Cuddly politics

Pandas, apart from being incredibly cute and absurdly endangered, are now the source of a new kind of controversy. A new article from Newsweek discusses the ins and outs of China's desire to give Taiwan a pair of Pandas as a gift. China, who has used pandas as a diplomatic tool for over a millenium, is definitely devious enough to exploit the animals' undisputed appeal for political gain.

"Most people can't resist pandas. Pat Buchanan, a member of Nixon's 1972 China entourage, recalls how the White House, preoccupied with geostrategic issues, was utterly unprepared for the wild uproar that met Hsing Hsing and Ling Ling at the National Zoo. 'The Chinese really scored heavily,' he says. 'We didn't realize what a smash they would be.'"

And that's exactly why the Taiwanese president is against accepting the gift. He has called them "trojan pandas," and has warned that it's a sneak diplomatic attack from Beijing.

Of course, he's probably right. But it's still a brilliant move.

mmmm, peking duck...

Postscript

This is the story about the aforementioned march in Denver earlier today. Apparently 50,000 people showed up to protest the congressional bill which would make being an illegal immigrant a felony.

The beginning of the end continues

The thing that is most troubling to me about the Bush administration is not that it's conducting illegal wars or torturing people or breaking the law in general. Nah, that's been going on since we've had a country of our own. It's nothing new. What is new, and what's most troubling to me, is how blatantly they flaunt the broken laws in front of the public.

The most recent example is Bush's flat non-adherence to any new PATRIOT Act restrictions, specifically those that limit the government's power to abridge the bill of rights.

This is not, of course, an isolated incident. From the wiretapping scandal to the debate over Guantanamo detainees, shrub and co. not only break the law in full view of the public, but NO ONE HOLDS THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT. And then, they tell us that it's for OUR OWN GOOD!

Does anyone else think about Julius Caesar at times like these? The rise and fall of the Roman Empire?

Anyone think I"m crazy for drawing a parallel there? I can't tell if it's valid or not, but that's sure what it feels like.

And if anyone would like to suggest that I AM crazy, then please do me the honor of explaining how and why there is so much mainstream literature to be found on shrub's illegal actions. This is no secret. It's in everyone's face. And yet somehow, a lone senator from Wisconsin is the only one trying to do anything about it. Wait, no, that's not entirely accurate. I forgot to give Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, his props. He's also trying to get shrub impeached.

But nobody else is doing shit.

If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. I'd love to be wrong about that.

Meatballs. Definitely meatballs today. Extra marinara.

Cyborg Bugs

Anyone ever heard of DARPA? This is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a wing of the Pentagon whose job, it seems, is to come up with ever more astonishingly ludicrous ideas. One of the latest is a notion that by implanting microchips into dragonflies and moths at the pupa stage, they'll be able to remotely control the adult insects and use them to detect bombs. Essentially, they want to create what the BBC calls a cyber insect army.

Seriously.

This is our government at work.

It's not funny! Really! They're using tax dollars to fund this shit!

DARPA also recently unveiled a plan to implant electrodes in sharks' brains so they can be used to track ships.

This is what the Pentagon does with $400 billion a year. Thanks, guys. Good work.

Brown Power

This afternoon, I was sitting in my office, quietly rewriting a story, when suddenly through my open window floated the sound of a crowd chanting. Curious, I stepped out to the street. What I saw was one of the most astonishing and beautiful things I've encountered in a long, long time.

Thousands and thousands of people clogged Grant Street in downtown Denver, marching in protest of the bills currently making their way through the U.S. Senate that would crack down on illegal immigrants by making it a felony to be in this country without the proper documentation. From CNN:
"An immigration bill that passed the House of Representatives in December makes entering the country illegally a felony and calls for construction of 700 miles of security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The House bill would also require employers to verify the immigration status of workers before hiring them, with increased fines for employers who fail to comply. The proposals have angered many Latinos."

Damn right it has. It takes a good amount of bullshit to get this many people motivated to march and make protest signs. Thousands of people don't just say, "hey, what are we doing on Saturday? Let's get some flags and stop traffic downtown! Yeah! Now, what can we protest? Hmmm..."

Most of the crowd in Denver was Hispanic, but dotted throughout the sea of bodies was an occasional black or white or Asian face. I'm still not sure how long the whole rally and march lasted, and the wire news stories won't be in for another hour at least, but it was fantastic just to witness it. Similar protests have been taking place all over the country since yesterday.

There was an entire community, out in the streets, giving the finger to the unjust bullshit bigotry of people like Colorado's U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican wackjob whose ONLY PLATFORM ISSUE is tightening borders and kicking out illegal immigrants. It was fantastic.

And all I could do was stand there and grin like a shmuck, making eye contact here and there. Towards the end of the march, though, one Latino in the middle of the throng saw me up on the steps of my building and yelled, "Viva Mexico!" I raised two hands, both with clenched fists, and screamed back at him. Then the entire crowd took up the yell, and soon the whole street was filled with screams. But they weren't screams of anger and despair, and that was what made the whole scene so beautiful. The noise they made, the one that I threw back to them, was one of pride and power.

The way we screamed this afternoon was one of defiance and uncaring identity, a shriek that said Fuck you, Congress. Fuck you, Tom Tancredo. Fuck you, every single one of you greedy motherfucking gringos, this is our country. You don't own us, you don't own our lives, and we are not alone.

And after it died down, several of the crowd waved for me to join them. I yelled, "Necesito trabajar," (I need to work) but they shook their heads and just yelled some more. And I loved it.

Viva Mexico.

Stupid web browsers

My apologies to anyone who's been subjecting themselves to this piece-of-shit blog on any kind of repeat basis. The only reason I've been cutting and pasting links to pages instead of linking them directly is because I was using the internet browser Safari, which doesn't provide the option for linking on blogger.com's toolbar.

'Tarded Safari.

But now I've got Firefox! ha HA! Victory is mine! Now check out this story.

Did it work, I wonder.

Coondi-lovers

A radio talk show host in St. Louis, apparently in the act of gushing about our Secretary of State, ACCIDENTALLY called Condoleeza Rice a COON.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/23/djfired.rice.ap/index.html

The host, a feller by the handle of Dave Lenihan, was talking about how Rice should become the next NFL commissioner, and said,

"She's got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She's African-American, which would kind of be a big coon. A big coon." Apparently, what he meant to say was "coup;" the statement was immediately followed by an energetic "Oh my God. I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that."

The poor fucker was immediately canned by the radio station.

That's too damn funny. Not unlike how a certain friend of mine got kicked out of China. And off his campus radio station. And was encouraged to not write any more for his college newspaper. My pal could probably sympathize with you, Lenihan. Guess we don't really have the freedom of speech after all, do we?

Range Rover

Is it just me, or does Karl Rove help to perpeuate the popular urban myth that fat people are sinister and evil?

Seriously, he scares the shit out of me. He's what I imagine an malevolent clown would look like without makeup.

Helen gets her shot

For those of you who missed this morning's press conference, shrub did something he almost never does. He gave a critic a chance to ask a question. The following is a partial transcript of what happened when Bush called on Helen Thomas, who's been in the White House Press Corps since JFK was in office.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002200220

Helen. After that brilliant performance at the Gridiron (dinner), I am -- (laughter.)

Q You're going to be sorry. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, let me take it back. (Laughter.)

Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

Q I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

Q -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome. (Laughter.) I didn't really regret it. I kind of semi-regretted it. (Laughter.)

Q -- have a debate.

THE PRESIDENT: That's right. Anyway, your performance at the Gridiron was just brilliant -- unlike Holland's, was a little weak, but -- (laughter.)

*

I can't wait to see what Jon Stewart does with this.

Intelligent Christianity

Not that American evangelicals are going to pay much attention, but the Archbishop of Canterbury, the figurehead of the Church of England, has decried the teaching of creationism in public schools.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html

No matter, though, because Pope Benedictine is a big enough bigot to simply throw evolution out the window, which he did last November.

What I'm curious about is how many other countries teach their children to ignore science and to follow the vague tenets of religious scripture that was cobbled together by a few centuries of fables and storytelling. Seriously, how many other countries teach their kids concepts like Intelligent Design?

A few ultra-conservative Arab countries, maybe? India, though it's staunchly religious, is kicking our asses when it comes to scientific achievement in the classroom, so we could safely say we know where their priorities lie. Any African nations teaching religious dogma in public schools? What about Latin America? Australia? Europe?

The only thing the guardian mentions is that the debate "has provoked divisions in Britain but nothing like the vehemence or politicisation of the debate in the US." Probably because Britain lacks a sizable population of googly-eyed right-wing Pat Robertson-loving sex-hating Jesus freaks like we have in the U.S.

I'm ready for my communion, Father. But don't buy fucking Yellowtail Merlot for the sacramental wine again. Australian pisswater, that's what that is.

***

A bit more on the election fraud front:

http://www.cleveland.com/ohio/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/113403461250230.xml&coll=2

Diebold, a voting machine company, continued to allow its executives to donate money to Republican candidates even after the enormous scandals in 2000 and 2004. Impropriety? What impropriety? How about the fact that Diebold's CEO, Wally O'Dell, contributed heavily to the Bush/Cheney camp and said in 2003, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Yeah, no real problem there. Expect more on this topic, though. A friend and I are working on a story involving Diebold in Colorado.

Another argument for corporal punishment?

I'm not sure how factually accurate this may be, but it's sure interesting to think about.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142722231554

A new study out of Berkely by a UC professor named Jack Block claims that "whiny, insecure" kids usually grow up to be conservatives, while "confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grow up to be liberals."

The article reads,

"The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective. Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial."

That somehow makes a weird kind of sense, as far as predisposition goes. Psychologically, Republicans and conservatives tend to be more wrapped up in fear and apprehension than most liberals. Let's see, what are some of their touchstone issues? National security, border security, moral security, financial security... I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

But perhaps that's reaching. Seriously, though, I think there is something to this. It's a shame there isn't more evidence to support any thesis here. Government funding! That's what we need!

The daily funnies

I wish there were more news stories like this one.

and this one.

and this one.

oh, this one too.

shit, this one's pretty good.

but this one is definitely the bell-ringer.

Happy fuckin' St. Patty's, everybody.

Censorology

Jesus Christ, now these stupid bastards are blatantly silencing the satirical duo behind South Park. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, guys, but Tom Cruise has taken steps far beyond simply protesting a television show.

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm

He threatened Paramount, which is owned by Viacom, which also owns Comedy Central, by saying that he'd refuse to market Mission Impossible 3 unless the South Park episode was taken completely off the air. The episode was set to run again Wednesday night, but it was cancelled at the last second.

As I discussed in a previous post, Scientologists are not only known for their brutal tactics against their critics, they are actively encouraged in such endeavors by Church doctrine.

So, in short, Tom Cruise is a blackmailer, a censor, and an intolerant freak product of a new-age religion. Wait a minute, if I start talking about how Scientology is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT, are you going to hunt me down too? Slap some duct-tape over my mouth and take away my copy of Days of Thunder? John Travolta would never do that. He's the cool scientologist.

Where's that horse at? Need to give that sucker a whippin'!

Our man in DC

A new poll recently released by Pew Research Center has found that 56% of Americans believe shrub is "out of touch" with... the world? The country? His party? Reality?

No one knows. Just "out of touch," apparently.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060316/pl_nm/bush_politics_dc

Here's an excerpt:

When asked for a one-word description of Bush, the most frequent response was "incompetent," followed by "good," "idiot" and "liar." In February 2005, the most frequent reply was "honest."

Zowie. Bad year, huh, big guy?

Tears in Heaven

Speaking of God, I'm sure I'm going to hell for this, but I can't help myself. The following story belongs in the Onion. But I found it on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/14/beauty.queen.death.ap/index.html

Too funny. Too funny.

Mr. Right

I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised about this, but it does still blow my mind how the right manages to come up with consistently new and shocking bullshit.

Pat Robertson has now called radical Islam "satanic."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Robertson-Islam.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The master of intolerance has really outdone himself this time. I don't think you can get any more clear cut than that. "We are of God, you are of Satan." Yup. That about does it. Us versus them. You're with us, or you're against us.

This, Pat, is exactly what the fuck is WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY! God DAMN, MAN! Have you ever HEARD of the concept of understanding? Of outreach? Of, perhaps I'm reaching, the freedom of religion? Have you forgotten about Christianity's countless episodes of genocide and violence? The Inquisition? The Crusades? The Catholic Church's policy of non-involvement during the Holocaust?

Never mind. I'm embarassing myself, I suppose. You're hopeless, Pat.

God bless us. Every one.

Soccer Whores

Dude. Seriously. Gotta go to Germany.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=lifeAndLeisureNews&storyid=2006-03-14T132359Z_01_L01568810_RTRUKOC_0_US-GERMANY-PROSTITUTION-WCUP.xml&rpc=22

Germany is "deploying an army of prostitutes to satisfy the needs of libidinous fans during the month-long 2006 World Cup."

Need I say more?

Yeah, true, but I will anyway. See, Germany is like Vegas. Whoring is legal. And with an expected 1 million tourists this summer for the Cup, Germany is "beefing up" its staff of "relaxation therapists."

"'Football and prostitution are a great match,' said Hans-Henning Schneidereit, owner of the St. Pauli's Safari Cabaret, renowned for its sex shows."

If you ask me (which no one did), I think it's a great idea. This way, instead of rioting and destroying half of ze fatherland, crazed fans can just go take their excess energy out at ze fuk haus. Man, Germany's so far ahead of us...

Think I'll try the shnitzel. Extra hollandaise. Or is it holandais? I can never remember.

***

So, the Dems are stabbing Feingold in the back. Now there's a big surprise.

For those of you who've been living under a rock, Feingold rocked the Senate recently by introducing a resolution to censure the president over his FISA-violating domestic wiretaps. Now, the last time this happened was in 1834, when the Senate got sick of Andrew Jackson's bullshit and censured him "for assuming power not conferred by the Constitution," according to the U.S. Senate's official website.

Hmmmm... Assuming power... not conferred... by the Constitution...

Who does that sound like? If ever there was a place for a liberal rant, this is it.

But since it's almost too easy, I'll defer to Doc. He's better at rants, anyway. If none of you have seen his blog, leftoutstanding.blogspot,com, you're missing out (though not by much; the lazy bastard hasn't put up anything in the past two weeks).

Here's a good story about how Hill Dems are not just not supporting Feingold's resolution, they're actually MAD at him for it:

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Democrats_slash_Feingold_move_on_censure_0314.html

And some more details from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4801578.stm

It's really a lot of shit. In short, there's no one, aside from Feingold, who's willing to risk his ass to stand up to shrub. What a bunch of pussies. Seriously. There are any number of issues they could take the bushies to task over, this being one of the easier ones, and what do they do? They fucking betray their own base.

Way to go, guys. No wonder the Dems can't get anything going.

Knight Ridder no more

One of the best and most intrepid journalism institutions left in the country has been sold off and will be broken up, piece by piece.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4802304.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/media/13knight.web.html?ex=1299819600&en=e493479f625b963f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Knight Ridder often carried stories that even publishers like the New York Times and the Washington Post, not to mention CNN, were too timid to carry or too lazy to pursue. They were and are often found to be reporting stories on such topics as Iraq, Bush's wiretapping scandal, and Jack Abramoff that didn't run in much else of the mainstream media. Knight-Ridder has integrity and value, and it is a damn shame to watch them get chewed up and spit out.

Excuse me. I need some rocky road.

Suck on my chocolate salty... thetan?

This, friends, is truly tragic.

Isaac Hayes, the voice of South Park's beloved character Chef, is quitting the show.

Why? Because "a line has been crossed."

http://articles.news.aol.com/tv/article.adp?id=20060313163309990010

The real reason, though Hayes would probably never admit it, is that he's an avowed scientologist, and recently there was a South Park episode which made fun of L. Ron Hubbard's new-age pet project. Scientology, of course, objected strenuously to the episode and managed to get the UK to agree to never air it again. It was also censored in the US, but to a lesser extent.

This is a religion in which it is permitted by church doctrine to "trick, sue, or deceive" any non-believing detractors of the faith, in order to "destroy" critics, i.e. heretics. They have a long and colorful history of going to extreme lengths to quash bad PR. In the same vein, Hayes never once complained about the content of South Park episodes that ridiculed Judaism or Christianity, which was done practically in every episode of the show.

They also believe that 75 million years ago, a galactic overlord named Xenu brought life to the planet Earth by exiling a host of creatures from other planets because of overpopulation. Oh, and elite scientologists are telepathic, telekinetic, and immortal.

This reminds me of that religion founded by that French race car driver, y'know, the one where they believe cloning is the key to immortality and that Moses is waiting on Pluto for us to come say hi.

There's also a really good article about scientology in one of the more recent issues of Rolling Stone. It's the issue with Shaun White on the cover. If I had it with me, I'd include some passages from it, but it's an excellent piece, one of those that'll make you laugh and cry at the same time. These fuckers are just nuts.

That goes for you too, Cruise.

Dick! I told you, no more burritos!

Do Buy!

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what's going on here, but to me it seems like Dubai World's recent decision to bow out of the deal that Bush was getting hell for was actually rather mature.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/politics/10ports.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

After all the hoopla (which it seemed like the UAE didn't expect; if they had, they probably wouldn't have entered into the arrangement in the first place) and bad noise, the Arab company decided to just quietly step back. This is actually the first mature reaction of anyone involved. "Okay, relax, no problem, we'll just skip the thing," the UAE said to the U.S. congressional reaction, which could probably be characterized as "Fuck! Shit! No way! You can't have the key to our backdoor! You supported the fucking TALIBAN! AAAAAHHHHH!"

Ha. The end result, then, is that the UAE comes off as adult and business-minded, whereas the U.S. looks to the world like a bunch of whiny little racists. How pathetic we have become.

And the fallout of this is yet to be determined, but it may very well be that we'll suffer for this economically.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/business/worldbusiness/10chill.html?hp&ex=1142053200&en=f63240f56ab349b8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

This is not to suggest that shrub was right to defend the deal, or that it was a good idea to begin with. If you ask me, it was idiotic to begin with.

Republicans are bastards

More good evidence that Republicans can't handle criticism or dissension:

A "friend" of mine, let's call him Pepe, who works at a local political paper in Denver, was blackballed today by Republicans in the state legislature. The reason? He allegedly muttered the word "bastards" on his way out of a press conference held by the House Minority Leader.

Now, Pepe has no recollection of the incident, and says that to the best of his knowledge, he never said anything of the kind. Pepe is a man who works at a non-partisan paper. He's written fairly extensively about Republicans in Colorado. He's on a first name basis with a number of prominent Republican candidates. He's had interviews with Republicans, he has friends who are Republicans. I've read what he's written, and nowhere in any of the annals of his writings is there a SINGLE WORD that is biased or unfair to the right wing. NOTHING.

And yet Pepe's reputation was tarnished by several Republican staffers (who were all no doubt in cahoots) who called his editor to complain. Pepe, in turn, was forced to pit his word against theirs. He told his editor straight up that he had no memory of any such instance. He even offered to call the bastards and apologize. But the editor, to his credit, decided that the matter was closed.

Still, the pain of accusation lingers. And Pepe is of no further use to his paper where the state Republicans are concerned.

This, my comrades, is an outrage. Even had he said such a thing, who would be so childish as to go behind a man's back and complain to his superior without so much as an attempt to clear the matter up directly, and provide Pepe a chance to explain himself? Who would be so immature as to just wash the man out, without question or reference to his past or character? Who would simply defame a professional journalist so heinously? Who would even think that a man that mutters the word "bastards" to himself is even right in the head?

I'll tell you who. Republicans.

Bastards.

See you in Tehran

The neocons don't give a shit if our military is stretched too thin. They want to start bombing Iran.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1724473,00.html

One of the most important paragraphs in this entire article, though, is hidden halfway through:

"The US plans to present the security council with evidence that Iran is designing a crude nuclear bomb, like the one dropped on Nagasaki in 1945. The evidence will be in the form of blueprints that the US said were found on a laptop belonging to an Iranian nuclear engineer, and obtained by the CIA in 2004. However, any such presentation will bring back memories of a similar briefing in February 2003 in which Colin Powell, then US secretary of state, laid out evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which proved not to exist."

With the Iraq war and the fabricated pre-war intel, the bushies have annihilated any global credibility we might have had to use against Iran (which may indeed pose a credible threat). In other words, by lying to the world about the reasons for invading Iraq, the administration has effectively neutered us. We're probably not going to be ABLE to deal with any other real threats that arise, i.e. we are now less secure than we were before the Iraq war.

One of the other things this article touches on is John Bolton's unreasoning stubbornness about military action with regard to Iran. The fucker just won't listen to reason. Everyone mentioned in the article, the CIA, the British, they think Bolton's just shit nuts. But like with the invasion of Iraq, anyone in Bolton's circle just doesn't want to hear anything except what they want to hear. This is oh-so-reminiscent of the Richard Clark story about Bush ordering him to find a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida. I'm also reminded of Rummy's various claims of "we know where the WMD's are." Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, the lot of them, they just deny reality and speak as though their alternate reality, in which they can do anything they goddamn well please, is the only one that exists.

Mr. Bolton, there is a civil war going on in Iraq. Thousands and thousands of Muslims worldwide just spent the last few weeks rioting because of a few cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Relations with the UN are already strained as it is. Do you really think an airstrike is going to help matters at this point? Or should we attack North Korea to top of the axis of stupid military actions?

Fuckin' tard.

Foxy

O'Reilly's getting nuts. Just the mention of one of his critics/adversaries was enough to get him to threaten a caller with a "visit" from Fox security. Check it out:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603030010

A caller simply mentioned Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC (Olbermann has called O'Reilly the "worst person in the world"), and immediately, O'Reilly just flew off the handle and said that anyone calling his show and saying anything "untoward" or "obscene" would be "held accountable."

So O'Reilly thinks Fox has the power to just cart people off and shut them up. Huh. Fair and Balanced. Yup. That's Fox, all right.

And though it may seem redundant to keep harping on about the unbelievable incompetence and truthiness going on at Fox, here's another one that just boggles the mind:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603060002

Sean Hannity claimed the other night that everyone being held at Guantanamo is there for a damn good reason.

I'm sorry, Sean, I didn't realize you were privy to the most intimate details of military detention. Does the Pentagon have a direct line to you? Oops, guess so.

Okay, Sean, if they're all there for a good reason, then why should the administration bother denying them all council and opening themselves up to the host of civil suits they're now facing because of their Geneva Convention violations? And why has the U.S. government openly apologized for a number of mistakes and wrongly detained Muslims? And, and, and...

Jesus Christ, Sean. I mean, as a journalist, how can you unilaterally claim to know something that you can't possibly know for certain?

Cheese naan with a side of plutonium

This is how reporting should be.

http://drudgereport.com/flash2dg.htm

NBC White House correspondent David Gregory, who apologized last week for calling White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan a "jerk," called into MSNBC's IMUS Thursday morning -- apparently drunk!

Gregory is traveling with the president in India.

IMUS: Let's go to the White House correspondent David Gregory.

DAVID GREGORY: I'm OK.

IMUS: You can calls us later if you want.

GREGORY: [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter]

IMUS: Are you drunk?

GREGORY: [Laughter] [Laughter]

IMUS: Are you all right David?

GREGORY: India is a wonderful language and i've been learning, where's my little sheet here. I've been learning some new phrases to come home. But any way, that being one of them and i just think it's nice.

IMUS: It is.

GREGORY: Thank you.

IMUS: Having a lot of fun there. What's wrong with you?

GREGORY: I just think it's funny. [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter]

CHARLES: He's drunk.

IMUS: He is drunk!

CHARLES: Oh god.

IMUS: Why don't you compose yourself and get back to us. You want to?

GREGORY: [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter]

IMUS: What are you in some harrem?

IMUS: What? David?

GREGORY: No, i'm fine.

IMUS: We need a camera.

Oh my lord.

IMUS: Somebody's got --

GREGORY: i was -- remember that movie "Arthur" with Dudley Moore where he just thinks funny things and that's what was going on. If i could find this sheet, actually i just found it. Anyway.

IMUS: You have any news? [Laughter]

IMUS: we got to go, we'll get back to you.

GREGORY: I'm sorry.

IMUS: That's all right.

IMUS: Well, call us back will you?

GREGORY: Anyway. There are serious things going on here which i know you're very interested in.

IMUS: We don't have any time for them now. Quickly.

GREGORY: Big deal between India and the United States. The upshot is we're going to provide nuclear know-how and fuel to india which they need for their economy to grow. But since they never signed the nonproliferation treaty it's a real turn around and critics worry that it sends the wrong message to other parts of the world.

IMUS: Ok.

GREGORY: I would add, i would add that this is how you say thank you.

IMUS: What is it again?

[Speaking foreign language]

IMUS: Well that's great. But we have to go. It's always nice to hear from you.

GREGORY: I'll call you after dinner.

IMUS: NBC Chief White House Correspondant from New Delhi, India. Clearly drunk.

END

I'm inexplicably reminded of a certain friend of mine who's been traveling around Asia for the past few months.

Hugh, wherever you are, I really can't wait to work with you on a professional level. You dirty bastard.

Levees? What levees?

At the Washington Post's website, you can watch the newly attained video of a pre-Katrina emergency staff meeting between the White House and FEMA officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//video/2006/03/01/VI2006030101864.html

Then, just a few days after New Orleans flooded, Bush had the audacity to go on the air and say, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." He'd been told in that meeting, which is proved by the video, that the levees might fail.

Burn, baby, burn.

The same story is also on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/fema.tapes/index.html

and the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-katrina2mar02,0,5568671.story?coll=la-home-headlines

But for some reason, the New York Times failed to pick this one up. Instead, they ran a story about how "hours after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, federal and state officials did not know that the levees in New Orleans were failing and were cautiously congratulating one another on the government response," not about Bush lying through his teeth to a pissed-off country. A little behind the times, are we, gentlemen?

Not only this, but on September 2, only a few days after Katrina, the Times re-printed and did not even try to criticize Bush's original claim that nobody could have predicted the failure of the levees, when in fact "dozens of news organizations had reported on the possibility of a breach well in advance of the hurricane, and even the Times' lead editorial in the same day's newspaper flatly stated that '[d]isaster planners were well aware that New Orleans could be flooded by the combined effects of a hurricane and broken levees.'"

Check it out:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509030001

Good job, guys. Seriously, top-notch work.

To the Times editorial staff: you're just embarassing yourselves, guys. Try some humble pie, eh? And get with the program.

Air guitar

Zogby International released a new poll yesterday. Why, pray tell, does this poll deserve space on Extra Sauce, Please? Because it's a poll taken of the troops in Iraq.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Of all the findings this poll reports, I find this one the most telling: "Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11." NINETY PERCENT! Almost ALL of our troops think Saddam had something to do with 9/11! That's an incredibly high number of brainwashed soldiers, wouldn't you say? If almost our entire fighting force is unaware that Saddam HAD NO ROLE in 9/11 and/or NO CONNECTIONS TO AL-QAIDA, then one could say, factually and unequivocally, that our army is fighting for a falsehood.

This is news to me because I could accept the notion that soldiers in the Army, Navy, Marines, whatever, simply accepted that their orders stood as a matter of the chain of command and that it simply wasn't their place to question our commander in chief. That, at least to the best of my knowledge, is how the military works. It's how it has to work.

But if almost all of them think this, it has to be because of the military's propaganda machine and the bullshit that the Bushies have been piling on about Iraq since 2001. Does the military not allow their troops access to the Internet? To news sources? To CNN? To the New York Times? Even a limited amount of exposure to such mainstream sources would have dispelled such a notion as "Saddam planned 9/11" a long, long time ago.

I wonder what would happen if someone just started handing out copies of Chomsky's work to the grunts.

V is for Victory!

I already addressed this yesterday, but Knight Ridder helped put it in perspective:

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3556208

Bush's approval rating right now is so low that only NIXON had worse numbers! And that was SIX MONTHS BEFORE HE RESIGNED! HA!

Champagne and beluga for all.

***

On a more somber note, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte recently warned that a civil war in Iraq could lead to a destabilization of the entire Middle East.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/intelligence_congress;_ylt=At7mDLQjWRNYk3UaZAPlcrKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Not that it could get a whole helluva lot worse than it is, but hey, we're optimistic.

This is a big problem for the neocons. They don't want absolute chaos. They want controlled chaos. Big difference. Absolute chaos is harder to profit from. But I guess this is what happens when you just up and invade an already-unstable country with several hardline religious factions that have vicious unresolved differences that have caused bloodshed for more than a thousand years already.

Dire news, indeed. Hmmmm...

***

One more sign this year is going to be interesting:

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=11379813&src=rss/healthNews

With regard to South Dakota's tyrannical bullshit abortion bill:
"South Dakota's legislature passed the bill last week and Gov. Mike Rounds has said he is inclined to sign it."

The good news? Bush doesn't support it because it only allows for one instance in which abortion would be permissible. Nah, shrub says there should be at least two or three (but none of them have to do with freedom of choice)!

Yeah, the hell with it. Let's send women back to the sculleries where they belong. Praise Jesus!