Extra Sauce, Please

Put your happy face on!

2007-03-15T10:14:00.000-06:00

Because according to the New York Times, Latin Americans love President Bush!

It's obvious! Just look at the picture they have plastered all over their web site of him smiling and shaking some kind of Brazilian tambourine with a pair of enthusiastic natives! They LOVE him! You can't deny it!

Especially because the Times story tells endearing anecdotes like the one about the time Brazilian President Lula da Silva referred to the G-spot in a press conference, to the amusement of his people and the embarassment of ours! Hilarious!

But, oops, they forgot to mention the thousands of unhappy Latins who weren't interested in anything Bush was selling. In Mexico, in Brazil, in Guatemala, in fact all over the damn place South of the U.S. border there were organized and sometimes disorganized protests, ranging from peaceful to riotous. But that don't bother Shrub! No way! 'Cause he LOVES Latin America!

The one thing I didn't see anywhere in the past month was an article that asked the question, "Why are all these thousands of people so incredibly pissed off?"

Hmmmmm...

Here and there

2007-03-07T12:46:00.000-07:00

I don't have much time today, but here are a few gems I just couldn't leave untouched:

Three cheers for Vermont, where 36 towns have voted to impeach Bush and Cheney for violating the Constitution.

The U.S. has come in third in a recent BBC poll of countries that have the most negative influence in the world. The first two are Israel and Iran, in that order. Good company, eh?

And lastly but most interestingly, South Korea is drawing up legislation to prevent humans from abusing robots. And vice versa.

Will Smith, eat your heart out.

Par-TAY!

2007-03-06T11:42:00.000-07:00

I'm gonna get so fucked up tonight. They'll find me howling in the streets, yelling, "EAT THAT, YOU HALLIBURTON-LOVING MOTHERFUCKERS! HAHAHAHAHA!"

Libby was found guilty today, and the bitch is going to be grabbing his ankles in a federal penitentiary for years to come.

Hey Scooter. Watch out for your cornhole, buddy.

With a little help from my friends

2007-03-05T09:55:00.000-07:00

There have been a couple of interesting turns lately in the fight over what to do about Iran. First of all, a new report by a British expert suggests that attacking Iran may actually motivate it to develop a handful of low-level nuclear weapons and then try and use them against us or our allies.

From the BBC:

In his report, Frank Barnaby argues that an attack might not destroy all of the nuclear programme. In its wake, it would be much more feasible for Tehran's political leadership to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and launch a crash programme, devoting maximum resources to developing one or two bombs as quickly as possible.

This, it is argued, means that a nuclear-armed Iran might end up occurring sooner rather than later as a result of military intervention.

You hear that, shit-for-brains? And guess what else? That analysis MAKES SENSE. It would be only logical for Ahmadinejad to try and boost whatever programs he thought would stop U.S. bombing raids, and if a counter attack or even the threat of a counter attack, especially a nuclear one, was feasible, of course he'd fucking do it!

But hopefully it won't come to that. My new hero, Senator Jim Webb, has introduced legislation that would prohibit funding for an attack on Iran without Congress's express approval. Good for him. The only problem with it is that he's a freshman legislator. Where the hell are all the veterans on this? Come on, Reid! What the fuck?

Since when has the president listened to Jim Webb, right? Definitely not since Webb said he wanted to kick the crap out of Shrub. And right now, all signs are pointing to war. Or at least airstrikes.

In any case, Shrub is still giving the go-ahead for us to build a bunch of new nukes. Yay. It's like the 80's again...

An inconvenient fuckup

2007-03-05T09:47:00.000-07:00

Al, what the hell were you thinking? You've been around the block, man! Did you really think nobody was going to find out about your enormous electricity bill?

I know you're not Ghandi, but for chrissake, man, the conservatives are right on this one. You can't accept a goddamn Academy Award for a film that tells people to reduce their CO2 emissions and then run up a ridiculous utility bill like that. Your credibility just got shot, man. And Al, I love you, I loved the movie, and I hope you keep it up, but dammit, you have to change your lifestyle if you ever hope to get anyone else to follow suit.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Why I hate Ann Coulter

2007-02-28T14:59:00.000-07:00

I hate Ann Coulter so much, it's like- flames. Flames, on the side of my face... heaving breaths...

The supreme psycho-bitch of the right wing's most recent rant involves the accusation that liberals and environmentalists want humanity to die.

Yes, Ann, that's it. You've revealed our secret motive. We want to drive our own species into extinction.

Ann, are you fucking retarded?

Probably. Blinded with hate and stupidity.

The great thing for us here in Colorado is that we have our own local versions of Coulter and Bill O'Reilly on News Radio KOA, which hosts a number of delusional propaganda-spewing bullshit artists, like Gunny Bob Newman and Mike Rosen, both of whom engage quite liberally (pun intended) in the perpetuation of essentially racist statements against anyone remotely socialist or Democratic.

I love to debate, and I love talking about politics, but what I can't fucking STAND is people who won't give anyone else the time to speak their mind without cutting them off. It makes me want to throw things.

I feel you, Sean Penn. I feel you.

Can't you hear the clicking?

2007-02-28T14:02:00.001-07:00

They're listening! They can hear everything! At least, according to Fox News, they can.

Fucking weird. I'm not sure what to make of this, but Fox says the Fibbies can remotely activate anyone's cell phone microphone and listen to conversations that way, so in effect, nobody's safe from Big Brother.

Unless you toss your cell phone.

But why would Rupert Murdoch want you to do that? How strange...

Hillary versus Giuliani?

2007-02-28T12:47:00.000-07:00

It's still incredibly fucking early in the presidential races, but the numbers are already giving us a preview of 2008. If they hold up (which they may), then it'll be Clinton and Giuliani, the two New York Giants, going head to head for the White House. If that does happen, I'm not sure Clinton will be able to beat Giuliani, particularly because he's so moderate and because the Krazy Khristians fucking hate Hillary.

Still, says the Washington Post, Obama's made incredible strides:

On the January weekend when she announced her candidacy, Clinton led the Democratic field with 41 percent. Obama was second at 17 percent, Edwards was third at 11 percent and former vice president Al Gore, who has said he has no plans to run, was fourth at 10 percent.

The latest poll put Clinton at 36 percent, Obama at 24 percent, Gore at 14 percent and Edwards at 12 percent. None of the other Democrats running received more than 3 percent. With Gore removed from the field, Clinton would gain ground on Obama, leading the Illinois senator 43 percent to 27 percent.

And since Gore ain't runnin', it's more like 43-27, but Obama's shown he can make up ground, though, so I think the real battle is going to be for the Democratic nomination, since McCain isn't doing anything but alienating moderates and Christian conservatives alike.

I'm already willing to bet that Giuliani's going to be our next president, which, honestly, ain't that bad. He'll certainly be a mountain of improvement over our little retarded Shrub.

Cautiously optimistic

2007-02-27T11:47:00.000-07:00

I'm honestly not sure what to make of this story, given Shrub's disdain for the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report last year, but I'm willing to allow a flicker of hope to endure in my stomach.

From the New York Times:

Plans for talks between Iraq and its neighbors, including Iran and Syria, to find ways to curb the nation’s sectarian violence is now expected to involve the United States and Britain, Iraq’s foreign minister and American officials said today.

Taking part in such talks would represent a shift for the United States. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended in December that Washington hold direct talks with Syria and Iran to help stem the violence in Iraq, but the Bush administration was cool to the idea.

The United States has accused Iran of fomenting violence in Iraq and of supplying weapons that have been used in Iraq to kill American troops. American officials have also accused Syria of letting foreign fighters cross its border with Iraq...

The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshiar Zebari, said the regional meeting on Iraq would include Iraq; its six neighbors; the United States, Britain and the three other members of the United Nations Security Council; the members of the Arab League, and The Organization of Islamic Conference.

Because of security concerns, he said, the delegates would be officials at the rank of deputy minister and below rather than the foreign ministers themselves. But he said he expected the meeting to lead to others.

The American embassy in Baghdad confirmed the participation of American officials in the talks.

Seriously, I'm not sure if this is a sign that Shrub's people are willing to admit that Syrians and Iranians might be better equipped to deal with the situation in Iraq than they are, or perhaps they're just playing politics, but I'm encouraged by this. Whatever the administration's intentions, it seems like only good can come of this.

Thoughts, anyone?

Ze plans, mein fuhrer!

2007-02-26T15:55:00.000-07:00

It's very simple, and very insane. Shrub and his people are going to bomb Iran.

Apparently, writes the New Yorker's Sy Hersh, the reason is just as elemental as Shrub thinks the solution is: our illustrious president really believes that Iran itself would be better off without Ahmadinejad, who he thinks is behind the push for Iranian nuclear power. So in order to bring that about, the Pentagon has started putting together a last-minute bombing schematic, an outline of targets, strike capabilities, and strategic Q&A's for der fuhrer, for when things come to a head.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

That's not all. The bushies don't just want to bomb Iran. They want to nuke the fuck out of it.

The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”...

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.”

The worst part, though, is that the Dems don't seem to give a shit.

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

I may be beating a dead horse on this one, but I just can't get around the fact that our military is stretched practically to the breaking point, we're already involved in two ground wars that have no end in sight, and perhaps most importantly, Iran has fairly solid ties to both Russia and China, who are both supplied with Iranian oil. Taking perceived unilateral action and bombing Iranian nuclear sites would be, at best, incredibly fucking stupid.

But, of course, that's never stopped our criminal-in-chief before.

Asshole.

Linda Hamilton's gonna go ape

2007-02-23T12:25:00.000-07:00

Looks like artificial intelligence has progressed far beyond what many people thought possible. Incredibly, a batch of European scientists are beginning to design robots that emulate people and can learn behavior.

From the BBC:

The project involves building a series of robots that can take sensory input from the humans they are interacting with and then adapt their behaviour accordingly...

The robots will learn from the feedback they receive from humans.

The robots will get the feedback from simple vision cameras, audio, contact sensors, and sensors that can work out the distance between the machine and the humans.

"One of the things we are going to use to detect expressions in faces and patterns in motion is a (artificial) neural network."

Artificial neural networks are being used because they are very useful for adapting to changing inputs - in this case detecting patterns in behaviour, voice, movement etc.

Within a decade, the machines will take over and war will begin. Just wait. You'll see. Then you'll be sorry.

Dems? With spines? No way!

2007-02-23T12:03:00.000-07:00

Apparently tired of passing non-binding resolutions, now Senate and House Democrats are getting prepped for the real fight over Iraq. Particularly in the Senate, where legislation is being prepared that would "effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw," according to CNN.

The Senate, however, couldn't even get a non-binding resolution to pass, and with Joe Lieberman about to become a Republican because of his pro-war stance, chances are dicey at best that the Dems will be able to get anything solid passed.

Meanwhile, the Big Dick has decided he's taking matters into his own hands as far as Iran. He's not going to wait and see what the Decider wants, oh no! He's going to throttle Ahmadinejad with his bare hands, that dirty towel-headed camelfucker!

Whatever the U.S. winds up doing, though, it's going to have to do without its old whipping boy, Tony Blair:

The London Times reported earlier Friday that senior British government officials fear Bush will launch an attack on Iran before his final term in office ends in a little less than two years.

They fear that Bush will seek to "settle the Iranian question through military means," the daily reported, quoting unidentified senior British government sources.

"He (Bush) will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor," one of the sources told The Times.

A day earlier British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted on BBC Radio that there is "no planning" under way for an attack on Iran, adding that he knew of "nobody" in Washington who was planning an invasion either.

"You can't absolutely predict every set of circumstances that comes about but sitting here now talking to you, I can tell you Iran is not Iraq," Blair said.

I guess the Brits have finally wised up, since their royal family is now at risk thanks to shrub's warmongering. Congrats to the U.K.

Kentucky Fried Rats

2007-02-23T12:02:00.000-07:00

This is rather stomach-turning. A very good reason to pass on fast food in New York City, though.

Chimps making weapons, plotting worldwide coup of humanity

2007-02-22T15:29:00.000-07:00

The monkeys are making spears. And killing babies.
From the Washington Post:

Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the hand-crafted tools to hunt small mammals -- the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.

The multi-step spear-making practice, documented by researchers in Senegal who spent years gaining the chimpanzees' trust, adds credence to the idea that human forebears fashioned similar tools millions of years ago.

No way!

It gets better, though:

Using their hands and teeth, the chimpanzees were repeatedly seen tearing the side branches off long straight sticks, peeling back the bark and sharpening one end, the researchers report in today's on-line issue of the journal Current Biology. Then, grasping the weapon in a "power grip," they jabbed into tree-branch hollows where bush babies -- small monkey-like mammals -- sleep during the day.

After stabbing their prey repeatedly, they removed the injured or dead animal and ate it.

"It was really alarming how forceful it was," said lead researcher Jill D. Pruetz of Iowa State University in Ames, adding that it reminded her of the murderous shower scene in the Alfred Hitchcock movie "Psycho." "It was kind of scary."

Next thing you know, they're going to mutate and start calling themselves things like "Donatello" and "Splinter."

Who you gonna bomb?

2007-02-22T14:41:00.000-07:00

It looks like Ahmadinejad is as dumb as Shrub. Instead of chilling out and giving the neocon warhawks less and less reason to attack, the Iranian presidente is ramping up his country's nuke program.

Like a bull in a china shop, the NY Times writes, Ahmadinejad is stubbornly insisting that nuclear power is his country's right and he's going to keep doing whatever the hell he wants because the United States is an immoral foreign power with no rightful authority over the Middle East. Of course, this is nothing new. He's been singing the same Arabic version of Bush's "I'm the decider" for years now.

What is new, though, is that for reasons some of us can't quite fathom, Shrub has apparently decided we need to fuck up Iran, too. And we probably will.

The Times:

Since the last report by the atomic agency, President Bush has ordered two aircraft-carrier groups to patrol the waters off Iran, an unsubtle reminder that if diplomacy fails, Mr. Bush could rapidly order air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The BBC:

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres...

diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say...

For right now, Shrub's got nothing. But that's likely to change, especially since U.S. officials have been trying to convince everyone that Iran's been channeling roadside bombs and other weapons into Iraq for use against American soldiers. And half the fucking Bush Administration isn't even keeping their designs a secret.

From Newsweek:

At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.

The magazine concludes:

With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident's spiraling into a crisis are higher than they've been in years.

And U.S. forces are already playing cat-and-mouse with the Iranians, as the Newsweek article illustrates. They're looking for any excuse they can to brawl, and often creating situations where none previously existed, simply because... well, I don't know. I can't say for sure why Shrub or the U.S. forces would want to push Iran around, other than the fact that Ahmadinejad, like lil' Kim and Hugo, has been stepping on Shrub's toes for a long time and that he's tired of not getting his props.

Let's see... it took Shrub a year and a half after 9/11 to invade Iraq, but he had a lot more clout back then. This time, he'll have to sufficiently manipulate Ahmadinejad's scornful disrespect of the U.N. to get any backing for bombing runs, but my guess is they'll begin before the year is out.

Any wagers?

Mmmmmm, hummus...

Just say yes

2007-01-27T14:28:00.000-07:00

The Reagans have an important message for you.

REALLY happy feet

2006-12-20T16:49:00.000-07:00

This one was too much for me. I haven't seen the movie, but apparently Jimmy Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, and a buddy of his named Michael Medved, a conservative columnist, have been telling everyone they can that the animated Penguin movie "Happy Feet" is pro-gay and contains all sorts of commentary on the homosexual political situation in America.

From Media Matters:

DOBSON: There is a movie that's out now, called Happy Feet. It's about penguins. It's obviously designed to pull children in and yet, you don't like it. I've read some of the things you've said about it. I haven't seen it and don't plan to see it but from what I've heard, I don't like it either. Explain why.

MEDVED: Because it's depressing and it's dark.

[...]

MEDVED: And then there's this whole subtext, as there so often is, about homosexuality. Not that the penguins are gay -- they're not gay -- but the one penguin hero doesn't fit in and the religious authorities -- the so-called religious right in the penguin world -- are very judgmental. They say, "You are not a penguin. You're not a real penguin." And then he makes this heartfelt plea, he says, "Dad, you have to accept me as I am. I can't change." And --

DOBSON: Are they getting at the idea that homosexuality is genetic? Is that what the subtle implication is?

MEDVED: Well, how many times do we hear that in the media? That it's not a matter of choice, it's not a matter of change, and my problem with that -- as I understand, that there are some people, who -- for whom that may be true, but they're other people -- and you and I know them -- who have changed their lives and have turned around their lives.

This reminds me of the Southern preacher who kept telling everyone to boycott the "Lion King" because it was Satanic.

Stupid bastards.

Anyway, I leave it to you, dear readers: is "Happy Feet" really just homo-leftist propaganda? Should all the copies be burned as heretical material? Or is it just another stupid Disney movie about penguins trying to capitalize on the success of a documentary called "March of the Penguins"?

A $468,900,000,000.00 cashier's check

2006-12-20T16:21:00.000-07:00

That's the amount the U.S. Pentago is expecting for its 2008 fiscal budget. Yeah, that's right. $468 billion. As some of you may be aware already, that's more dough than our next twenty competitors combined spend. The next biggest spender is China, which the Department of Defense guessed in 2005 spent $90 billion. That figure, however, is just that- a guess. China claims the number is $30 billion. Still, 90 is a far cry from 468.

What kills me is pondering what could be done in the U.S. alone with just half, even a quarter, of that money. Instead of mass-producing weapons and bombs, we could bolster our economy, fund independent business loans, fix the educational system, end hunger, fund medical research, incentivize alternative energy, and more. Hell, the question isn't what we could do with $200 billion, the question is what couldn't we do.

Which begs the question, why the fuck do we allow our politicians to spend as much as they do on defense? Why don't we demand they alter their goddamn priorities?

It probably has something to do with the Pentagon's being obsessed with their "guns."

Et tu, Johnson?

2006-12-15T11:04:00.000-07:00

Harry Reid visiting Tim Johnson in his hospital bedroom? Reminds me of that scene behind the waterfall in Last of the Mohicans when Daniel Day-Lewis throttles Madeline Stowe and yells, "You just stay alive! No matter what happens, no matter what occurs, you stay alive!"

Ha. Ha, ha. Hm. Poor guy. Shucks, all that rests on his shoulders is control of the senate. Not too big a deal, eh?

In fact, it's almost as funny as a video clip of American soldiers who've taught Iraqi kids to chant, "Fuck Iraq! Fuck Iraq!"

But not quite as funny as the about-face Shrub has pulled on gay parents. The fuckstick-in-chief just said the other day that he believes Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of his vice president, will be a "fine mom." Nice call, Georgie.

Obama's mama

2006-12-15T10:45:00.000-07:00

No, not really. Actually this post is nothing more than a gratuitous snicker at Mick Jagger.

The story is a few days old, but when Obama visited New Hampshire earlier this week, Governor John Lynch had this gem to offer about the Illinois Senator: "We originally scheduled the Rolling Stones, but we canceled them when we figured out that Senator Obama would sell more tickets."

Oooooooh, sorry Mick, Keith. You guys just aren't as appealing as a POLITICIAN! Shit! That's gotta hurt.

Though it stings like the dickens, it's probably not going to go away any time soon. Obama's looking more and more like he's going to jump into the ring next year. In a recent interview with the Chicago Tribune, he called himself a "viable candidate" and said he would announce in January whether or not he'll run for president. My money's on yes.

News flash!

2006-12-15T10:37:00.000-07:00

Somehow, the AP has discovered that the universal appeal of the Hooters restaurant chain isn't its tasty wings. Rather, they find, it's the tits! Surprise, surprise!

Could the AP possibly be spending its time on anything less worthwhile? Perhaps an investigation into why my ass itches so much?

The most retarded part of this story is that it's been picked up by no less than 83 times. Re-tard-ed.

Just 29 left to go

2006-12-08T13:22:00.000-07:00

Lo and behold, a new poll from the AP has found that a whopping 71 percent of the American public now disapproves of how Shrub has handled Iraq! Maybe you better rethink that out-of-hand rejection of the Iraq Study Group's suggestion that you start pulling troops out and begin a dialogue with Syria and Iran, eh? Hm? How about it, Georgie? I'm not sure how long that last 29 percent can hang on, and I'm not sure you really want to go down in history as the president with the lowest approval rating of all time, do you?

Schmuck.

Go, piggy, go!

2006-12-08T13:09:00.000-07:00

Here's another good reason not to move to Texas. It looks like Shrub's home state is still having trouble overcoming its bigotry. The latest example is a batch of yokel rednecks in a town called Katy, outside of Houston. These poor dumb bastards are all up in arms because a Muslim group purchased some land and (gasp!) wants to build a mosque!

What were they thinking?

From the AP:

Many neighborhood residents claim they have nothing against Muslims and are more concerned about property values, drainage and traffic.

But one resident has set up an anti-Islamic website with an odometer-like counter that keeps track of terrorist attacks since Sept. 11. A committee has formed to buy another property and offer to trade it for the Muslims' land. And next-door neighbor Craig Baker has threatened to race pigs on the edge of the property on the Muslim holy day. Muslims consider pigs unclean and do not eat pork.

Besides keeping track of the running total of post-Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Web site provides home addresses of some association members and advises people who see anything suspicious to contact the FBI. Many people have sent anti-Islamic e-mails to the site.

Cynthia Blackman wrote Radack that the center was a security risk: "Would you and your family safely and comfortably live next to this 11-acre Muslim mosque and facilities?"

The resident who's promised to start pig races, one Craig Baker, has apparently realized that his anger over what he thought was a Muslim attempt to take his land was erroneous, but has concluded that it's too late to pull back now, because "I would be like a total idiot if I didn't. I'd be the laughingstock now because I've gone too far."

I guess the bill of rights doesn't apply in shrub-country. Y'know, freedom of religion and all that jazz?

Up yours, Kofi Annan

2006-12-07T15:58:00.000-07:00

This is actually a little old (about two months, to be exact), but since it flew pretty much under the radar, I figured it's still worth putting up. Here it is, kiddies, and don't forget, you heard it here last: Bush is prepping a new Guantanamo in Paraguay.

Yep, you read correctly. Wonkette put together a pretty damn good summary of what's going on, so I won't repeat it. Check it out, though. Scary, scary shit, what these fuckers are capable of.

God, I wish I was in the White House Press Corps so I could pester Shrub about this.

How Foxy

2006-12-07T15:25:00.000-07:00

Oh, Rupert, you silly little bitch. I must congratulate you on your latest bit: Surrender Monkeys!

Yes, Rupert, we all are well aware of how you feel about anyone who suggests that a wise course of action may be finding a way OUT of Iraq, but still, to parody James Baker III and Lee Hamilton as monkeys is such fantastically elevated satire that I've been left speechless. Clearly, I see your point now. These pair of missing-link chimps are obviously trying to weaken our national defense by suggesting that what we're doing in Iraq isn't working! The pansies!

Never mind that the group's combined pedigree is enough to drive a dilettante into conniptons. Forget about the fact that Baker was the Secretary of State under Shrub's fucking FATHER. To hell with the death toll and ongoing violence in Iraq spawned by a war started by a petulant commander-in-chief who had no idea what kind of game he was playing.

But enough of my ranting. I know, it's quite tiring, and very little fun to read. Onward, then.

It apparently won't matter much anyway that Baker and other conservatives have begun calling for a new approach to Iraq, or that it's widely believed that the brand-spankin'-new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, favors a course of action similar to what Baker's Iraq Study Group recommended: slowly withdrawing troops and actively engaging Iran and Syria in the rebuilding process. In fact, that perception is what drew two Republican votes from Gates' confirmation (though it passed easily enough without them).

But screw it all, says Shrub. He's not that interested in changing course, after all. Didn't we hear him say that enough times before the election? With two years to go, there's no good reason he'd pull an about-face now, except perhaps sanity.

And I wouldn't expect too much on that front.

So here's a bit of fun for everyone. Mary Cheney, that pockmark on the otherwise-perfect neoconservative image of our esteemed vice president, is pregnant! Woohoohoo! The lesbian neocon is breeding!

And nobody even knows how...

I'm reminded of Rosemary's Baby. Brrrrr.

Meanwhile, Canada once again has proved how it is far more civilized than the United States of Assholes.

Goddamn hippies.

2006-11-21T16:55:00.000-07:00

According to one Kentucky newspaper, these crafty old bastards are still trying to subvert all that is good and pure in this country.

As columnist Jenean Mcbrearty points out, those silly hippies just don't have the correct answers to questions like these:

Whose life is more important: the 12-year-old Iraqi firing an Uzi or a soldier from Kentucky?

Which is more sacred: a mosque hiding a weapons cache or a plane of tourists?

You tell those dirty, recalcitrant, socialist sodomites, Jenean! You tell 'em! Yeah!

Demonstrations, marches and sign-carrying don't accomplish much these days, but they are a lot more fun and allow the fiction of activist moral superiority to persist.

Woohoo! Yeah! Bitch!

Lefty loonies deny that terrorists have declared war on America, while insisting that we can win the war through negotiation. They seem to believe the terrorists will spare them because they are nice.

Ha, ha! Stupid asshole hippies! That's what you get for sharing your brownies!

It's crucial that we come to terms with war questions because we will have war with Iran and North Korea. It will come down to their children or ours, their soldiers or ours, their countries or ours.

Uh-oh. Really? Shit.

Luckily, no one lives forever. Luckily, there is Generation Jones to take up their slack. America is too great to go down without a fight.

Oh, okay. Whew. Thank Christ we've got the marines. Hoo-ah!

What's your number?

2006-11-20T15:46:00.000-07:00

Here we have the moronic story of a well-intentioned House Democrat who doesn't quite realize the game he's playing. Charlie Rangel, a New York Dem, is trying again to get Congress to reinstate the draft. Fucking moron.

But why, Charlie? Why would you want us to do such a thing?

Apparently, Charlie "sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars."

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families...

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

I don't think anyone on Capitol Hill is taking Charlie seriously, but just for a second, let's entertain a thought of what would happen if his bill passed and then was somehow signed into law by a deliriously crazy President Shrub. For one thing, the Democrats would lose ground on every other single issue they try to advance, most of the incumbents would be voted out of office, jails would fill to the seams with conscientious objectors, and college kids would rise up against the establishment again. We'd have more Kent State riots! We'd have enormous marches! We'd have social upheaval, a resurgence in communes, and the population of Canada would double within a year!

And then, after all the hullabaloo died down, the draft would again be repealed by a new batch of Congressmen in 2008 after they were voted in on anti-draft platforms.

In short, Charlie, that's a stupid idea. A better one would be for us to elect intelligent leaders who don't want to get involved in stupid wars, and for our Congressmen to not follow stupid leaders like sheep simply because they have a ton of political capital stemming from horrible incidents like when terrorists take over a few 747s and fly them into skyscrapers.

Whatchathink, Charlie? How about we impeach the fucker?

Back to the future

2006-11-20T15:38:00.000-07:00

Whew. The elections are over, thank christ, and the Dems have taken back both houses of Congress in a miraculous sweep, but it ain't over. Now we have the 2008 Presidential election to look forward to, and to be honest, I'm not too optimistic. Look at who we've got: Hillary, Barack, Edwards, Biden, Kerry, Gore, Clark, Vilsack, and Bayh. But who's leading the pack?

You guessed it. The woman the right loves to hate: U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What I'm wondering is can she win? Or is she, like Bush, too much of a polarizing figure? I can't tell. I'd love to see her in the White House, and I think she'd probably be good for the country (better, at least, than shrub), but I'm not sure she can get elected. And if she can't, then the trouble is that we'll have another four years of the GOP in control. True, a Giuliani or a McCain administration would look very different than a Hillary administration, but I'm still not crazy about the idea. And it might be even worse if someone crazier wins the GOP nom.

But what is the alternative? Nominate Barack? By that point, he'll have barely had four years experience in D.C., and a lot of people (myself included) aren't sure that'll be enough for him to draw on in order to be effective and stand on his own two feet.

So what's the deal? What do you guys think? I'm gonna go get a smoothie. Extra strawberries.

Also thanks to Rumsfeld...

2006-11-04T21:00:00.000-07:00

Army recruiters are so desperate to fill their quotas that they've resorted to lying to high school kids. ABC caught a batch of them even telling teenagers that the Iraq War was over with.

"Nobody is going over to Iraq anymore?" one student asks a recruiter.

"No, we're bringing people back," he replies.

"We're not at war. War ended a long time ago," another recruiter says.

...

ABC News found one recruiter who even claimed if you didn't like the Army, you could just quit.

"It's called a 'Failure to Adapt' discharge," the recruiter said. "It's an entry-level discharge so it won't affect anything on your record. It'll just be like it never happened."

This is beyond wrong. Somehow, I'm not really surprised that things like this are beginning to pop up, given what's going on in Iraq and how shrub's people have been anally raping servicemen for yeaers now over the war, what with extended tours of duty, recalls to service, and benefit cancellations abounding. At this point, the only way I could see anyone actually wanting to join the service is if they were living in absolute fucking poverty and had no other chance to make their life better. But, of course, the recruiters still have to fill their levies...

Actually, while we're on the topic, I'd like to add that I can understand how that amazingly stupid comment of John Kerry's actually came out of his mouth. It has to do with the well-documented habits of military recruiters focusing on students with underprivileged backgrounds and poor grades. Statistically, they're just more likely to join. I'm not saying Kerry's comment wasn't unbelievably fucking dumb (politically), but I can see where it came from. Thoughts, anyone?

IMPENDING DOOM!

2006-11-04T20:51:00.000-07:00

For the GOP, that is. At least in the House. As the New York Times reports, GOP strategists are expecting pretty damn heavy hits, and at this rate, they'll be lucky to keep ahold of the Senate.

Joe Gaylord, who was the political lieutenant to Newt Gingrich when he led the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, said that based on polling he had seen in recent weeks, he expected his party to lose 25 seats to 30 seats on Tuesday. That general assessment was repeatedly echoed in interviews with Republicans close to the White House.

Which means that Capitol Hill is gonna look like this:

Those are Nancy Pelosi's grandkids, just so you know.

Four days to go...

2006-11-03T16:35:00.000-07:00

Can you say "Mid-term"? Woohoohoo! It's almost over! There are so many fucking polls, scandals, ads, and updates I can't keep track of all the shite going down. But, just because I love these two tidbits, here's a story about how the Republican National Party has been accepting donations from a porn producer who, among other things, made some gay films with active-duty soldiers that landed a number of them in the brig. And here's a piece about how Bush was rated the second biggest threat to global peace in the world (the first was bin Laden).

Happy voting, and god bless Ted Haggard!

The three stooges

2006-11-03T16:34:00.000-07:00

I just love this picture, don't you?

More good news

2006-10-25T11:54:00.000-06:00

As an accompaniment to the last tidbit in my last post, about the congressional race breakdown, here's an "internal document" from the NRCC (the National Republican Congressional Committee) ranking races according to the possibility of holding the seat. In short, it don't look good, and they know it. The document lists four House seats and one senate seat that they now hold as "gone," and estimates that they'll lose an additional 10 House seats and 2 Senate seats. That doesn't even include the races that are "up for grabs."

But it won't matter if the Dems win big unless the votes are actually counted, right? Ha. Yeah. Along those lines, a group called electionline.org has issued a new report pointing to a minimum of 10 states they expect to see serious voting machine problems in, a la Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Perhaps not surprisingly, both of those states are still listed as problem states amongst the rest, which are Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.

So we shall see, I s'pose. Hm.

The sister Newt never wanted

2006-10-25T11:29:00.000-06:00

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. First it's Cheney's daughter, then it's Rove's stepfather, and now (not that this has been any secret, apparently), I find out that Newt Gingrich's goddamn SISTER is a lesbian! And not just a quiet, semi-closeted homo hanging out in a trailer in Alabama, but a full-fledged activist, campaigning actively all over the country for gay rights, including right here in Colorado, where there's a ballot initiative that would give gay couples the same legal rights as married couples.

Which, yes, is a good thing, in my estimation. Call homosexuality what you will, condemn it if you wish, but the point is that they should be given the same exact freedom of choice that is accorded to anyone else in this fucked-up society of ours. What I can't get over is how many goddamn "leaders" of the GOP have close, personal ties to open homosexuals! Are they truly that asinine and insensitive, that they wish to oppress the rights of their loved ones? Do they really want to encourage discrimination against their relatives simply because they want to pander to the fucking Christian Coalition?

I guess they do.

You bastards make me sick.

But, hopefully, they won't be in power much longer. The Washington Post has a great breakdown of the various congressional races across the country that look like they're up for grabs, and the total, out of the 35 House races and 9 Senate races that Wapo says are going to be close, is:

House: 5 leaning GOP, 21 tossup, 9 leaning Dem.
Senate: 0 leaning GOP, 4 tossup, 5 leaning Dem.

Just a reminder, but the Dems are only behind in the House by 15 seats and in the Senate by 5 seats. If these numbers hold through election day and the tossups split down the middle, then Congress, my friends, will be blue.

Keep your fingers crossed, guys. Maybe we will be able to turn this shitstorm around, after all.

Adios, Habeas

2006-10-18T17:04:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure how much I can actually write about this subject without just devolving into a complete rant, so I'm just going to let the article speak for itself.

From the Washington Post, of course, comes the story of the death of civil liberties.

And let me just say, as solemnly as I possibly can, "Fuck you, Mr. President. Fuck you from the top of my soul and the bottom of my heart."

Toll, please

2006-10-18T16:22:00.000-06:00

Even the most meager of estimates for the Iraqi death count reaches into the tens of thousands, but a new report says it may be as high as 900,000.

Yup. That's right. Just under a million. Ironic that it's about the same number by which Americans measure wealth and status- after all, you don't hear people congratulate each other on becoming brand new hundred-thousandaires, do you? Still, even the conservative Brookings Institution puts the death toll at the pretty healthy median income of 62,000, which, though it may not have the same ring to it, is still nothing to sneer at.

So the conservative estimate is 62,000. Just to put that into perspective, that's about the same as the number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War.

Good job, George!

The Final Frontier

2006-10-18T15:20:00.000-06:00

Reagan had his Star Wars missile defense program, Bush has his space ownership claim. Yup. Can't you just see it? "I claim this space for Crawford!" Hoo-boy. But unfortunately, it's true. Shrub has just signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."

Ha. Yeah. He's asserting our "right" to particular areas of the vacuum outside of our atmosphere. So what's next, rocket-propelled claim buoys for each millionaire with his own private spaceship? Hmmm?

Or perhaps just some good, old-fashioned shootouts. According to the Washington Post story (from which I got the above quote), the policy follows other administration statements that appeared to advocate greater military use of space.

Apparently what they've been talking about are potential weapons for protecting and harming satellites, the most common man-made space travelers. Such devices would be lasers that can "blind" or shut down adversary satellites and small, maneuverable satellites that could ram another satellite.

So that means we're going to have satellites playing chicken a few miles above our heads. That's great news, too.

Yeehaw.

On the terrestrial front, one rather amusing bit of political news is the campaign of Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican who's running for Congress. Bachmann is one crazy ass honky, but she sure does love those fish and loaves.

Bachmann... told parishioners at the church on Saturday that God had called on her to run for Congress, according to a video of her appearance posted on YouTube by "Dump Bachmann Blog." She also said that God is now specifically focused on her race.

In her remarks, Bachmann said that she and her husband prayed and fasted for three days after God called upon her to run for Congress.

Bachmann said they asked God, "Lord, is this what you want? Is this your will?" On the afternoon of the second day, God "made that calling sure," she said.

Bachmann added that someone would have to be a fool to spend two years running for a seat that lasts just two years.

"You are now looking at a fool for Christ. This is a fool for Christ," she said to laughter and applause.

God, she said, "has focused like a laser beam in his reasoning on this race."

But that's not all. Thanks to Youtube and Wonkette, we've got some film of Bachmann telling the congregation how she's "hot for God."

This is great stuff, people. So good that it makes me want some fish and loaves. Extra tartar sauce, please.

Cutting and Running

2006-10-16T14:10:00.000-06:00

The RNC is abandoning a whole batch of Congressional races that they don't see as winnable, says the New York Times. The Times pointed to incumbent Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, who had previously appeared quite safe, but now is trailing his opponent seriously in internal polls. The RNC has pulled funding from his campaign and is pouring it into other races.

The decision involving Mr. DeWine offers the most compelling evidence so far that Republicans are circling their wagons around a smaller group of races, effectively conceding some Senate and House seats with the goal of retaining at least a thin margin of control when the 110th Congress is seated next January. Democrats need to win 6 seats to capture the Senate and 15 seats to win the House on Nov. 7...

In interviews, Republican strategists said that the flow of bad news out of Iraq and the resignation of Representative Mark Foley after admitting he had sent sexually suggestive messages to teenage Congressional pages had soured the environment for incumbents and blunted the impact of a long-planned crush of negative advertisements Republicans had prepared to undercut Democratic challengers this month.

In one sign of the shifting political environment, as of this weekend, national Republicans were running advertisements in 29 districts; of those, 26 are held by Republicans and 3 by Democrats, though Republicans plan to begin running advertisements this week against an Illinois Democrat, Representative Melissa Bean. National Democrats are on the air in 30 districts, and defending Democrats in just 3 races.

The shitstorm is coming, fellas. Watch out. The only worry I have is that this might slow the momentum for 2008. Any thoughts on that?

Weedwackers

2006-10-15T01:00:00.000-06:00

This just in! The Taliban are- ha, ha, um, sorry- the Taliban are hiding out in- hoo hoo hoo!- ahem. The Taliban, it seems, are using- pffgnk... HA! GIANT MARIJUANA PLANTS FOR COVER!

Seriously! This is from Reuters, people! It's not a gag! Although, if it was, it'd be a damn good one.

The story:

Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy -- almost impenetrable forests of 10-feet-high marijuana plants.

General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said on Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.

"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices ... and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa.

"We tried burning them with white phosphorous -- it didn't work. We tried burning them with diesel -- it didn't work. The plants are so full of water right now ... that we simply couldn't burn them," he said.

Even successful incineration had its drawbacks.

"A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hillier said dryly.

One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana'."

Does this remind anyone else of the scene in "Scary Movie 2" where the giant pot plant rolls up one of the Wayans brothers and starts smoking him?

Those crafty Afghans.

Tasers are fun!

2006-10-11T16:50:00.000-06:00

Perhaps too much fun.

Here's a pick-me-up for anyone who needs it.

A-Rod is next

2006-10-11T16:31:00.000-06:00

Oh! Oh! This just in! Al Qaeda has infiltrated the New York Yankees!

Cigars and brandy, anyone?

2006-10-11T13:45:00.000-06:00

Is anyone else sick of Mark Foley yet?

I'm a bit pissed off today, for no real particular reason, so I'm not going to say too much. Unfortunately, though, there were a number of stories that caught my eye that I couldn't let go.

Cuba has found oil in its portion of the Gulf, but what exactly this means for the trade embargo is still yet to be determined. Its impacts, however, could be quite significant when coupled with Castro's recent decline in health. Weirdly, however, the US has decided to clamp down on trade regulations with them. Go figger.

Somehow I've missed this before, but Rummy was the director of a company which sold nuclear reactor parts to North Korea six years ago, before he was offered that other job. Wonkette has some additional perspective, of course.

On a happier note, however, CNN has found that voter interest and therefore turnout will most likely be the highest this year that it's been in a decade. They credit the trend to "Democratic anger" and a heightened political awareness. Good stuff, whatever's driving it.

More Foley fallout

2006-10-10T12:04:00.000-06:00

Hey, hey, hey! Pagefuckergate has almost completely wiped out the GOP moral image, the NY Times has found. The new study came up with an astonishing 79% that believe that the GOP leadership cares more about their own political standing than they do about the safety of Congressional Pages.

How's that for a shocker? Damn! MMM!

But that's not all, folks! Another poll, from CNN, found that fully half of the American public believes House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-IL, should hand in his resignation over the mess, and only about 30% think he should keep his job.

The question, however, is whether they'll continue to slide downhill. Even if they do, will the Dems be able to pick up enough slack and momentum over the next two years to retain control of Congress and win the Presidency? Methinks they'll need more ammo than just a single stupid sex scandal. But that's another story...

Hmmmm. Hot pocket today. Supreme Pizza.

Oh, of course! He must be a Democrat!

2006-10-04T16:19:00.000-06:00

Last night, Fox News aired segments about Pagefucker Foley and ran captions underneath that read, D-FL.

Bravo, Rupert! Another stunning move! Simply deny that Foley was a Republican and blame everything on the Dems! Good stuff!

One of my colleagues believes this to be a simple but stupid error, and I might agree with him (after all, the AP made the same mistake, briefly), except for the fact that it's Fox. That's too much of a stretch. And even if it was an honest mistake, Fox should have, as a journalistic institution with integrity (HA!), aired a correction and apologized for the slip-up. No such correction ever appeared. The mistake was simply removed quietly for the re-runs, apparently.

That practically doesn't matter, however. The rest of the Faux News organization has been hard at work finding other people to blame for the scandal aside from Foley and the GOP leadership. They're circling the wagons and firing off volleys in the hope that they can fend off the impending doom brought upon them by Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, and now, la creme de la beau, Mark Foley.

Forbidden love

2006-10-03T11:28:00.000-06:00

In order to satisfy the sensationalist hunger of my only repeat visitor, the collection of links below has been assembled to allow for a full picture of just what the hell is going on with Rep. Foley, the gay Republican from Florida who got caught sending vivid IM's to underage boys. Yummy.

A timeline of how the story broke, from Wonkette.

You can read the entire original transcript of Foley's fucked-up emails here, thanks to ABC. The details get a little wacko, though, as Foley and this kid talk about masturbation methods. One excerpt (Foley is Maf54):

Maf54 (8:03:47 PM): what you wearing
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:04 PM): normal clothes
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:09 PM): tshirt and shorts Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:35 PM): ya
Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um
Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you
Xxxxxxxxx (8:05:08 PM): haha
Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake
Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab
Xxxxxxxxx (8:06:53 PM): not tonight...dont get to excited
Maf54 (8:07:12 PM): well your hard
Xxxxxxxxx (8:07:45 PM): that is true
Maf54 (8:08:03 PM): and a little horny
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:11 PM): and also tru
Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): get a ruler and measure it for me
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:38 PM): ive already told you that
Maf54 (8:08:47 PM): tell me again
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:49 PM): 7 and 1/2
Maf54 (8:09:04 PM): ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Maf54 (8:09:08 PM): beautiful
Xxxxxxxxx (8:09:38 PM): lol
Maf54 (8:09:44 PM): thats a great size
Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:00 PM): thank you
Maf54 (8:10:22 PM): still stiff
Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:28 PM): ya
Maf54 (8:10:40 PM): take it out

From the AP, a note about how GOP candidates and incumbents across the country are scrambling to give back money they'd received from Foley's political action committee.

Here's a story about how Congressional Republicans were warning pages as early as 2001 to stay away from Foley.

And now, Republicans are turning on each other in an attempt to salvage their careers before the election. Ha. The jackals. And it's kind of ironic that the House Majority Leader's name looks like "boner."

Satisfied? I hope so. NAMBLA sure is.

Too much Rummy

2006-09-29T11:14:00.000-06:00

Everybody's sick of this guy, even the First Lady.

According to a new book by political reporter extraordinaire Bob Woodward (or the Big Woody, as I like to call him), former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card tried multiple times to get Shrub to fire Rummy's sorry ass for mucking up Iraq the way he has. After Shrub decided to listen to Cheney and Rove instead of Card, Card wound up resigning, essentially in protest. He was "convinced that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam and that history would record that no senior administration officials had raised their voices in opposition to the conduct of the war," and he didn't want to be one of those guys.

Gotta give Card credit for wising up, I suppose.

The book also outlines a number of criticisms of Rummy, and paints a picture of an insecure dilettante who basically refuses to deal with the situations he himself has helped to create.

Woodward writes that Rice and Rumsfeld have been warned repeatedly about the deteriorating situation in Iraq.

Returning from his assignment as the first head of the Iraq Postwar Planning Office, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner told Rumsfeld on June 23, 2003, that the United States had made "three tragic mistakes" in Iraq.

The first two, he said, were the orders his successor, L. Paul Jerry Bremer, had given banning members of the Baath Party from government jobs and disbanding the Iraqi military. The third was Bremer's dismissal of an interim Iraqi leadership group that had been eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term.

"There's still time to rectify this," he said. "There's still time to turn it around."

But Rumsfeld dismissed the idea, according to Woodward. "We're not going to go back," Rumsfeld said.

The article goes on to describe Rumsfeld's personality traits.

Rumsfeld received an even more blunt criticism from Steve Herbits, a longtime friend who according to Woodward has served as an informal adviser to Rumsfeld since he became defense secretary. In a seven-page memo in July, 2005, entitled, "Summary of Post-Iraq Planning and Execution Problems," Herbits... described "Rumsfeld's style of operation," which he said was the "Haldeman model, arrogant," referring to Nixon's White House chief of staff H. R. "Bob" Haldeman. "Indecisive, contrary to popular image. Would not accept that some people in some areas were smarter than he. . . . Trusts very few people. Very, very cautious. Rubber glove syndrome---a tendency not to leave his fingerprints on decisions."

Along with a true outline of the incompetence with which Iraq has been handled, I also can't even begin to remember the number of Republicans and military men who have criticized the Secretary of Defense. I do know it's a whole lot. And that right there says something about Rummy: it says that for the good of the country, he should be taken out back and beaten with a hose.

Hmmmm. I think some beef kifta kabob today. Extra sesame sauce.

Adriane!

2006-09-26T16:28:00.000-06:00

After a two-week long hiatus from this little site o' mine, what shall I write about? Hmmmm? So much going ON! Shall I talk about the National Intelligence Estimate that found Iraq to be creating more terrorists as opposed to winning the war on terror?

Nah.

How about the abounding conspiracy theories that surround our plummeting gas prices? Shall I give throat to my own suspicions that someone somewhere thinks that if I'm only paying $2.40 a gallon in November I'll be more likely to vote for the GOP?

Nah.

How about the various races in my very own Colorado, and the fact that newly-released polls indicate that a number of previously "safe" Republican districts are now estimated to be in danger of being taken over by Democratic candidates?

Nah.

I know! I'll talk about Uwe Boll!

Who?

Y'know, that German film director who just challenged each of his film critics to a boxing match. Boll, who is responsible for such hideous B movies as "BloodRayne" and "Alone in the Dark," was apparently sick and tired of the bad rap his movies were getting, and he started taking it personally. So personally, in fact, that he managed to KO every single one of the critics that accepted his proposal- even the ones who thought the whole thing was a joke.

Jeff Sneider of Los Angeles, a journalist with Ain't It Cool News, went down in a technical knockout in the first round after his trainer threw in the towel.

He said Boll, 41, had told him it was just a joke, a public relations stunt.

"Then he started beating the crap out of my head," he said. "I think he's a jerk. This might be PR but I don't want to keep getting punched in the head."

Meanwhile, Boll's trophy actress, Kristanna Loken, admired his fighting style from the audience.

"It's absolutely ridiculous. That's why I love him," she said.

Me too, Boll. Me too.

Not very graceful

2006-09-14T14:25:00.000-06:00

Okay, I'm disgusted. Partly at CNN, for retaining the services of such a blatant sensationalist, but mostly at Nancy Gracer herself. Her latest accomplishment is the dead mother of a kidnapped 2-year-old.

The woman, 21-year-old Melinda Duckett, shot herself after taping an interview with Grace, who relentlessly hammered her about where she was when her kid was stolen. Grace wouldn't let the point go, even though the girl said she'd been told by police not to discuss details of the case, because the investigation was ongoing. Grace, not surprisingly, essentially accused her of negligence and complicity in the boy's kidnapping. Her tone was prosecutorial, and she sounded disgusted, as though she was talking to a criminal and not a victim.

"Nancy Grace and the others, they just bashed her to the end," Duckett's grandfather Bill Eubank said Tuesday. "She wasn't one anyone ever would have thought of to do something like this. She and that baby just loved each other, couldn't get away from each other. She wouldn't hurt a bug."

But still, of course, it could turn out that Duckett had something to do with her kid's disappearance. If she did, if the kid is dead in a field somewhere, then so be it, she's guilty. But if not, if she shot herself out of grief that she allowed her child to be kidnapped, then hopefully Grace will live up to her namesake and apologize to Duckett's family.

Either way, however, Grace was out of line. What she did in that interview was judgmental and accusatory, not journalistic. She acted like a cop, not an interviewer. Her taste for sensationalist stories has led her to cover topics like Natalee Holloway's Aruba disappearance and the Mark Karr arrest extensively, when other networks gave those matters much more cursory attention. She belongs on daytime television, without the credibility CNN brings to the table.

In short, Nancy Grace is a piss-poor representative of journalists everywhere, and someday I'd like to slap the shit out of her.

This is what Colin Powell's middle finger looks like

2006-09-14T11:16:00.000-06:00

The former secretary of state has finally stepped out of the shadows and into the mixer. He sent a letter to Sen. McCain and others, arguing against the White House's attempt to exclude American Forces from the Geneva Convention restrictions on torture and like-minded rules. You know, pesky humanitartian ideals that get in the way of the "War on Terror."

Pfah.

Powell wrote, "I just returned to town and learned about the debate taking place in Congress to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. I do not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent with the McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year... The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to these doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

According to CNN, Powell also wrote that he agreed with the position of General John Vessey, Reagan's chairman of the joint chiefs, who had counseled McCain that redefining Common Article 3 would "undermine the moral basis which has generally guided our conduct in war throughout our history."

Said Vessey, "In my short 46 years in the armed forces, Americans confronted the horrors of the prison camps of the Japanese during World War II, the North Koreans in 1950-53 and the North Vietnamese in the long years of the Vietnam War, as well as knowledge of the Nazis' Holocaust depredations in World War II. Through those years, we held to our own values. We should continue to do so."

A-fucking-men.

This is an important step, methinks. The number of Republicans and former supporters abandoning Shrub are growing, almost by the day. But Powell carries weight with both sides, and has been known as an almost apolitical figure of integrity. I can't see Shrub brushing this off any time soon.

"But Mr. President, the man YOU chose as your first secretary of state has said that this is a stupid idea."

Yar. Here's to you, Mr. Powell.

Sage advice

2006-09-14T11:10:00.000-06:00

Say hello to my little friend

2006-09-14T11:05:00.000-06:00

Guess what thelatest invention in crowd control is? Yup! It's a heat ray! Zap!

Could it have come from the minds of trekkies, Star Wars lovers, idolizers of Spock and Boba Fett that somehow managed to work their fantasies into reality? That's what I'm guessing.

Whichever, I'd like a big bowl of chicken soup and a grilled cheese sandwich. Comfort food. Because the world is a scary place.

Take it to the limit

2006-09-12T17:11:00.000-06:00

Can't do much- it's the end of the day and I need to skedaddle, but this
is something that was too important for me to leave unposted. Dig it.

American Retard

2006-09-07T14:13:00.000-06:00

I wish this was a joke, but it's not.

Shrub has appointed former American Idol contestant Clay Aiken to serve on his Committee for People with Disabilities.

Music soothes even the savage beast, eh?

The left-ing of the Bible Belt

2006-09-06T16:46:00.000-06:00

Republicans aren't all psychotic right-wing nutjobs that hate sexuality, evolution, and darkies. And here's some proof.

It's a story about how more and more, moderate Kansas Republicans are beginning to run as Democrats. For example, there's Mark Parkinson, the former chair of the Kansas GOP. He's fed up with how the party's been pushing divisive social issues like intelligent design, and he decided to do something about it. He ran for lieutenant governor- as a Democrat.

"There's been a long series of Republican infighting over issues that do not affect people's daily lives," Parkinson explains. "I'm 49. I got tired of fighting about whether Charles Darwin was right when I was 14 or 15. I'm not spending the rest of my life on that issue."

The article discusses how Kansas' governor, Democrat Kathleen Sebelius, is using the rift between social moderates and extremists to give the Dems a much-needed boost. In the process, she's recruited a good number of former Republicans to run as moderate Democrats. Parkinson is only one of them.

In 2002, [Sebelius] beat a conservative Republican nominee by appealing to voters who care more about schools and taxes than abortion and evolution -- and by recruiting a centrist Republican to run as her lieutenant governor. Four years later, Sebelius has again tapped a moderate Republican as her running mate, and this time eight other party-switchers will join her on the Democratic ticket. Depending on whom you believe, in her cross-the-aisle raids Sebelius has either found an effective strategy for turning Kansas a little less red, or she has used her personal popularity to mask the slow decline of her party.

Paul Morrison, another former GOPer-turned-Dem, is running for attorney general. He said he was fed up when

incumbent Phill Kline had turned the attorney general's office into a platform for partisan politics. Kline made headlines when he attempted to access the medical records of Kansas women who'd had abortions. "So much time and energy," Morrison says, "is being spent on pursuing a narrow partisan agenda that most people don't agree with."

About another convert-

For Cindy Neighbor, who's running for the state House, the decision to ditch the Republican Party came when she looked at a platform that included opposition to stem cell research and support for school vouchers and the teaching of intelligent design. "Even when they say they're a wide-open party," Neighbor laments, "it's, 'If you don't agree with us, you're not one of us.' It was about being able to have some freedom to be an individual rather than just a puppet."

This, to me, spells hope. The traditional base on which Reagan drew 20 years ago is realizing that their party has warped into something they don't like, something strange and dogmatic and completely removed from reason. These are the people who are Republicans because they don't like excessive legislation or overtaxation. These are the people who pledge allegiance to the flag but believe so strongly in personal privacy rights that they don't particularly care whether their neighbors are queer. They, like the left, are more interested in having a dialogue and getting things done than they are about condemning godless heathens. They're the kind of people that are open and care about their communities, and they're one of the reasons that Bush hasn't completely won yet, and they're why he never will.

Shhhh! No prisons here!

2006-09-06T16:19:00.000-06:00

This is becoming a year for admissions. First shrub says flat out that Saddam never had anything to do with 9/11, and now he's come out of the proverbial closet on the CIA's secret prisons.

Wonkette offers this hilarious summation of the scene:

Recap: Terror, Iraq, Terror, Bad People … and oh, by the way, all those secret CIA prisons where U.S. goons torture people? The ones we always denied even existed? Well, uh, yeah, they all exist. We have secret torture prisons all over the world. But it’s OK now, because I have authorized the transfer of 14 brown people to the acknowledged torture prison at Guantanamo Bay. Rock on.

Can't you just see shrub posing solemnly, like Wayne and Garth, and then ever so slowly raising his hand, with only the forefinger and pinky extended?

Oh, and he still wants Congress to make federal agents immune to prosecution. He'll grant the "terrorists" their Geneva Convention rights, but only when it's convenient.

Hopefully, it won't matter soon. As CNN reports, 55% of Americans are pissed off enough about the shrubbies fucking up the war in Iraq that they're likely to vote against any GOP candidate who supports it. Which means (gasp!) that the shrubbies are about to lose Congress and a LOT of flexibility!

If there's one phrase that sums up how I feel about the GOP's abysmal numbers, it would be "boo-yah." Here's hoping shrub's last two years are filled with moments that make him look like this:

Pepperoni pizza today. Extra marinara. And breadstix. Yum.

Candidate Stewart

2006-09-05T10:45:00.000-06:00

Sign the online petition to get Jon Stewart to run for President of the United States here.

Corporate pirates or butt pirates?

2006-09-05T10:10:00.000-06:00

A new book called "The Architect," all about Karl Rove's life, has a stunning little tidbit that I couldn't leave alone. It seems that Bush's Brain's Dad was batting for the other team. Read about the new book here.

In other words, the Creator of the Architect liked Erections.

Though not strictly speaking, unfortunately. The gentleman in question, Louis Rove, was Karl's stepfather, not his biological one. Still, Rove never really knew his real pop, just his gay one. At least until he was a senior in high school, at which point Louisss up and left for L.A. with no real explanation. Poof, gone, like a fairy in the springtime.

What this does, however, is beg the question how many more of these hawks have GLBT connections. There's already the case of Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Mr. Halliburton himself. How much further can this be pushed? Especially by an administration so hellbent on GLBT discrimination?

A footnote to this is the widely suspected homosexuality of RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. In an article for Huffington Post, James Moore (who also wrote the above-mentioned book about Rove's life), points out that Mehlman has repeatedly caused confusion as to whether he's straight or not.

Mainstream reporters have never asked Mehlman if he is gay but Eric Resnick, a journalist for a gay publication in Cleveland, chased Mehlman down at a GOP fund-raising dinner in Akron. Resnick told Mehlman that he had been outed on blogs and talk radio and he wondered how he justified being gay and pushing an anti-gay agenda. Mehlman was non-responsive. Resnick persisted and finally asked Mehlman if he was gay.

"You have asked a question no one should have to answer," Mehlman responded.

The delicately chosen words annoyed Resnick and John Aravosis of Americablog. According to Aravosis, Mehlman, who is in his early 40s and unmarried, gave a "non-answer, answer."

"He's at the top of his profession in a conservative political party," Aravosis told me last year. "If he's not gay, why wouldn't he react the same way every straight guy does when someone asks them if they are gay? They sort of energetically tell you hell no they're not gay. Mehlman says nothing. Seems like he would want everyone in his party to know he's not gay. Maybe he's a closeted heterosexual."

Mehlman subjected himself to such speculation after deploying a voter profiling mechanism for the 2004 election. The RNC used background data on voters such as what type of car they drive, how much they earn, marital status, the color of their skin, the neighborhood where they live, and other factors to arrive at various political conclusions about individuals and determine if they were likely GOP voters. His political critics have decided it is now fair to talk about what type of profile best fits Mehlman.

Strange secrets, and stranger bedfellows.

Ha! Bedfellows!

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

*Chuckle.*

Crikey!

2006-09-05T09:48:00.000-06:00

Steve Irwin's lucky streak finally ran out.

I'm by no means an expert, but from the little I've seen of that fucker's antics, he pushed the envelope on a number of occasions. I recall one instance where he was holding a four-foot-long snake that was extremely poisonous, and the lithe bastard almost caught Irwin in the jewels with his fangs.

Still, Irwin was a crackup. So raise your glasses, mates. Here's to the Croc Hunter.

Bathroom humor

2006-08-30T13:15:00.000-06:00

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?

2006-08-30T12:59:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-26T12:28:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-10T16:51:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-10T12:29:00.000-06:00

"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?

2006-08-10T12:02:00.000-06:00

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!

2006-08-10T11:46:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-09T16:40:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-09T14:37:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-09T12:00:00.000-06:00

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?

2006-08-09T11:23:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-08T16:32:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-07T12:34:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-07T12:13:00.000-06:00

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?

2006-08-04T15:19:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-04T13:07:00.000-06:00

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...

2006-08-04T12:54:00.000-06:00

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?

2006-08-03T16:08:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-03T15:10:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-02T17:30:00.000-06:00

A moment of Zen.

Capitol Hill grows up

2006-08-02T13:42:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-02T13:24:00.000-06:00

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.

He's a loser, baby

2006-05-15T12:13:00.000-06:00

This is just mind blowing to me. Why in the hell would CNN, one of the most respected names in journalism, hire a psychotic right-winger like Glenn Beck? One example of his rampant bullshit is how he recently said we should nuke Iran.

I couldn't tell if he was joking or serious, but even so, it's alarming that CNN would be willing to hire someone and put them in a position to exert enormous influence in the journalistic sphere, and then he calls for nuclear warfare. Even jokingly, it's not in good taste. This is like getting Howard Stern to replace Anderson Cooper; it just isn't a good idea.

I do have a question for those of you who might happen across this tiny piece of blog and would like to (perhaps) comment: Why is CNN slowly moving towards sensationalism? First it was Nancy Grace, who in her own way is worse than Bill O'Reilly (at least O'Reilly's kind of fun to watch because he's so psychotic; Grace just makes me cringe). And now it's this Beck shmuck. What the fuck is going ON?

Seriously, if anyone has any ideas, aside from simply "Sensationalism sells and news is a business and so they have to up their bottom line," please clue me in. I would love for that to not be the real reason.

Hey, that's my refinery!

2006-05-12T15:12:00.000-06:00

Aside from having unilaterally kicked every foreign energy company out of Bolivia, now president Evo Morales has appropriated all the equipment they left behind.

The biggest noisemaker of the bunch is Petrobras, the Brazilian company that lost the most when Morales nationalized Bolivia's resources. But in the fine print at the bottom of most articles, you will notice that ExxonMobil also was expelled.

Not only that, but Morales has firmed up ties to both Venezuela's Hugo Chavez as well as Fidel Castro, and the three have been trading money, energy, and politics.

I'm not sure what's going to happen with this, but I'm fascinated by the left-wing movement growing in Central and South America that Morales and Chavez embody, especially because most of the stories that run in the mainstream media don't talk about how incredibly popular both men have become in their own countries because of their socialist agendas and all they've done for their people.

Still, I give Morales about six months til there's a coup attempt. Most likely backed by the CIA. I'm serious. They tried it with Chavez in 2002, but he was only out of office for three days before a popular movement forced his successor to step down. The same might happen with Morales, or the CIA might figure it's too dangerous a move, but given our history of treating Latin America like our own personal backyard, I doubt it. They'll probably at least try something.

And the reason I say six months is because that's about how long ExxonMobil has to get out of Bolivia. Cheers, matey!

I feel like some fish 'n chips. Thanks, BBC, and grab me some extra tartar sauce, will you?

After a brief respite...

2006-05-12T08:43:00.000-06:00

Ah, faithful readers, thank you for your patience. At long last, I have returned. Sorry about the unplanned sabbatical; for a while there I was swamped with finishing up the semester and working. But no more. So, back to business.

First of all, a brand new poll from the Wall Street Journal has found that Bush's approval ratings have dipped into the twenties for the first time ever. The poll found that a mere 29% of Americans think shrub is doing an "excellent or pretty good job" as president.

Yup, that's right. The Roaring Twenties. As in, that's the roar of pissed-off commuters ready to vote Halliburton out of office.

What's more, this new poll comes just on the heels of a New York Times/CBS News poll two days ago that found Bush's approval rating to be a then-new low of 31%, which tied " the low point of his father in July 1992, four months before the elder Mr. Bush lost his bid for a second term to Bill Clinton. That is the third lowest approval rating of any president in 50 years; only Richard M. Nixon and Jimmy Carter were viewed less favorably."

What I've been wondering recently is exactly where his numbers would've been in the summer of 2004 if 9/11 hadn't happened. As far as I can see, it's not as though his administration or the neocons in general are doing anything radically different from when they first entered office. They're still pushing the same kind of stupid cold-war agenda that's going to lose us our place at the top of the international food chain, and they were just as willing then to ignore public opinion as they are today in the face of these numbers.

Oh, and it's worth noting that both of these polls were taken BEFORE the USA Today report about how the NSA wiretappedmillions of Americans who have no direct link to ANY terrorist organization.

I'm guessing his numbers will sink even lower before long. It's almost becoming a game, to see how far he can fall and how fast. Can Bush reach a zero percent approval rating? Damn, that'd be cool.

And this is what Ann Coulter would look like without hair:

Man-Coulter, they call it.

Ew. That actually made me lose my appetite.

Ay Dios Mio!

2006-04-28T17:13:00.000-06:00

Mexico is going to legalize drugs, apparently as a step towards more efficient pursuit of larger-scale narcotics traffickers. A new law, that is expected to be signed by President Fox, will make personal possession of only a few grams of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and opium legal.

Fuckin' crazy, man. I gotta git down to Acapulco, man.

***

If you haven't heard, Karl Rove is closer to the chopping block than ever. The fucker's had to testify in front of a grand jury for the fifth time now, and a perjury indictment is closer than ever. Heady times, these are.

***

This is just amusing: apparently Rumsfeld, perhaps suffering from jetlag, was a complete asshole to various reporters during his recent trip to Iraq. He snapped at various reporters, refused to answer questions, and exhibited extreme irritation when reminded of how badly the war in Iraq is going. I think he's also a little pissed at Condi for actually doing a halfway decent job. Say what you want about her, at least she's not fucking incompetent. Like Ronald Dumsfeld.

Burger and a beer. Extra cheddar. Mmmmmmmmmm.

Closed eyes on a sinking ship

2006-04-24T18:03:00.000-06:00

Despite a new low in his poll numbers (an incredible 32% approval rating), Bush remains as brilliantly optimistic as a lemming with a smile on his face, right before he jumps off the cliff.

He was recently quoted as saying "I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true. One, I believe there's an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free. I believe liberty is universal. I believe people want to be free. And I know that democracies do not war with each other."

To be clear, our commander-in-chief just said that he bases almost all of his foreign policy decisions on his belief in God.

I don't know or care about anyone else, but I'm really goddamn sick of shrub ignoring the Constitution. This country is supposed to be founded on a handful of principles, and one of the most basic is the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. If shrub wants to make this country into something else, I wish he'd come right out and SAY that he wants to rewrite the Constitution according to the fucking Bible.

Turkey dinner, extra stuffing. Mmmmmmmm.

Sexual privacy under fire?

2006-04-22T20:23:00.000-06:00

A new South Carolina bill, if passed, would make the sale of sex toys illegal in the state, and punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

What shocks me, though, is that apparently this very simple and unbelievable violation of personal privacy rights is nothing new. According to the AP story, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi already have various sex toy bans in place.

Excuse my disgust, but how the fuck is this NOT legislating morality? I can't IMAGINE a justifiable argument to support the ban of sex toys. I haven't done the necessary research, but I'm guessing the bill's author, a REPUBLICAN state legislator by the name of Ralph Davenport, is one of those crazy fucks who also thinks public schools should be punished for distributing condoms to underage high schoolers.

The article does make reference to the last Supreme Court case which dealt with obscenity, Miller v. California, in which the court finally defined "obscene" as that which is completely without any "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" or is completely "prurient" in nature.

As various critics have noted, there are two serious problems with this premise. First, there is no clear standard by which peddlers or citizens could determine beforehand whether or not any given material is actually obscene. The standard given is absolutely subjective, and so then the danger becomes the ability of the law to punish citizens for breaking a law that they didn't know they were breaking.

The second problem is that the court never established anything WRONG with PRURIENCE. To say that something is obscene only because it is expressly and only sexual is the equivalent of a condemnation of ALL SEX. What would the courts have us do, reject sexual pleasure in all its forms? That seems to be the implication here, and it certainly seems to be the spirit of the legislation offered by Mr. Davenport. And that is a method of legislating morality, and that, many would contend (including myself) is unconstitutional.

Why the hell can't the Christians just be happy with their own prudish natures? Why is it that they can't stand to see ANYONE having a good time? I think the pro-choice maxim of "keep your laws off my body" is quite appropriate here.

The petulant-child-in-chief

2006-04-21T08:19:00.000-06:00

Most of you, I'm sure, are familiar with shrub's immature explosion the other day when, under repeated questions concerning half a dozen retired generals' calls for Rumsfeld's resignation, W came out with, "I'm the decider, and I decide what's best!"

What a hoot.

As a tribute to that wonderful momeent, check this out.

***

Another thing I've found interesting while Chinese President Hu Jintao's been bouncing around the country is that representatives of major manufacturers keep complaining that China's not doing anything to address the enormous trade deficit between our two countries.

There's one story about that here.

The question I'd pose to these reps who keep whining that China won't do what we want is very simple: why should they?

The only thing they stand to gain, perhaps, is the temporary goodwill of a nation that's viewed on the international scene these days as a musclebound bully who yells and yells until everyone on the playground finally just gives up and lets him have his way. Their economy is on the upswing for the first time since the early twentieth century, so why the hell should they stop now? Just because we want them to?

To think that China would dance to our tune is not only asinine, it's dangerously ignorant. It means that our officials and lawmakers refuse (the yahoo story refers to a number of congressmen who are pushing legislation to level out the trade deficit via embargos and tariffs and whatnot) to consider the point of view of our soon-to-be-more-powerful brethren to the East. And if our leaders continue to act in this fashion, it will only be to our detriment.

That having been said, I could really go for some egg rolls. Extra sweet and sour.

Stewart v. O'Reilly

2006-04-19T11:06:00.000-06:00

I didn't know this, but two years ago, apparently Jon Stewart actually appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, and Comedy Central got pissed off at O'Reilly because he referred to Stewart's audience as "stoned slackers."

MSNBC had a story about it here, and there are some fun stats about the Daily Show's audience here.

This one's for you, mandabear. Eat your heart out.

A Red Stripe perhaps, but no other colors

2006-04-17T10:41:00.000-06:00

Jamaica is perhaps one the most homophobic places on Earth, says Time.

This comes as a shock to me, but it looks like the tiny Carribean country is more intolerant than Wyoming. The Time article goes on and on, referring to a number of little-publicized hate crimes against gays.

"In the past two years, two of the island's most prominent gay activists, Brian Williamson and Steve Harvey, have been murdered — and a crowd even celebrated over Williamson's mutilated body. Perhaps most disturbing, many anti-gay assaults have been acts of mob violence. In 2004, a teen was almost killed when his father learned his son was gay and invited a group to lynch the boy at his school. Months later, witnesses say, police egged on another mob that stabbed and stoned a gay man to death in Montego Bay. And this year a Kingston man, Nokia Cowan, drowned after a crowd shouting 'batty boy' (a Jamaican epithet for homosexual) chased him off a pier. 'Jamaica is the worst any of us has ever seen,' says Rebecca Schleifer of the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch and author of a scathing report on the island's anti-gay hostility."

As a kind of social buttress for the sentiment, the article cites a number of major Rastafarian reggae artists who advocate violence against gays and lesbians with their lyrics. Some examples:

"One of [Buju Banton's] first hits, 1992's Boom Bye-Bye, boasts of shooting gays with Uzis and burning their skin with acid 'like an old tire wheel.'

Banton's lyrics are hardly unique among reggae artists today. Another popular artist, Elephant Man (O'Neil Bryant, 29) declares in one song, 'When you hear a lesbian getting raped/ It's not our fault ... Two women in bed/ That's two Sodomites who should be dead.' Another, Bounty Killer (Rodney Price, 33), urges listeners to burn 'Mister Fagoty' and make him 'wince in agony.'"

I know I can't speak for the rest of you, but this makes me fucking ill. Jamaica, like Texas, is now officially on my list of places I have no desire to visit.

Talk about a quickie

2006-04-17T09:49:00.000-06:00

I feel so vindicated by this.

A new study, from Scotland of all places, has found that women, are quicker to judge than men are. The study covered 500 speed dates, and of those,

"About a third of the speed dates were actually over within the first 30 seconds, but there was a marked difference between the sexes with 45 per cent of women coming to a decision within 30 seconds, compared with only 22 per cent of men.

Professor Richard Wiseman, of Hertfordshire University, said: "Men are often accused of being shallow and judging women very quickly.

"However, this evidence suggests that women may make up their minds much quicker than men. It suggests men have only a few seconds to impress a woman, thus emphasising the importance of their opening comments."

The study also found that women were twice as picky as the men."

ha HA! TWICE AS PICKY! Never again shall the fairer sex have the right to call us Y-chromosomed breadwinners shallow and judgmental! Ye narrow minded sexist pigs!

Maybe this is tied to American Idol's popularity... Hmmmm...

Actually, I think there's probably an interesting historical/evolutionary argument to be made here within the context of social structure and men's physical impetus to breed contrasted with women's physical impetus to choose mates carefully. Could be a thesis there, you think?

Cross your fingers

2006-04-17T09:38:00.000-06:00

The Washington Post says that the GOP might be in some serious trouble for this year's midterm elections, and all because people are pissed off at shrub.

"Polls have reflected voter discontent with Bush for many months, but as the election nears, operatives are paying special attention to one subset of the numbers. It is the wide disparity between the number of people who are passionate in their dislike of Bush vs. those who support him with equal fervor.

Lately, there have been a lot more of the former -- and even Republicans acknowledge that could spell trouble in closely contested congressional races.

...The intense opposition to Bush is larger than any faced by Clinton. For all the polarization the 42nd president inspired, Clinton's strong disapproval never got above 37 percent in Post-ABC polls during his presidency."

I'm not one to count my eggs before they've hatched, but I can't get over how many good signs I've seen. Cross your fingers, baby. Perhaps the sane ones will somehow be able to retake Congress.

Roll over, little doggy

2006-04-14T15:36:00.000-06:00

NEW DISCLAIMER: The following post is not completely accurate. I claimed below that the grand jury testimony Libby gave was that he was ordered by Cheney to leak Plame's name to journalists. In fact, Cheney authorized Libby to leak classified intel in order to discredit Joseph Wilson, but not specifically Plame's name. My bad. But I haven't edited the orginal post, which starts below.

***

This is where you'll find the latest development in the Scooter Libby Plamegate case, and I must say, it's fantastic.

Libby has given up Cheney. That's right. According to documents filed by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who's been investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's name to reporters for over two years now, Libby testified before a grand jury that he was instructed to leak Plame's name in order to undermine the credibility of her husband, Joseph Wilson, one of the most dangerous critics the administration has ever faced.

An excerpt:

"Both Libby and Cheney have repeatedly insisted that the vice president never encouraged, directed, or authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity. In a court filing on April 12, Libby's attorneys reiterated: 'Consistent with his grand jury testimony, Mr. Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms. Wilson [Plame] by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or anyone else.'

But the disclosure that Cheney instructed Libby to leak portions of a classified CIA report on Joseph Wilson adds to a growing body of information showing that at the time Plame was outed as a covert CIA officer the vice president was deeply involved in the White House effort to undermine her husband."

As of this moment, the online versions of CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the BBC are not carrying this story. It's only found in the National Journal, and there are links to the story from several liberal blogs, like Huffington Post and Raw Story. The guy who came up with the story first, an intrepid journalist by the name of Murray Waas, was also the first one to break the news last week that shrub authorized the leak of classified intelligence in order to support the rationale for the Iraq war.

I think this is big, guys. This is the first time that there's been direct evidence, in the form of Libby's testimony, that Cheney himself was involved in the leaking of an undercover CIA agent's name. I'm not sure what Fitzgerald thinks he can do with this, but the way I see it, Libby's testimony could be enough to at least indict Cheney for treason.

Hope, hope.

But what will actually happen is, of course, another question. If nothing else, this will be damn interesting.

At least he's gotten rid of the bow tie

2006-04-13T13:36:00.000-06:00

Tucker Carlson is being fucking crazy again. Now it looks like he hates strippers. Or is it women in general? Could somebody tell me why conservatives are so afraid of sex?

Never mind the fact that one of Duke's lacrosse players sent around an email to his teammates in which he said he wanted to have a bunch of strippers over so he could kill them and skin them.

So whose word would you take? A stripper or a psycho? I don't know about the rest of you, but I support working mothers.

It's amore!

2006-04-13T13:29:00.000-06:00

I wonder what bin Laden will say to this offer.

She looks like a man, man!

Oh say can you si

2006-04-07T22:25:00.000-06:00

The funny thing about public school officials is that they usually try and head off fistfights and riots before they start. Isn't that a strange habit?

Recently, in the wake of an outpouring of nationalistic anger and strife sparked by the immigration bills making their way through Congress, a couple of schools here in our beautifully red state of Colorado banned the wearing of any and all flags, including the American flag.

Why? Because a lot of students were taking sides over the immigration issue, mainly Mexicans and Americans (I only use the word American to refer to citizens of the United States for lack of a better term; actually I think that's a really fucking arrogant word because it implies that America is only the United States- what about the rest of these two continents? but I digress). The ban was aimed at lessening tensions between the two groups, because there had already been instances of violence at both the schools that enacted the ban.

But, of course, there was an outcry from the "patriots" who were upset that they couldn't wear the American flag. The stupid nationalistic bastards lost sight of the fact that the school administrators were just trying to keep a potential powder keg from exploding. Suddenly, however, the right wing in the US is all about the first amendment and civil liberties.

Strange, weren't most of those conservatives eager to hand the bill of rights over to the chopping block when the PATRIOT Act was first proposed? Or up for renewal? Or when it was revealed that Bush authorized illegal wiretaps of U.S. citizens? Shucks, I guess those violations of our constitutional rights were okay, but when it involves the safety of our students, it's just too much to ask.

Not only that, but even CNN fucked up the story, and told it as though only American flags were being banned. Real responsible, Lou Dobbs. Way to be.

Now I want a burrito.

Three way

2006-04-07T21:59:00.000-06:00

From the New York Times:

"President Bush's spokesman insisted that the president had the authority to declassify and release information "in the public interest" and had never done so for political reasons."

This was in reference to the recent news that Scooter Libby has served up Bush and Cheney on a silver platter to Patrick Fitzgerald.

The suggestion that Bush didn't authorize the leak of classified information for political reasons makes me so fucking livid that I can't even compose a good solid critique. Instead, I'll just rant and storm. Here goes.

BULLSHIT! Absolute and total fucking HORSESHIT! First of all, when the fuck is it LEGAL to leak classified information? Second, why in the fuck WOULD he "declassify" information in "the public interest" unless it was for some particular AGENDA? Because by doing so, with any AGENDA in mind, makes the act, by definition, POLITICAL! And does he REALLY expect ANYONE in their RIGHT GODDAMN MIND to expect that Scooter shitass Libby actually acted alone and without any kind of permission when he "accidentally" dropped Valerie Plame's name to half a dozen reporters? Hmmmm? That kind of position in life is not attained through lapses in memory! It's RETARDED! THE WHOLE STORY IS ASININE! AND even if they can prove it WASN'T illegal to leak that information, even if Fitzgerald can't directly connect Bush and Cheney to the leak of Plame's name, Libby's authorization to release information connected to the justification for invading Iraq is STILL POLITICAL. Shrub and his fucking team of storytellers came up with all KINDS of reasons to convince the country, the UN, and the world that we NEEDED to invade Iraq! Unbelievable. Take some goddamn responsibility for your actions, asshole.

Okay, I think I have that out of my system.

One other note, for right now. Shrub also wants to start making more nuclear weapons. He's just so smart, I can barely stand it.

"The administration... wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it says will no longer be reliable or safe."

The weapons will no longer be safe, eh? Isn't the point of nuclear weapons that they're supposed to be dangerous as all fucking hell?

No munchies today. Just tequila. Extra salt. Leave the bottle.

Sex and the Capitol

2006-04-07T14:30:00.000-06:00

The name Jessica Cutler might ring a bell if you read the D.C. tabloids, but if you don't, she was a Republican senator's staffer who got fired for publishing various accounts of sexual escapades she had online. The key here is that her escapades involved at least one married man and a number of D.C. insiders. Bad move, Jess. She's now being sued by one of the men she wrote about, for invasion of privacy (it's a bullshit claim, though- she never used his name, only his initials).

The thing is, that while reading about this retardedly lurid story (I felt like I was downing a gallon of ice cream, it was such a guilty pleasure), I came across an extensive Washington Post article that used Cutler's story as a segue into a really intelligent look at American mores and sexuality. One excerpt, which quotes pollster and analyst Daniel Yankelovich:

"The country is taken aback by moral relativism in all of its forms," Yankelovich says. "To me, the best way of thinking about it is that people are now free to say: 'I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't break the law.' An earlier generation, my own generation growing up in the United States, would say, 'What has the law got to do with it?' The usual model for societies is that they have a very thin layer of law and a very thick layer of social morality. What this expressive individualism has done, as an unintended consequence, is weaken that layer of social morality to the point where it's almost disappeared."

This is me again: I've argued this in the past, and those of you who know me best have probably heard this at one point or another, but this is a symptom of the very foundation of our Constitution. The United States of America was the first country in history to posit that the individual is more important than the collective good. That's why we have the bill of rights. That's why the Nazi Party is allowed to demonstrate in public. It's why our legal system allows death row inmates to appeal their sentences for decades instead of simply executing them immediately after trial. It's why questions as to where we draw the line on things like censorship and obscenity are so impossible to answer clearly.

But where does that leave us? Ah, there's the rub. What to do about our moral relativism? How to decide what IS right and wrong? And then, how to govern, how to enforce these "truths"?

What a quandary we have. Ain't it fun?

Cuddly politics

2006-03-26T21:54:00.000-07:00

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

2006-03-25T21:03:00.000-07:00

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

2006-03-25T15:49:00.000-07:00

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.