Bathroom humor

Across the blogosphere, counterculture lovers everywhere, from Wonkette to the Huffington Post, have been delighting in CNN anchor Kyra Phillips' recent fuckup. Yesterday afternoon, amid a televised speech Shrub was giving in New Orleans, Phillips apparently forgot that her microphone was on and ran off to the bathroom with a colleague, many of whom believe to be Daryn Keagan.

Check out the video here.

Reuters reported that apparently nobody at CNN is getting canned over the episode, and that the channel declined to expound on the nature of the mishap.

Below the radar?

Incredibly, the news that former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage was the one to instigate Plamegate by leaking the infamous CIA agent's name to Richard "turkeyneck" Novak has created little to no stir nationally, and somehow, I just can't figure out why. It's almost like an anti-climax.

Of course, the New York Times has the story, written by Neil Lewis.

What surprises me is that Fitzgerald hasn't said anything about prosecuting the fucker. And it's also noteworthy that the Times story doesn't really ask this question, despite the fact that thousands upon thousands of dollars have been spent by the federal government to find this information out. It doesn't say if Fitzy commented on whether he knew that Armitage was Novak's source or not, it doesn't provide any solid details about the disclosure that caused such a ruckus, and of course, it doesn't speculate on just why the hell Libby felt the obligation to lie if the disclosure was "casual," as the article says.

All in all, it seems as though the Times and Lewis are either deliberately trying to downplay this thing or actually believe that it's not that important. Granted, it's not necessarily new news (as it acknowledges when the article says that the leaker's identity had previously been reported by Newsweek and the Washington Post), but it's still pretty fucking relevant. Especially given the fact that Novak wasn't the only journalist to find this info out. He was just the only one who was a big enough asshole to use it. By my recollection, there were about half a dozen other journalists to whom Plame's info was leaked.

The article also fails mention Cheney's direct order to his subordinates to get back at Wilson for his op-ed (which is what sparked this whole situation).

Mr. Lewis, I'm disappointed. This story should've been a much bigger headline that the Times gave it, and whether or not that was your fault, at least some of the blame lies at your doorstep.

Now get ON that shit!

South American Subversion

Most of us up here in gringo-land know little to nothing about Venezuelan Hugo Chavez, which is one of the reasons that articles like this one are both hugely important while also somewhat misleading.

The reason I find this topic particularly concerning is because Latin America is home to a great number of fantastic resources that we, traditionally, have either usurped directly or paid a great deal for. The problem here is that because the vast majority of Americans are ignorant of both Latin American history as well as current political climate, they're much more likely to take up the viewpoints that are purported in news organizations like the New York Times.

So when the Times reports, as it did in the article linked above, that the U.S. is pouring money into Venezuela for the purposes of promoting "democracy," people are fairly likely to believe it, because they don't have much in the way of alternative information. There's nothing necessarily to contrast it, so why question it?

For my part, the only reason I started looking a little bit deeper was because I wasn't quite sure why so many Latins are pissed off at Shrub. There are plenty of reasons for us to be mad at him that I could list off, but South Americans? So I read more about it, did a little research. And this is what gets to me: I found out a number of very relevant things that are never mentioned or only briefly touched on in articles like the one in the Times.

For one thing, there's a damn good reason that Chavez has had such success in both the polls and past elections in his country- he's poured tons and tons of money into socialistic programs for the Venezuelan people, which are all aimed at elevating the general living standard. Peasants who had never before visited a doctor received checkups and medicine, children who previously had no hope of attending school were enrolled in classes, and so on. Chavez has greatly increased the quality of life for the average Venezuelan, and that is precisely why he's so popular.

And one of the reasons the Bush administration considers him such a threat is because he's an empowering figure to Latinos, an icon that proves that Latin countries don't have to be economically subservient to the U.S., which most of them have been for centuries. If Chavez's influence continues to spread (and it is- he's solidified alliances with not only South American countries but also with China, Russia, Iran, and is working on deals with other nations), he'll constitute a serious threat to American economic dominance around the globe.

But that's never mentioned in articles like the one that ran in the Times. Instead, the author concentrates on the rhetoric flying back and forth between Chavez and the Shrub administration, and focuses on the question of whether or not the U.S. is trying to subvert Chavez.

The author even acknowledges that some of the U.S. money being spent is generally acceptable to Chavez supporters, but also notes that much of it is highly questionable, especially because aside from some vague euphamisms, the U.S. won't reveal where it's being sent to or exactly how it's being used.

Other projects remain so vague as to raise concern among Chavistas, such as a $47,459 grant for a ''democratic leadership campaign,'' $37,614 for citizen meetings to discuss a ''shared vision'' for society, or $56,124 to analyze Venezuela's new constitution of 1999. All went to unidentified recipients.

This is the kicker, though-

USAID said revealing more of their identities would be an ''unwarranted invasion of personal privacy'' that could endanger the recipients, saying some have been questioned for 12 hours at a time by the Venezuelan secret police.

Yeah. An "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Never mind that our own citizens are under surveillance by the shrubbies, in case someone from Saudi Arabia decides to make a phone call. As the author himself even notes,

''It's very hard to accept an innocent directing of those funds,'' said Bill Monning, a law professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California. ''We would scream bloody murder if any outside force were interfering in our internal political system.''

But the double standard obviously doesn't bother us, because we're only interested in democracy, right? Ha. That's a laugh. It's common knowledge that the CIA were the ones who backed the 2002 coup that displaced Chavez for a few days, before popular demand forced his would-be successor out of office and put Chavez back into power. And yet we have the audacity to claim that we're only interested in helping "the people."

If anyone reading this wants to send me to Caracas, please feel free. I'd love to send back some dispatches from the heart of socialist country.

One thing I don't know about Venezuela is what they drink. Do they make their own beer? Or do they import?

Fuck it. I'll take some huevos rancheros and a Sol. Extra Cholula.

Weapons of Mass Deception

If ever anyone tries to tell you that headlines don't matter, just recite this story.

According to a new Harris poll, fully half of Americans still believe that Saddam had WMD's when we invaded three years ago.

Says the Washington Post:

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

But no matter. Thanks to a heavy propaganda machine, which has been running since well before the invasion, the public (or at least half the public), bought the story hook, line, and sinker.

Which means that to 50 percent of the public, the question "Why are we in Iraq?" has already been answered, while the other half is still wondering when its counterpart is going to wake the fuck up.

The Post story continues:

Timing may explain some of the poll result. Two weeks before the survey, two Republican lawmakers, Pennsylvania's Sen. Rick Santorum and Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra, released an intelligence report in Washington saying 500 chemical munitions had been collected in Iraq since the 2003 invasion...

But the Pentagon and outside experts stressed that these abandoned shells, many found in ones and twos, were 15 years old or more, their chemical contents were degraded, and they were unusable as artillery ordnance. Since the 1990s, such "orphan" munitions, from among 160,000 made by Iraq and destroyed, have turned up on old battlefields and elsewhere in Iraq, ex-inspectors say. In other words, this was no surprise.

"These are not stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," said Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine who was a U.N. inspector in the 1990s. "They weren't deliberately withheld from inspectors by the Iraqis."

I'm sure Bush is grateful, Santorum, you slug.

I wonder what would happen if the public actually had an idea of how they were lied to, and for what end...

When Muppets attack

"The Americans are more action-oriented. They want to see the puppets beating each other up. British audiences are more intellectual. They like to see it sick and twisted, but in an intellectual way."

-Brian Henson, son of Muppet creator Jim Henson, on an adult Muppet show he puts on in Edinburgh every year.

One man, one vote?

I'm by no means an expert on the problem of vulnerable voting machines, but this is downright frightening. It's an instructional video on how to hack into a Diebold voting machine. The video claims that there's even instructions on the machine's motherboard as to where to change the number of votes tallied.

There have been numerous problems already documented with Diebold and other voting machine companies, especially in places like California and Ohio. Here's just one example. There are many, many more, however. A friend of mine made a serious study of the vulnerabilities of voting machines across the nation, and he was deeply concerned with what he found. What this portends for 2008, I don't even want to think about...

Instead, I'd like a beer and a brat. Extra onions.

Lamont-Qaida!

Man, and I thought Cheney was wacko before. Now, he's trying to link Lieberman's primary loss to terrorist threats and national security.

The VP said, "The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

You're reaching, dick.

But according to the New Republic, ironically, Dick might've had a point, even if he didn't realize it. Their estimate, backed up as it is by two different polls, is that the only ace Republicans are still holding is national security, i.e. terrorism, and if the Dems can't find a way around the overeducated "liberal elite" that runs the party and its primaries, then they'll flounder in 2008 just like they did in 2004.

Lamont's strongest support came from areas with high housing values, voters with college or graduate degrees, and parents with children in private schools. Lieberman's votes, in contrast, came from the cities, renters, blue-collar and service-sector workers, and those receiving Social Security benefits.

There is nothing wrong with upscale liberals or downscale renters; a vote is a vote. The problem for the Democrats is... In presidential campaigns, these voters have nominated a succession of losers, including George McGovern, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. The power of this wing of the party is easy to see in battles against Republican Supreme Court nominees, when Democratic opposition concentrates on such issues as abortion and sexual privacy to the virtual exclusion of questions of business versus labor, tort law, and the power of the state to regulate corporate activity.

For the Democrats, the influence of the upscale left has increased the party's vulnerability to charges that it is weak on threats to the nation's security and that its candidates are far from mainstream on social issues. Although the public has lost faith in President Bush and the GOP on a wide range of issues, the GOP continues to hold one trump card: terrorism. A May 10 New York Times/CBS News poll showed voters preferring Republicans to Democrats on terrorism by a margin of 40-35 percent. A more telling finding was in an Associated Press/Ipsos survey released July 14. It found that voters may not be thrilled with the way Republicans in Congress are dealing with terrorism (54 percent unfavorable, 43 favorable), but they are downright hostile to the Democrats' approach (62 percent negative, 33 positive).

Of course, the fact that the GOP is going to start hollering about security threats when elections near is nothing new. That's been going on since 9/11. What IS new is Lieberman's dismissal and how that may affect the path of the Democrats on a national scale. If the Democratic leadership takes a cue from Lieberman's loss and begins polarizing the capitol even more than it already is, then voters will ostensibly have to make a choice between the perceived party of national security, the GOP, and the party of personal liberty and (perhaps) economic improvement, the Dems.

Maybe Cheney's not as dumb as he looks.

One third of us are retards

About a week ago, I posted a story about how roughly a third of Americans believe that there was a conspiracy involved with 9/11, that either the government had had a hand in the carrying out of the attacks or deliberately did nothing to stop it. This is the perfect accompaniment.

In a new poll released by the Washington Post, 30 percent of Americans DON'T KNOW WHAT YEAR 9/11 HAPPENED.

I think it might be too much to ask if that's the same 30 percent that thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

Ha-ha

Most of us can generally agree that Paris Hilton is an absolute moron, but it's good to see that there are at least some people in this world who won't put up with her just because she's been on the cover of Playboy.

Funny, I usually don't like cops...

The inhumanity of the shrub

This, of course, is nothing new, but the president is taking new steps to dismantle the Geneva Convention protections. Now, he's asking Congress to pass legislation protecting U.S. officials from prosecution so they'll be free to use methods that infringe on the "personal dignity" of prisoners. Methods such as the ones made famous by the Abu Ghraib photos- "forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear"- would be perfectly legal and acceptable under the new legislation.

Now, of course, it's not. Such bullshit is illegal under the War Crimes Act of 1996, which states that any violation of the Geneva Conventions is cause for imprisonment.

"This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' " the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General.

This is a dangerous precedent to set, Mr. President. And arguably pretty stupid. But honestly, I don't have the energy or the focus right now to make the argument. I'm too pissed off.

***

On a slightly more upbeat note, CNN has found that 60% of the American public is now against the Iraq War. Sorry, Shrub. It couldn't last forever.

Lieber-who?

Though Lieberman may actually wind up winning his seat back in Connecticut despite losing the Democratic primary, in this humble blogger's opinion the most important result of the Connecticut race between Lieberman and Lamont is the message that's being sent to Democratic officials: Don't fuck around on the war. If you support it, you're at risk.

Of course, that's just my opinion, but I highly suspect that it's why top Dems like Sen. Harry Reid (among others) have immediately thrown their support behind Lamont- they don't want to be associated with Lieberman's failure and his perceived softness on the war and Bush's policies.

Really, though, I'm sure it's hard being a Democrat in Congress these days. If you're just a bit too easy on Bush and Iraq, you're a hawk. If you're too liberal, you're unAmerican (like Russ Feingold, right?) and soft on national security. This is a serious problem for Dems, because they've lost their working-class message, and somehow the idea of "fiscal responsibility" still sticks to the GOP, despite the amazing deficit Shrub has managed to create.

Anyway, here's to Lamont. If I lived in Connecticut, I'd vote for you, big guy. Stick to your guns and stick it to Shrub, and hopefully you'll help the Dems find their way back.

I could go for an onion bagel right now. Cream cheese.

Shut yo mouth

It must seem like Rupert Murdoch's in charge of the military in Baghdad. Al Jazeera reports that the rate of attacks on journalists in Iraq has remained steady in the past few months; the shocking part is who the attacks are coming from.

Several journalists in Kirkuk have accused American and Iraqi security forces of assaulting them and their crews as they tried to report on the worsening security situation in the northern city.

In at least six separate incidents since June, Iraqi reporters said they had been physically beaten, had their equipment confiscated and been falsely accused of "terrorism".

Senior US and Iraqi military officials admit such attacks have occurred and a series of investigations are underway.

Yup. You read correctly. The U.S. Army has been attacking journalists apparently right and left, in a kind of indiscriminate lashing-out born of the same mindset that has banned American media from showing any images of corpses or funeral caskets.

This, however, is the crowning glory:

[Army Spokesman Col. David Gray] insisted his troops respected press freedom and that there was no policy of interference. However Colonel Gray he said insurgents were trying to manipulate the media.

"We have to be honest that the enemy we are fighting is very skilful at using propaganda so there is a concern among police and soldiers that there may be people filming who are not accredited journalists, but in fact bad guys trying to get propaganda material," [said Col. Gray.]

His remarks came in an emergency meeting of journalists on July 23. Reporters had wanted to film the proceedings and make the situation public but US officials refused.

They fucking wouldn't even let reporters film their admission and explanation! The lockdown on the amount and type of information coming out of Iraq is mindboggling. I find it both hilarious and sickening that I only found this story on Al Jazeera, and that it's nowhere in sight on any American news websites. Which only begs the question, what else aren't we hearing about? What else don't we know?

Which is exactly why we need to fight to support the freedom of the press and the First Amendment.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

Crime and punishment

This story may be one that some of you have come across before, but it's one that I think is incredibly important.

It's a BBC update about five American soldiers who allegedly raped a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killed both her and three members of her family, including her 5-year-old younger sister. Currently there's an investigation going on, and at least one of the soldiers complicit in the murder/rape has testified against the others.

This is an example of the lawlessness and power that some of our soldiers feel in foreign countries that we're occupying.

From the BBC:

On the day of the attack the soldiers had been drinking Iraqi whisky mixed with an energy drink and practising golf strokes at a checkpoint south of Baghdad, Mr Barker's statement said.

One of the soldiers, Steven Green, said he "wanted to go to a house and kill some Iraqis," it alleged.

The four eventually went to a house about 200 metres (yards) away and put the parents and their five-year old daughter in the bedroom, but kept the older girl in the living room.

According to Mr Barker's statement, he and Mr Cortez took it in turns to rape or attempt to rape her.

Mr Barker heard shots from the bedroom, and Steven Green emerged with an AK-47 in his hand saying "They're all dead. I just killed them."


Steven Green, who has pleaded not guilty, is being tried separately

According to the testimony, Mr Green then also raped the girl and shot her dead.

Her body was doused in kerosene and set alight.

My gut reaction to this story is that these bastards should be handed over to an angry Iraqi mob for castration and hanging. But this story is deeper and more symbolic than a simple case of animal brutality. It's the kind of thing that hearkens back to the countless atrocities that happened in Vietnam, the type of incident that the military seems all too happy to sweep under the carpet and brush off with a quick "the matter is under investigation."

Also, the simple fact that this kind of act could occur is disturbing. I'm not certain as to the exact prerequisites of joining the military, but I'd guess that rapists and psychopaths would almost certainly not be allowed to enlist. I could be wrong, but I doubt it, if for no other reason than that such men would most likely be more of a liability than an asset. No, I'd guess that their actions are more likely to be the result of a desensitized environment, one in which morality and humanity are suspended in a kind of limbo, traded off for the trappings of "duty."

Not to start a thesis on the nature of modern warfare and the ridiculous notion of imposing morality into such a thing, the problem for the U.S. and for Iraq is that none of the lines are clear. This is illustrated and enhanced by what must be the extreme paranoia felt by U.S. troops, having to try and survive day to day in a world where the enemy looks exactly like the innocent. This is an enormous problem, one which I have no idea is being addressed (I'd be surprised if it is).

If anyone with any military background happens to read this, however, please leave a comment and help me to understand how such a thing can happen. Are men like these simply aberrations, criminals, mad dogs? Or are they, as most of us are to some extent, products of their environment? Or is it some kind of combination?

I'd very much like to know.

Methodology

President Shrub this morning implied that even if people in closed societies like many in the Middle East don't want Western-style democracy, it's our duty, as a "free" people, to impose such "freedom" on them-

"We don't impose liberty. Liberty is universal. And it's one of the interesting debates of the 21st century, I think, that some would be willing to say that it's OK for people not to live in a free society. It's not OK for us. If you love peace, in order to achieve peace, you must help people realize that which is universal. And that is freedom."

That last pair of sentences also sounds like it may have come from a Christian priest lecturing a group of missionaries preparing to head off into the Amazon or something.

Of course, this was all in the context of talking about the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, to which Condoleeza Rice has apparently helped broker some kind of half-ass peace deal whereby Lebanon gets the short end of the stick (Israel doesn't have to withdraw immediately). Shrub also managed to connect the current conflict to, drumroll please, 9/11!

He went back to some of his classic thumping points, talking about how terrorism is the enemy of democracy and whatnot, and then, in the middle of a press conference about ISRAEL and LEBANON, he says, "We don't expect every country to look like the United States, but we do want countries to accept some basic conditions for a vibrant society: human rights, human decency, the power of the people to determine the fate of their governments... And as a result of that policy, anger and resentment bubbled forth with an attack -- with a series of attacks, the most dramatic of which was on September the 11th."

Yeah! That's right! Israel's fighting the good fight, guys! They're helping us stamp out the terrorists who attacked us five years ago!

Wait a minute. Wasn't that (gasp!) ANOTHER terror group? Are they all working TOGETHER?

Well, shucks, they must be, right, Georgie?

Seriously, though, it was like he was name-dropping at the company Christmas party. Anyone who watched the press conference knew exactly where he was going at least a minute before he actually said it, especially once he started talking about democracy and freedom. It was like listening to his arguments for invading Iraq three, four years ago. He was saying all the same stuff, over and over again, invoking the holy name of "September the 11th" whenever he could.

And if the voting public in this country begins to associate Hezbollah with Al-Qaida and 9/11, well, that's perfect for the administration's support of Israel, because then their slaughter of innocent Lebanese doesn't look as bad, and won't affect as many polls, and there also won't be any kind of public outcry to stop the invasion.

Fuck this. I'm gonna go get a burrito.

What's your poison?

My favorite part is when she asks if time travel is real.

Seriously, though, this is too damn funny for me not to put it up here. Go ahead. Laugh your ass off.

Shabazz behind bars

This is just sad. Malcolm X's grandkid, Malcolm Shabazz, has been arrested for punching out the window of a doughnut shop.

According to Yahoo News,

"Shabazz was released from prison this year after serving time for a 2002 attempted robbery conviction.

He also was blamed for the death of his grandmother and X's widow, Betty Shabazz, in 1997 after he set fire to her apartment. He pleaded guilty to the juvenile equivalents of second-degree manslaughter and second-degree arson and spent time in various juvenile centers, escaping at least twice but being recaptured.

He is the son of Qubilah Shabazz, who was 4 when she saw her father, a civil rights leader, shot to death in a Harlem ballroom in 1965."

I don't know what went wrong with this kid's life, but the tragedy is simply that Malcolm X was one of the finest pillars of integrity and honor to ever grace the streets of New York. The irony of this story just makes me ill.

It's never too late to hope, however. Malcolm, Sr. was a criminal and a junkie before he found Islam in prison, and that was when he was much older than his grandson is now. You never know...

But they're all Muslims...

Former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, has put out a new book that contains some of the most articulate and scathing criticism of the Bush administration to date.

Said Galbraith in an interview,, "From the president and the vice president down through the neoconservatives at the Pentagon, there was a belief that Iraq was a blank slate on which the United States could impose its vision of a pluralistic democratic society. The arrogance came in the form of a belief that this could be accomplished with minimal effort and planning by the United States and that it was not important to know something about Iraq.”

He illustrates this point by recounting the first hilarious instance when shrub first learned about the rift between Sunnis and Shiites, something of which he was apparently previously unaware-

"A year after his 'Axis of Evil' speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, 'I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!'"

Hoo-hoo! Guess they're all the same to you, eh, Georgie? Buddhists all the same, too? What about Christians? They all Evangelicals, or is there some room for the Lutherans and Methodists? Hey, don't forget the Jews! Mel Gibson sure didn't!

Really, man, someone should take you out to Tikrit for a lesson in middle eastern culture. Eat some couscous, dodge a few land mines, watch a handful of childrens' soccer games explode, and then come on back and tell us what you've learned, you little chickenshit.

Whodunnit?

This is pretty damn interesting. A new Scripps poll of 1,010 people has found that roughly one out of three Americans believe that the federal government either had a direct hand in 9/11 or deliberately did nothing to stop it so that we could go to war in the Middle East.

From the Scripps Howard News Service:

"Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon...

University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster, author of the book Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, said the poll's findings reflect public anger over the Iraq war, realization that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and growing doubts of the veracity of the Bush administration.

The survey also found that people who regularly use the Internet but who do not regularly use so-called 'mainstream' media are significantly more likely to believe in Sept. 11 conspiracies.

The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a Sept. 11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect 'officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy' and the 38 percent who believe 'the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets.'"

What I'd like to know here is just how and when such theories began to arise. Motive is pretty easily established, but what evidence of such a vast and terrible plot exists? I mean, there must be some, at least, for roughly 30 percent of the American public to think that the government had a hand in killing several thousand of its own people. Doc? Want to chime in?

Whack-an-insurgent

Recently, potential 2008 presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) compared the insurgency in Iraq to a certain popular carnival game.

From CNN:

"Sectarian killings in Iraq have escalated since the February 22 bombing of the Shiite Askariya Mosque in Samarra. Nearly 6,000 people died in Iraq violence in May and June alone, according to a recent U.N. report.

McCain was also concerned that U.S. troops are moved from one trouble spot to another. 'What I worry about is -- we're playing a game of whack-a-mole.'"

Senator, let me be the first to say that your way with words is simply... appropriate.

But anyway, the article continues with a quick little summary of the Iraq situation-

"(McCain) cited Falluja and Ramadi as examples. 'Everybody knows we've got big problems in Ramadi, and I said, "Where are you going to get the troops?" "Well we're going to have to move them from Falluja."

'Now we're going to have to move troops into Baghdad from someplace else,' he said referring to the deployment of U.S. troops to the capital to support Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's crackdown on insurgents. 'It's very disturbing.'

Nearly 2,600 U.S. service members have been killed in the 3-year-old war."

With no end in sight. Hundreds of billions of dollars, 2,600 American lives, countless Iraqis dead. Thanks, Shrub. Thanks, Rummy. Thanks, Dick.

***

I was working on a story today, and I had to leave a message for a local pastor. When his voicemail picked up, I heard, "Thanks for calling. This is Pastor Jim ------. Has anyone told you today? Jesus loves you! Yes he does!"

That was the highlight of my day.

Here's to you, Jon Stewart

A moment of Zen.

Capitol Hill grows up

After three long years, members of Congress can finally order French fries again.

Incredibly, the alias "freedom fries" lasted this entire time, despite the fact that the French have ostensibly been proven correct (they believed the Iraq invasion was "premature").

Congratulations to House Republicans, for finally outgrowing childish tantrums. How about you take a look at the deficit now?

***

Hey, some good news! The creationist wackos in Kansas have taken a beating in the latest school board election! The New York Times has the story.

For those of you who haven't really been paying attention to the tide of battle between the Intelligent Design proponents and the advocates of traditional education and evolution, Kansas has been a focal point, with the state board of education mandating last year that public schools had to teach ID as a viable "theory" right up there next to evolution, which was also to be presented as only a "theory," and not as scientific fact.

Now, however, the state school board has swung back in favor of more intelligent-pun intended- administrators, politicians who don't favor creationism or bible-thumping in public schools.

The effects, fortunately, may be wide-ranging. From CNN:

"Critics of Kansas' science standards worried that if conservatives retained the board's majority, it would lead to attempts in other states to copy the Kansas standards.

'There are people around the country who would like to see the Kansas standards in their own states,' said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which supports the teaching of evolution."

For a point of reference, creationists believe that the Earth was created a mere 10,000 years ago. A new creationist museum in Kentucky even depicts Adam and Eve walking around in the same jungle as dinosaurs.

Here's a question, though- Creationists believe that life is simply too complex to have arisen by chance. Still, even if we were designed, how do we know who designed us? The Bible? Is that the only authority?

Shit. I've answered my own question. Stupid of me to expect any kind of evidence or a logical answer, I suppose.

Enough already

Okay, this is getting goddamn ridiculous. According to the BBC, Israel has already killed roughly 750 Lebanese civilians, while only 55 Israelis have been killed. And yet Israel is showing absolutely no signs of cutting off their invasion or cutting off their air strikes.

Not only that, but apparently now Syria is preparing to get involved. From Reuters:

"Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told the Syrian military on Monday to raise its readiness, pledging not to abandon support for Lebanese resistance against Israel."

Can we say "absolute chaos"?

Honestly, though, I've been reading a goodly bit of material every day, trying to sort out where blame lies for what, and I'm quite befuddled. Israel is definitely guilty of overreacting, but it's hard to blame them for it, seeing as how they're literally surrounded on all sides by hostile forces, from Iran all the way to Hamas. But the Arab population also has legitimate grievances against the Jewish state, such as the illegal occupation of Palestine. And now, the Arab world can simply point to this new incursion and say, look at this bullshit! The Jews are killing us by the fucking hundreds, and the world isn't doing shit about it! Compound that with the fiasco in Iraq, and it's not hard to see how and why the Arabs are pissed off both at Israel and the U.S.

I just can't help thinking that this is all a big waste of energy. Please, feel free to chime in, one and all.