

Yeehaw, eh? Stupid red states. I already had a pizza today, but since the woman made some quiche, I'll take some extra salad dressing. Mustard vinaigrette.

Imbecilic Design

As more support for the "theory" that shrub is trying to lace the entire government with evangelical notions such as Intelligent Design, he slipped one of his punks with a forged resume into NASA. Check out the story from the LA Times here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa9feb09,0,6858260.story?track=tothtml

According to the Times, the appointee, George Deutsch, wrote in offical memos, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be, to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator. This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue."

This, of course, was before it was discovered that he had lied about receiving a degree from Texas A&M.

Deutsch also pressured scientists to use the word "theory" after every reference to the big bang. He also tried to get NASA scientists to turn down interviews with NPR and called the radio station the "most liberal" media group in the country. He also tried to pressure scientists into quieting down about global warming.

Apparently shrub can't handle finding cronies and right-wing punks with actual credentials. C'mon, Georgie, at least make your attempts at subverting the scientific world SOMEWHAT plausible, eh? You make me sick.

Not so sick that I'm not in the mood for a philly steak 'n cheese, though.

***

In completely unrelated news, Mitch Marconi of the Hollywood Post Chronicle had this to say about Yves St. designer Tom Ford fighting Vanity Fair's censorship of Angelina Jolie's ass-shot:
"I don't know about you 'butt' [pun intended] I'm sure glad Tom had the balls to demand what's right. Angelina Jolie has one of the finest dumpers on the planet and I thank God for good men like Tom Ford who are looking out for us all."

Indeed.

Why Powell Really Left

Damn it, George. That's it. I quit.

Politislam

This one's for the fellas who've added comments about the recent Muslim outrage/riots in response to the Muhammad cartoons-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4688624.stm

The BBC found it worthwhile to quote an expert who had the following to say about the lack of response in Pakistan:
"Muslim leadership the world over has historically been the most cynical manipulator of Islam - and this is especially true of Pakistan," says one analyst. "Injured religious sentiment has seldom translated into public unrest unless there was political mileage to be gained from it by some vested interest."

This is not to suggest that all Muslim countries are the same, but it does add a new dimension to the debate.

Miss Information

Here's a fairly important story, especially to anyone who's been paying attention to Plamegate. On February 1, only a handful of media organizations reported special investigator Patrick Fitzgerald's allegation that certain emails from the White House may have been destroyed. Check it out here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602020012

Here, the story cites a report from Fitzgerald, which reads, "we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

The most shocking thing about this story is not that the Bushies may have deliberately destroyed evidence. I don't know many people who'd put that past him. No, the shocking and alarming part of this story is that it was only covered by CNN, the Associated Press, and the New York Sun. That's it. Not the New York Times, not the Wall Street Journal, not the Tribune Organization, not the Washington Post, not MSNBC, and of course not Fox News.

The disturbing question here is why? Why would almost every major media organization in the United States choose to not carry such a seemingly explosive story? This is HUGE! This is the independent investigator for the Justice Department acknowledging that the Bush administration might have DESTROYED EVIDENCE IN A FEDERAL CASE, a la Nixon's missing tapes during the Watergate scandal. So why in the hell would the media ignore it?

Far be it from me to speculate wildly, but this is one question which certainly bears answering, sooner rather than later. If we can't trust the media to look out for us, then we're screwed.

***

As for the current Muslim outrage over a handful of Danish political cartoons, I can generally be counted on to swing to the Left in almost every case. But here's one instance in which I find myself almost aligning with the Right, but for my own reasons, the most fundamental of which has to do with the freedom of the press and open debate. Here's an essay by Time's Andrew Sullivan that articulates exactly what the West's reaction to such indignation should be:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156609,00.html

While there's definitely something to be said for respect of religion, there must be another, more fundamental principle to any society which dedicates itself to the freedom and betterment of mankind: freedom of speech. And this wasn't even a case of a newspaper adventing violence or supporting a particular political party. It was a batch of CARTOONS. Yet by now at least five people have died as a result of Muslim outrage.

As Sullivan points out, Muslim governments and societies commonly permit anti-semitic cartoons and parodies of the Holocaust, so it's obvious they can dish it out, but now we know many of them can't take it. This entire scene is just one big pockmark on the Muslim world. It's a shame, a disgrace, and a childish reaction to a mature topic that merits serious discussion, not petulant tantrums for perceived insults.


I need something neutral for lunch today. Can anyone recommend a good Swiss sandwich? I was going to order a reuben with extra 1000 island, but the German overtones are too dangerous for such a topic. I might be accused of being a Neo-Nazi.

Stop the preses!

The New York Times, the publication Hunter S. Thompson once referred to as the "heavyweight champion of journalism," has printed this sentence:

"On the second vote, Mr. Boehner triumped."

The four horsemen are on their way, I believe.

Check out the full story here

It seems that DeLay's legacy has rubbed off on his friends. The favored horse in the replacement race for House Majority Leader fell miserably short, and a veritable unknown Republican from Ohio now holds the second most powerful post in the House of Representatives. Interestink...

Doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?

"How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men."

-Joe McCarthy

Boom boom

Bush calls for military budget increase

Apparently $400 billion a year on missiles, war planes, nuclear weapons, land mines, and, somehow, INEFFECTIVE BODY ARMOR isn't enough. Somehow, shrub needs more.

Never mind the fact that we spend more on defense than our next twenty closest competitors, including Russia, China, the UK, and Israel.

Unreal. I can't even think clearly enough to formulate a cohesive critique.

The belgian waffle, please. Extra whipped cream.

Spilled Milk

That dirty son of a bitch hasn't even waited a week, and already he's backtracking on those ballsy statements about the U.S.'s addiction to oil.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13767738.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02energy.html

One of his only good points (depending on how you look at him) is that he's bullheaded and stubborn, and once this fucker sets his mind to something, only Rove and Cheney can stop him. The problem is that he's almost always been bullheaded and stubborn about the wrong things at the wrong times in the wrong ways. This was something positive and (gasp!) almost leftist, but is here revealed as nothing more than political swaggering. Apparently during the state of the union, he was just playing to the pissed-off crowd of baby boomers who are sick of paying upwards of three dollars a gallon to fill up their H2s and Chevy Tahoes.

Ach, well. C'est la vie, non? I'll have a burger and some freedom fries. Extra ranch.

Kurds and whey

The New York Times reported today that Saddam Hussein's trial has resumed without his presence. Why? Because the arrogant bastard simply refused to show up. The implication here is that Hussein doesn't have to show up if he doesn't want to. He's been trying to reassert his power and so-called authority over the court since his trial began, and it's beginning to wear on my nerves.

Let me ask the obvious question, the one the Times didn't even come close to addressing: Why in the hell is he ALLOWED to do this? How can he simply CHOOSE to not show up? He's on trial for the murder of 140 people! To my understanding, it's not just up to the defendant whether he wants to be arrested for such a crime, or if he wants to stand trial, or if he wants to attend! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

Here's the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/international/middleeast/01cnd-iraq.html

Hell, we invaded his country for no ascertainable reason. Why stop there? Why not just put a bullet in the guy's head and be done with it?

today I feel like a fried egg sandwich, extra mustard. here's to the king.