Thursday, September 30, 2004

From the Creepy Supremes Files: "Eccentric" Scalia Endorses Orgies

Yes, he actually did say, "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged." Vomit. This is just ripe for a textual analysis and with apologies, dear reader, I must beg off, not being of iron stomach.

But the creeptastic shout outs did not end on that orgiastic note. Scalia also said in an aside that the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of senators, was "a bad idea." It's obvious this guy does not believe that the voters should be allowed their own vote! Gaw-dang. New motto for Antonin: One Man, My Vote.

When asked if he had any gay friends, the Supreme responded, "I probably do have some gay friends. I’ve never pressed the point.” Well, if he'd "pressed the point," he'd probably know for sure! Ba-dow! Thank you, I'll be here all week! Don't forget to tip your waitress!

My personal favorite mal mot from Mr. Eccentric's lecture was his response to a question about his own inter-effin'-ference in the 2000 (s)election: "Would you rather have the president of the United States decided by the Supreme Court of Florida?” Thud.

Um, actually, mofo, it would be nice if the people of Florida could decide who their votes go to!! Jeebus! One further vomitorious note: the student who wrote about this in the Harvard Crimson wrote that Scalia "quipped" this last answer. Oh good Lord. This is a joke? This is deserving of flippancy?

Nov. 2 cannot get here fast enough.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Haiku on the Occasion of Dear Leader's Newly Discovered Talents As Regards Office Furniture

-----

Bama's no war zone-
Senators' sons always safe
Bravely flying desks

----

AwOL's Erica Jong* Moment, circa May 1972

*That's a Fear of Flying reference, y'all, cos lookie here! AwOL was sent "to fly desk in Alabama" cos he couldn't cut it in a fighter plane, according to the wife of the man who took his place at TANG. And lookie, lookie, the latest White House document dump could support such a story. How does Danny Bartlett 'splain away the strange demotion from F-102 to flight simulator shenanigans just before aWol went to "fly desk" elsewhere, where, um, he didn't even do that, the weaselly little privileged frat boy prick.

"Fly desk." I LOVE THAT. I wish Kerry would use that line tomorrow night, but we all know that the media whores get all snippy if anyone dares not kiss the ring of Dear Leader, so we'll have none of that. I hope that the Kerry debate team has employed a whole bevy of psychologists to devise just the language -- verbal and non- -- to make dumbyass angry. That pot is poised to boil over, and he generally does when his gestapo cannot enforce Thought Crimes via loyalty oaths and free speech zones. I'll raise my margarita glass tomorrow night in toast if they can get that cold, slit-eyed, resentful/vengeful look to cross dumbya's smirking visage. Shouldn't be that hard. Could probably get it started with this question: (Insert polite honorific here) (I prefer "f*cker"), "Why were you demoted to training planes and flight simulators after you had already logged enough hours to graduate to pilot status?" If we could get a "medal for bravery and distinction in flying desk in a postal unit in Alabama" reference in there, I'd be much pleased, but that's just asking for the moon.

Hey, Georgie, you owe us $1 million dollars for that special training that you punk'd out on!

My favorite asterisk moment of the article though is waaaay at the bottom in itty bitty type. It reads: *editor's note: (Citizens for Legitimate Government) does not recogize George W. Bush as president, as he was not elected in 2000.

My sentiments exactly. Buh-bye, squatter.

Sitting in the car because you cannot bear to get out and miss a word of what's on the radio.

This is what happened tonight listening to Tom Ashbrook's interview with Howeard Dean on "On Point."

I've sat in the car many a time listening to a good song -- even one I've heard eleventy jillion times and have copies of in the car or in the house -- but it's the rare occasion that a radio program is substantive enough to keep me rooted, especially in our current "news" climate.

And, yes, it was, of course, what Howard Dean was saying, but it was the way he said it, too. I used to wish that John Kerry were getting Bill Clinton lessons, but after this interview, I'm hoping beyond hope that Kerry is getting Howard Dean lessons. So succint! So smart and to the point and confident and reasonable! Now, this guy is plain spoken. "Plain spoken" as applied to the Thief in Chief is just, well, more propaganda. They figure if they say it enough, we'll forget what it actually means. (I hate them, but I digress.)

Gov. Dean showed me again tonight what it is that I love about him so: his conviction; his straight-shooting, un-self-conscious analysis; his sincerity and big-mindedness. Is that a word? I mean the opposite of small-mindedness; i.e. Gov. Dean is doing right by his country, by his party, and by his own guiding principles in service of future promise. He is faithful to a vision to better our lives, and oh Lord it sounds hokey, but it's important. We've been so overrun by this band of ruthless pirates w/ their endless jingoism and empty flag-waving rituals that we've forgotten -- or at least I've forgotten -- what actually giving a shit about one's country means. I'm sick of being embarrassed and sickened and appalled. Can we imagine again an administration that acts in the interest of the people, an administration whose every action does not result in subpeonas and criminal action, an administration that transacts its business openly and honestly--or at least as open and honest as we ever got? Can we have high-mindedness again?

This said, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Kerry tomorrow night, and though I am nervous, I have hope that we will all feel better on Friday. We have a few important things on our side:
1) Kerry is not an idiot. Clearly, dumbyass is.
2) Kerry is more adaptable. He can shorten his sentences, clarify his positions, answer a direct question, etc. Dumbyass can, um, memorize some rote points and swagger and smirk and invoke God and be "folksy," but that's about it. No thinking on his feet, no rhetorical flourish (hahaha! right.), no command of the facts. In a just reality, this would be a cakewalk and, more importantly, understood as such.
3) Kerry is a professional. He looks like a president. (Whatever. It's important in this society which increasingly makes judgments on opinion rather than fact, as we all can have opinions even as we're lacking in pesky knowledge. See? It's tremendously democratic.) He is able to exude ease, confidence, knowledge, and sincerity.
4) Kerry is a former prosecutor and was captain of the Yale debate team, which are not a small things in the realm of rhetorical ability. He understands the "acting" portion of this game. Dumbyass...again, he can smirk and swagger, but will it be enough?

It will not be enough if the punditocracy decides that this election is too important to farble about w/ bullshit like earth tones and tans and the like. There will be a very clear difference tomorrow night between these two men, and let's hope that the pundits have the maturity and professional dignity not to be distracted by the fiddling while Rome burns.

Go buy Gov. Dean's book and savor its eminently reasonable analysis while contemplating what it would have been like to cast your vote with pride and hope for a truly intelligent, decent, mature person of substance.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Christopher Hitchens Walks Into My Dark Alley

Now, I am a Hitch fan from waaaaay back when he wasn't a warmongering apologist for the big stick element in society. I, like so many others, prefer the smart and snarky lovable Hitch with tie askew and hair perpetually mussed, but not mussed like self-conscious rocker mussing; mussed like dammit, i'm late and i just spilled coffee on my shirt and why is this cab going so slow, i've got a deadline! mussed. Y'all remember the Hitch who dropped bon mots from his thin lips like so much pearls before the swine we were. Ah, those were the days....

And then Bill Clinton must have slept with Hitch's girlfriend or mother or something at Oxford, cos, goddam, Hitch hates Bill with the intensity of a thousand burning suns. Jeeeez, Hitch. What-ever. But though I found this distasteful, these were early days yet, and I was willing to let it go as the quirk of a true iconoclast, and he must know something I don't, right? But he kept on. I mean, the screeds against the Clintons were one thing, but the post-9/11 moralizing and serious intoning about saving "civilization," say it ain't so, Hitch! There was a time when Hitch would parse that "civilization" assumption for us with a withering look and one-liner. But oh no, 9/11 was too big for Hitch. It crystalized some sort of inner establishment warrior in him and brought him unapologetically to the forefront to do battle (rhetorically) with the nihilist jihadists, who, of course, hated everything we cherished. Dang. Rhetorical fireworks still in evidence in brilliant bursts, but the shrillness has become almost banal.

And, frankly, the protesting-too-much is unbecoming. Hitch is un-, well, Hitched, sad to say. He's turned into a smarter Bill O'Reilly. Okay, not a smarter Bill O'Reilly, because O'Reilly's blustering, apoplectic, and oh-too-vociferous stupidity are beyond compare. Let's say Hitch is a smarter -- what's that guy--the one--you know, he's blond and ineffectual, speaks all nasally, and you know that he got his ass kicked his whole life and was only saved from a life of deviant and tragic porn addiction (if he were, that is) because his momma was such a tough biddy that she had cajones enough for both of them and he could trade on her name for a while? No, not David "Axis of Evil' Frum (a right-wing Canuck? say it ain't so!), though I'm sure this applies in his case, too. No, not John "Please Kick Me" Podhoretz, though this definitely applies in his case. That other one, the blond guy. Every once in a while he actually utters an un-cringeworthy sentence...Bill Kristol! Phew. That guy. Hitch has dropped a level or two on the dumb-o-meter, and why? Hitch, what's with the Bill Kristol krap? We liked you better as you. Bill's a tool; you used to be an iconoclast. Sigh.

Now, I'm not one to engage in the kind of soft slander that is the M.O. of the less moral among us, so I won't wonder aloud if Hitch is having trouble removing his head from the oak cask of Scotch up his ass. That is between him and his bartender. I just cannot understand why he would say something as, well, dumb as this in Whores Are Us, I mean, Slate:

(The Democrats think that) the Bush administration is stashing Bin Laden somewhere, or somehow keeping his arrest in reserve, for an "October surprise." This innuendo would appear, on the face of it, to go a little further than "impugning the patriotism" of the president. It argues, after all, for something like collusion on his part with a man who has murdered thousands of Americans as well as hundreds of Muslim civilians in other countries.

Oh, for the love of God. Has Hitch lost his marbles completely? It's so clunky and lazy and beneath him, and it doesn't end there. I just can't bring myself to quote any more of it. When did the worldly Hitch become such an innnocent? Since when can he not fathom the abuse of state power, this former Trotskyite?? How do we coax this babe in the woods back into the wilds of the Beltway?

It's not enough that this sort of -- some would call it paranoid, I would not -- thinking would impugn the patriotism of the preznit, Hitch has to assert that the Dems' innuendo implies B*shCo's "collusion" with Public Enemy #1. How would this be "collusion"? What does Hitch imagine? Rove walks up to Bin Laden in Tora Bora and says, "Let's you and me go in on this most nefarious of plots together. I hope you'll agree to aid me in my plan to undermine American democracy," and then they'll shake on it? For f*ck's sake, that has to be the stupidest thing I've read about any of this yet.

As if getting some rogue Pakistani element to capture Bin Laden and keep him in a cave in the mountainous borderlands is so far beyond the ken of some DoD shadow group. Or maybe Hitch does not remember the Pakistani "July Surprise"? I mean, it's not like this administration ever played politix with national security. Ahem. Curiously timed terror alerts, anyone? Does Hitch think it despicable that Ch*ney has said as much that a vote for John Kerry will get you bombed by Osama? Oh no, Hitch does not, because he himself has intoned that "unless (Kerry) conclusively repudiates the obvious defeatists in his own party (and maybe even his own family), we shall be able to say that John Kerry's campaign is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida.

Right. Like a criticism lobbed in the relative safety of a political campaign is as much a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida as, oh I don't know, an entire unnecessary war in Iraq!!!

Hitch, we hardly knew ye.

Oh, and that idiotic article is here.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Coulter on women: "We're not that bright"

Annthrax's latest pent up, frustrated explosion of (poorly) sublimated pityingly awkward sexual passion has moved me to pen this homage:

O, what a blunder is Ann Coulter
What an eyesore, what a dunder
I'm sick of her insanity -- really,
How else to explain her inanity?
She hates herself, hence "women"
That crack'd bulb of hers be dimmin'.
I confess I hate Ann Coulter, yo.
She can take her bushit and go.

Aw, heck, why not another? Poor, pitiful Ann's deserving of so much worse, so why not do it in verse?

Ann Coulter? Nay, Ann Dolter
She's the doltiest dolt of all
The nuttiest peanut at the ball.
She sez wimmins be dum, ya--
Cuz the wimmins like dumbya?
While her candidate holds her in thrall.

(Hint: Annthrax is 'not that bright,' y'all.)

Pity poor, sad Annthrax -- she's poison! Poison, I say! -- on Media Matters for America.

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Here's the Difference

Junior Codpiece said in an interview with FauX today that he had no regrets and would still have shown up in that Commander Wedgie costume for his "Mission Accomplished" speech, to which Kerry, not surprisingly, replied, "Unbelievable."

"I will never be a president who just says mission accomplished. I will get the mission accomplished," said the Massachusetts senator. "That's the difference."

That's the effin' difference, indeed.

Dammit, people! This insane fiction that some of us "undecideds" are laboring under has got to come to an end. There are only 35 days left, soon to be only 34 days left, and that is dangerously close to only one month standing between us and the crazy thing the Repugs are going to pull in October to swing the election. (Where is Osama?) There is not a damn thing that Dumbyass has done that has bettered this world one iota, and there is no indication that he has any interest in bettering the world for the majority of us worldwide. If you want to keep the US of A a secular state, you will be well advised to vote for Senator Kerry. If you prefer not to live in a military zone a la the Gaza Strip, you would do well to cast your vote for Mr. Kerry. If you value drinking water and non-poisonous gulps of air, vote for Senator Kerry. If your particular interest is national security, educational opportunity, fiscal responsibility, a social safety net, or government accountability, let alone a thriving democracy, then may we humbly beg you last-minute decidin', commitment phobia-havin', political procrastinators to just buck up and do yourselves, us, your grandkids, and some nice foreign people you never met the favor of voting for Senator Kerry.

God.


NEWS ANALYSIS: Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts

The question is not whether this is surprising to anyone or a new development and suddenly worthy of news attention, but WHY in the bejeezus it is reported so late in the game (what, like 37 days left until the election?) and why it hasn't been reported for 25 hours straight on CNN and FauX and MSNBC, etc., in exactly these uncompromising terms. I am grateful to the San Francisco Gate, but who's going to see this? And I'm not talking the 12 or so of us who will troll the web until we find news somewhere, anywhere, for the love of God. I'm talking Mr. and Mrs. "Bring Liberty to the Iraqis" in Iowa and Missouri and West Virginia. It's not like this worthy story is going to make the evening news. Heavens, no! Why would it?

I might wonder, too, why so-called Democrats can't articulate this in their mealy-mouthed "support" for Kerry on the blather shows. But that would be pondering the deepest mysteries of the universe, and we are not that deep here. Our quest is the shallow puddle that is American political enterprise.

From the article:

Kerry repeatedly described Hussein as a dangerous menace who must be disarmed or eliminated, demanded that the U.S. build broad international support for any action in Iraq and insisted that the nation had better plan for the post-war peace.

There were times when Kerry's emphasis shifted for what appear to be political reasons. In the fall of 2003, for example, when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean surged to the top of Democratic polls based on an anti-war platform, Kerry's criticism of the president grew stronger. There are many instances in which clumsy phrases and tortuously long explanations make Kerry difficult to follow. And there are periods, such as last week, when the sharpness of Kerry's words restating old positions seem to suggest a change.

Yet taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago.


Thursday, September 23, 2004

The Unfeeling President, by E.L. Doctorow

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

Read more here.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

God is Smiting the Republicans, As Tracked by Doppler Radar

Well, how can one argue with a combination of human invention and obvious divine intervention?

Hey Florida, Have You Got the Hint Yet?

(via Atrios)

UPDATE: Alright, so the story's not true. So what? It allowed me a moment of Selection 2000 schadenfreude. Okay, okay, I can't even joke about this. I wouldn't want even Repugnicans to have to suffer like this. Siiiiiiiigh.

This Just In! B*sh is a Flip-Floppin', Waffle-Makin', Fence-Straddlin', Equivocatin' Double Talker.

Woohoo, this is rich. Riyatch, biyatch. You heard me.

You see, kiddies, it looks like Fearless Leader's been fibbin', or he's confused, or desperately seeking a conclusion, or he's a lying, thieving, crooked, remorseless bastard.

Our friends at AMERICAblog have compiled the whole bleeding list. As their byline notes: Because a great nation deserves the truth. Yeah, it does. So which one is it?

1. War on Terror
2. Prevention of the proliferation of WMD
3. Lack of Inspections
4. Remove Saddam Hussein regime
5. Saddam Hussein is evil
6. Invading Iraq would allow us to gain favor in the Middle East
7. Example to other terror states
8. Liberate the Iraqi people
9. Broken Promises - Iraq had made commitments to the UN and the world
10. Revenge for Iraq's attempt on the life of President H.W. Bush
11. Threat Saddam posed to the region
12. Because We Can - There would be little conflict or struggle, little price to pay for entering the country, the war would be easy.
13. Cleaning up unfinished business in Iraq from the first Gulf War
14. War for Oil - The US' oil interests in the Middle East and Iraq serve as a reason for wanting to invade the state and topple its leader.
15. Sake of History - Pres. Bush claimed history had called on the US to take action against Iraq
16. Disarmament - total elimination of ALL weapons in Iraq
17. Safety of the World - Iraq as a terrorist nation could sell weapons to other terrorists and thus posed a threat to the entire world
18. Commitment to the Children - America should give its children and the world's children a better future.
19. Imminent Threat - The uncertainty of Iraq's weapon power and future plans.
20. Preserve Peace - Iraq posted a threat to the peace of the world by its continued terrorist involvement and its increased tension in the Middle East
21. Threat to Freedom - By oppressing its people and threatening the world with possible terror acts, freedom was prevention from spreading through the Middle East and was lessened in those nations that feared terror in their backyards.
22. Link to al Qaeda
23. Iraq Unique - Rumsfeld declared that Saddam Hussein in combination with the weapons potential in Iraq made Iraq different than the other "axis of evil" countries, and therefore a great immediate threat.
24. Relevance of UN - The UN was put on notice that it would face illegitimacy if it did not support the cause of the United States.
25. Iraq had broken international law - Colin Powell said that violations of UN resolutions broke international laws established in the UN Charter.

It has been pointed out that this is a partial list, so many more flippity-floppin' rationales to come!

To further shame the useless American media lemmings, the original research comes from an undergraduate student at the University of Illinois. 200 pages of B*sh Admin. weaselly provocation and opportunism and media credulity. Go on with your bad self, Devon Largio.

A pox on the media's house.

FASCISM BEGINS AT HOME

Hi everybody. The current terrorist alert level is "elevated" which is yellow. Or maybe orange. Perhaps chartreuse? I can never get it straight...

------------------------
Well, we are officially on the path to fascism. Today the U.S. government deported Cat "Peace Train" Stevens on the same day that it released from captivity a Saudi national who was fighting with the Taliban.

Stevens, who changed his name to Yusuf Islam when he became a Muslim in the 1970s, had been placed on a U.S. "no fly" list and has been deported to Britian according to State Department officials and reports in the Associated Press.

A law enforcement official who asked not to be identified said the United States had information that Islam, who visited the United States in May, had donated money to the militant Islamic group Hamas.

Islam/Stevens has long donated money to charitable causes and has taken a particular interest in children victimized by wars in Bosnia, Iraq and in the Palestinian settlements.

Meanwhile, Yaser Hamdi, who has ties to terrorist organizations based out of Saudi Arabia and who fought with the Taliban against the U.S. in 2001, has now been released from a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. Under terms of his release, Hamdi, who was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, cannot return to the United States nor can he visit Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.

Although it is not clear what he was being held for, he has been captive for almost three years and was once thought to be such a threat by the Homeland Security department that he was held in a naval stockade without being allowed to contact a lawyer.

Given this recent information, I have compiled a list of known and not-so-well known Americans who should be concerned about being deported any day now. These include, but are not limited to:

--John Kerry
--John Edwards
--Michael Moore (start packing)
--Jeneane Garofalo
--Me
--Anyone else who contributes to, or regularly reads Dissent Channel
--Sean Penn
--Democratic billionaire industrialist George Soros, who was recently accused by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert of being involved with drug cartels.
--Bill Maher
--Chris Rock
--Your mama
--Senator Barbara Boxer
--Dan Rather and the producers of 60 Minutes
--Reverend Jesse Jackson and anyone else who actually tried to negotiate with Palestinan leaders instead of just shooting at them.
--Gloria Steinem

Personally, I just hope they fly me out on first class. The leg room is so much better.


You Can't Fool All of the People All of the Time

Hahah!

Dan Bartlett hosts "Ask the White House" yesterday.

Bartlett ended up taking only 12 questions, cos, um, he was reeeeaaally bizzy and had to, um, go help aWol with his presidenting.

Pay No Attention to the State Department Behind the Curtain

Though I am loathe to admit it, George Will makes a good point in his column:

After "This Week" arranged with Allawi's office for Sunday's interview, the State Department called ABC to say that the office of U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte in Baghdad had decided that the interview would not happen until this coming Sunday, after Allawi's U.S. visit. This attempt by the U.S. Embassy to exercise sovereignty over the prime minister raised interesting questions about just what was actually transferred on June 28 when sovereignty was supposedly given to the Iraqi government. The White House recognized the inconvenience of such questions. The interview occurred.

Ahem.

So Prime Minister Allawi visits and his TV schedule is manipulated by the State Department, because he's the head of a sovereign state and in complete control of his country's (and his own) affairs. Uh huh, right.

Monday, September 20, 2004

Blog, blog, blog...

Although there are innumerable reasons to despise repugnicans, I can always manage to find just one more. I work with a repugnican named M. who jokes about my tree-hugging tendencies while I joke about his wastefulness, but you know neither of us is actually kidding. I figure that people who give a shite about more than themselves tend to try to preserve resources and people who couldn't give a flip are often loudly, obnoxiously, disgustingly wasteful. I think about starving children in Sudan or the person(s) who broke into my boyfriend's brother's house and stole not just electronics, but clothes (obviously needy). He thinks about...?

Anyway, M. makes the production assistant re-copy something that has to go out to over 100 people THREE SEPARATE TIMES. The first time, she'd made 150 copies of Sheet A and 150 copies of Sheet B but because they should have been attached to each other, he said to redo it because, apparently, it would take waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long to just line up two pieces of paper and staple them together. She thought it was cruel and unusual punishment, both to her and the earth, but she did as she was told so she could take her $1 pay and call it a day. BUT THEN, the wasteful, selfish bastard made her redo it AGAIN because there was a single typo on Sheet A. Normally, I'm so anal, so meticulous that I'd prefer to just do it right, but there were extenuating circumstances on this one: Sheet A is 1) something that goes out to over 100 people every single day, and 2) chock full of (roughly 12,000) characters. Do you think that maybe we could make the one correction tomorrow, given that the typo doesn't actually relate to anything of significance today?

This may seem a piddling post, but please, people, please! It's a state of mind, a world view, that's just plain problematic. Just because there seems to be an endless supply of paper doesn't mean that we should keep killing trees and wasting electricity and feeling entitled and being piggier than the rest of the world. Where the hell do these buggers get off? If nothing else, maybe we should try to convince the repugnicans that the less there is, the less they can exploit.

Friday, September 17, 2004

Herding Chicken Pot Pies

Hiya Happy People. This is my first blog and I'm very excited about this whole thing!

My co-worker J. sent me, and a bunch of other folks, this INSANE IN THE MEMBRANE political commentary:

"Some may agree, some may not. Here are my latest thoughts: Islam is turning into a non-religious entity because of these zealost terrorists. Any religion that condones suicide, for any reason, should be questioned. The acts of terrorism show cowardice, and are loosely interpreted as religious JIHAD rather than a political act. I would suggest a "Three Strike" policy against Islamic terrorism, at least against American interests abroad or on American soil. Strike One: Remove all American presence from Iraq and Afganistan. Let them "enjoy" anarchy until they are back to herding goats. Strike two: Remove all military presence from ALL Middle Eastern countries, I mean wouldn't the Saudis start their own terrorism force? Strike Three: Level Mecca - not that I want to be the terrorist responsible for laying waste to the holy city.

Talk about cowardice - how about the Bush "town hall meetings" - Republicans only. I have one word for a President who can't speak about, or justify his policies to the open citizenry of the country - PUSSY!!! What is he afraid of? Some third grader picking apart his administration??? It could happen. That might make the debates a little more interesting!!! Kerry needs to address  issues like the economy more often AND I do think the Republicans have turned terrorism into a bigger issue than it really should be and they're beating Kerry over the head with it. Really, how many of us will die by acts of terrorism? I am more afraid of hurrican IVAN right now."

Um, ok. She seemed liked such a normal girl before that. How does one respond to such utter shite?

J, I hope you're joking because this sounds like lunatic right wing ranting! I'm shocked and couldn't disagree more strongly. While I'm not a religious person, I have to say that we all have to stop blaming God and religion for every crazy thing that insane people do. In America, we don't blame Christianity for abortion clinic bombings, the Oklahoma City bombings, the
Michigan Militia, etc. and we don't blame Judaism for the Sharon government denying people water, removing people from their own homes, building walls on other people's property, or driving tanks over peace activists. So why do we blame another major world religion because a tiny percentage of hopeless, angry, pathological people cause devastation? There are
always going to be people in every religion (and people who don't adhere to any religion) who do insane, even terrorist, things. Let's judge people by their actions and not their political, cultural, racial, religious, or state affliliations. My point is
that just because those fuckheads who kill abortion doctors call themselves Christians, doesn't mean that we need to devalue all of Christianity. (And, I say this as a person who grew up in the Bible Belt having been told I'm going to hell because I'm not born again.)

No religion condones suicide. If you don't believe me, read the holy books. The stupid things that people do on behalf of their religions aren't due to the fact that the holy books say so.

I mean, bombing Mecca??? Are you on crack??? Hell, why don't we then bomb the wailing wall and join the KKK in bombing black churches and go ahead and destroy all churches, synagogues and mosques? While we're on a roll, we should destroy all religious symbols in general. Those bastards wearing crosses offend my sensibilities because they simply serve to remind me
of the terrorism that the Christian crusades have inflicted for centuries! Do you see how crazy that sounds? It's the exact same thing as saying "Let's bomb Mecca."

Mecca is a holy place for a billion people. Are you actually saying that you think it's a good idea to destroy ANY holy place, much less a place that one-sixth of the entire planet cherishes? Those shameful philistine governments that destroy other
cultures' treasures (religious, artistic or otherwise) should be the focus of our anger and outrage. Mecca is not a center of evil, and even the BushCo. government isn't so stupid that they'd argue that. Mecca is a place of peace where normal, everyday muslims make a pilgrammage to pray. (Ever heard of The Wailing Wall? It's not exactly the center of the uber-conservative Sharon government.) Despite whatever conspiracy-of-the-day the right wing "think" tanks may have cooked up, there aren't conference rooms there where people birth terrorist machinations. There aren't computers and modems and faxes people utilize in colluding to destroy America. The American media, under the thumb of the right wing, have
convinced us all that THOSE PEOPLE hate us and want to destroy us but just like most Christians and Jews, most Muslims are normal everyday people.

The problem here is that BushCo. and their ilk have manipulated America to believe that an entire religion hates us, so that we can have a scapegoat, and will blindly support Dubya's racist, neo-conservative, classist, unilateral policies. I can't encourage you more to read alternative media (i.e., news sources that are not owned by major corporations who have a
stake in what's reported and how it's represented). Here are some to peruse: www.thenation.com, www.zmag.org/weluser.htm, www.alternet.org. The network "news" agencies and local newspapers aren't sufficient to educate ourselves about what's really going on in the world, or to see perspectives that aren't tainted with a subjective brush. Even BBC
(world news) is a start.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” --Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.

In hope and dismay,
eoe

I replied "all" and got three responses. The first was from Thoughtful Mexican Guy giving a well considered and impassioned anti-bigotry argument. The next one came from Texas Rupugnican Girl who think she works for the "most liberal company in the most liberal town" (That'd be the flippin' GAP in Los Angeles. I'm neither mean nor fatuous enough to comment on that.) mustering all her strength and determination to ask people to vote "FOR someone, not AGAINST someone." Is that all she's got? Is anyone really THAT ridiculously ignorant? For anyone who never took LOGIC 101, here's a crib sheet: when there are only two candidates, and you can only vote for one, you vote for someone and against the other someone. It doesn't really matter if you wax philosophic or wax moronic because, last time I did higher math anyway, ONE equals ONE. It's just as good to vote against Dubya as it is to vote for Kerry, especially considering that it's the same act. Anyone who votes for Traitor Nader or himself or Mickey Mouse (Gosh, that's so clever. Are you a scientist?) when his country is in such dire straits and so desperately needs him, deserves four more years of BushCo and an interminably long prison sentence--but I repeat myself. The final email came from Meek & Stoopid Girl who, um, well, ya know, sorta like asked me not to send her any replies because I'm too smart and knowledge is scary and the world is too big and God will severely punish anyone who thinks (She may be right about that one because we anti-Dubya folks are certainly taking a beating.) and libraries are the work of the devil and the world will end if we ponder more than our navels and ok, ok, I exaggerate a bit. But, I'm really good at reading between the lines, and I'm sure that's what she meant when she whimpered and a widdle puddle o' pee appeared at the bottom of her email.

So, then I told my actual intelligent, political friends about it, and L. said the best and funniest thing I've heard in about fifty years. On the subject of letting "them ENJOY anarchy until they are back to herding goats" (which I have to say was so utterly, ignorantly, blockheadedly offensive that I couldn't even bring myself to address it), L.A. mentioned that it doesn't make us civilized just because we buy frozen foods, and I quote, "FUCK HER TO HELL AND MAY SHE STAY THERE, HERDING CHICKEN POT PIES FOR ALL OF ETERNITY." Damn I love that. We liberals can't be accused of lacking passion--despite that our leadership thinks that means screwing lotsa hot, dumb "ladies." Really, what an excellent point. Our way of life is not to be shoved down the throats of everyone else on the planet as (cue the harp) THE SUPERIOR WAY OF BEING. I think that's pretty self-explanatory, and if it's not clear to you, write me, my friend, and I'll give you another lesson in LOGIC 101.

Please oh please think about the importance of voting for Kerry and have a great weekend,
eoe

The Gallup Poll Fudging the Numbers for Republicans (Mais Non!)

The Left Coaster: Why You Should Ignore The Gallup Poll This Morning - And Maybe All Of Theirs

From the article:
I asked Gallup, who have been very courteous to my requests, to send me this morning their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls. This is what I got back this morning:

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)

Registered Voter Sample Party IDs – Same Poll
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (38%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (30%)

In both polls, Gallup oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats. Worse yet, Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls. Gallup says that "This (the breakdown between Reeps and Dems) was not a constant. It can differ slightly between surveys" in response to my latest email. Slightly? Does that mean that in all of these national and state polls we have seen from Gallup that they have "slightly" varied between 36%-40% GOP and 32%-36% Democrat? I already know from an email I got from Gallup earlier in the week that in their suspicious Wisconsin and Minnesota polls they seemingly oversampled for the GOP and undersampled for the Dems. For example in Wisconsin, in which they show Bush now with a healthy lead, Gallup used a sample comprised of 38% GOP and 32% Democratic likely voters. In Minnesota where Gallup shows Bush gaining a small lead, their sample reflects a composition of 36% GOP and 34% Democrat likely voters. How realistic is either breakdown in those states on Election Day?

According to John Zogby himself:

If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, with a Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven’t been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?

Folks, unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home in droves and gets the GOP to come out of the woodwork, there is no way in hell that these or any other Gallup Poll is to be taken seriously.

How likely is it that the Democrats will suffer a seven-point difference against the GOP this November or that the GOP will ever hit 40%?

Not very likely.


I KNEW THOSE POLLS WERE WRONG!!!

Screw Gallup. Read these numbers and weep, cheataz.

Land. Slide.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

The Mysterious Case of the CBS Memos

Though it sounds very Nancy Drew-ish, it may merely be devilish, according to Maureen Dowd in the Times. Thank goodness MoDo is around to give voice to some frickin' nebulous "Democrats" who are running skeered over the wonderously evil (and secretly appealing) strategies of the Mayberry Machiavellis. Um, like, what-ev.

Note to pundits: I AM READY FOR MY CLOSE UP! Yoohooo! Over here, willing subject for your endless anonymous (and endlessly extrapolating) polling. I'm just dying to speak for all Dems, why won't anyone let me?

Anyhoo, I've been too tired (read: jaded) to muck through the vast right-wing conspiracy's keening shrillality on the subject of the FORGED (!!) -- THEY'RE FORGED, I SAY!! -- documents, so color me heartened that the fine folks at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting have taken to the task with gusto, bless 'em. Close observers will note that FAIR directs us, among other places, to the very fine Julius Blog. Well done, Julius Blog!

So read this to get the dope on superscripts, X-heights, and when frickin' Times New Roman was invented.

Oh, there'll be more. The VRWC hasn't even begun to get shrill.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

All You Ever Wanted to Know About the Structural Biases of the Mass Media but Were Afraid to Ask

Well, what could I add to this, except to say that even your humble servant's anecdotal evidence says "duh!"

Go see the Propaganda Model here! And marvel at its awesomeness.

Monday, September 13, 2004

THE SPIRIT OF '76

Ah, dissent channel is rocking and rolling now! I'll add a couple of my own haikus at the end of this essay, but I bow down to everyone else in the house for their witty, wise and oh so on-target verse. Making the world a better place, one haiku at a time...

---------------
So did George W. Bush really put in those 80 hours of flight time and perform his National Guard duty? Is John Kerry the Purple Heart earning war hero who served bravely on that swift boat in Vietnam? My question is this: who cares?

It is 2004. The Vietnam War ended for this country 29 years ago. There are people with children in grade school who weren't even alive during this conflict. The issues that loom before us in this national election--the War in Iraq, national health care, the future of social security, the protection of our civil liberties, the threat to freedom of reproductive choice, the "war on terrorism", just to name a few--are what we should be talking about in the presidential discussion, not what happened three decades ago. Every second spent talking about it (including on this blog) is a precious second wasted in the Most Important Presdential Election of our time.

But I have to weigh in on this. To those who suggest that Vietnam serves as some kind of character litmus test for the two main candidates in this election, I say bullshit. While I personally view Kerry's record much more favorably (he DID serve in Vietnam, he WAS injured, he DID fight for his country and ultimately he DID speak out about the wrongheadedness of our involvement in Vietnam, thereby making him much less of a "flip-flopper" than Dubya), I'm not nearly as interested in the past military service records of these two men as I am in their plans for both the present and the immediate future. I am interested in their political ideologies, their social views and in their very powerful political backers. In short, its "what have you done for me lately?" or "what are you going to do for me?" as opposed to "what did you do when you were 25?" (I think back to what I was doing when I was 25 and I'm not sure I would vote for myself if I ran for president...)

Funny thing is, call me crazy but I believe the majority of people in this country feel the same way. On Election Day, those who vote will be asking themselves a few basic questions about the candidates, and I have a feeling their Vietnam War record won't be one of them. (Although some people may be misled into forming some kind of character judgement about Kerry or Bush because of this "debate.") So this isn't me scolding the American public (for once) but rather me scolding the media who allow themselves to manipulated by the PAC's and the spinmeisters into reporting non-issue stories at the expense of focusing on what really makes either of these men worth voting for. By not holding a unrelentingly harsh light up to either candidate (which I believe would expose Bush to be the corrupt, morally bankrupt fraud he really is), the media fails us all, softens all of our brains while hardening all of our hearts. It's ugly, frustrating and ultimately, destructive to our republic. It's 2004 and it's 1976 all over again.

-------------------
A couple of the promised haiku:

Ashcroft kills freedom
With wasteful war on terror
Right wing reigns Supreme.

Sudan's genocide
Where thousands die each month
Alas, no oil there.


Keep dissenting...until tomorrow sports fans, arrividerci!

Friday, September 10, 2004

President Jimmy Carter Reminds Zell Miller What Dignity Is

Read President Carter's letter here at Talking Points Memo.

From the letter:
Zell, I have known you for forty-two years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral preemptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited.

Woo.

How many zell-ots (couldn't resist) like this guy will scramble just as hard when the Bushies are kicked out in November and they no longer have the protection of the eeeeevviiiilllllllll Karl Rove and his Hate Machine to prop them up? Zell's on the outs, and he should be, but what about all those quieter hardball players who'll noww have to start getting along again? What will they do? I wish the Dems would just not let up, and I hope President Kerry investigates EVERY SINGLE ONE of the crimes of the B*sh Admin. It'll take all 8 years of his term, and at least 4 of Obama's to get it done.

NYT to Michael Moore: Shove It

*Sigh.*

Looks like the NY Times has denied permission for Michael Moore to use its devastating May mea culpa, "From the Editors: The Times and Iraq," in his forthcoming book, citing the desire to maintain the Times' "neutrality in its election coverage," and saying that their note was "not intended to become part of a political battle."

OH, REALLY?

Well, I hate to break it to all the self-serving yay-hoos at the Times -- really, fire them all and let Mrs. Grundy's 7th grade yearbook class handle it -- but what is it that the Times thinks it does exactly? I am not advocating that the Times (consciously) start advocating, but we all know that they are hardly neutral on this moving train, and no matter how many Paul Krugman's they have (erm, one!), that don't a librul paper make. They're advocating already, which they've found results in embarrassing (should be career-ending, dammit) mea culpas. The Times, lest anyone forget, is a *newspaper*, with 'news' being the operative portion of that term. Their job is to present a series of investigated -- and verified -- facts in a coherent narrative such that they relate something of importance or interest to the reader. Well, that sounds easy enough. So why can't the Times just get over themselves and allow one of their eleventy jillion articles to be reprinted in Michael Moore's volume? Why would they fear that allowing such a thing would marr the vision of neutrality that readers (don't) have?

COULD IT BE THE LIBRUL MEDIA BIAS/FILTER/CONSPIRACY??

No, but it could if you're running skeered from the

You'd think the Times had been nominated for an Oscar for all the false modesty and high-minded protestation going on. Why, we're just dishonored to be asked.

From the article:


The New York Times > National > The News Media: The Times Refuses Reprint in Moore Book

More Haiku Against B*sh!

Disgust for this administration's policies really get the creative juices going here at Dissent Channel! Y'all come on in, the (shark-infested) water's warm.

Monster created
Clever haikus now abound
Bush must really suck
(damon)

Fox is bad mammal
Conservative yelping lies
Liberal news dies
(reggie)

In just four short years
Dick Cheney, the Anti-Christ,
killed America
(eoe)

Humpty Dumpty Bush
sits dumbstruck and just plain dumb
'til someone says jump
(eoe)

Patriotism
Means love of country, not war
Someone tell Dubya
(eoe)

Hey, freedom ain't free!
America's majesty--
It ain't just a flag.
(ae)

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld
The real asses of evil.
Terrorism pays.
(ae)

More to come...

The Faces of 1,000 Soldiers

Donald Rumsfeld and Douglas Feith, you remorseless fiends, you did this.

The Faces of 1,000 Soldiers.

RIP.

Circle of Hell in which Rumsfeld, Feith, Cheney, Perle, et al. will reside?

Dante reports, history decides.

Haiku Against B*sh

A sampling of yesterday's Haiku Against Bush below. Dissent Channel will periodically enlighten and embolden our dear readers with haiku on a variety of subjects. Stay tuned!

Dick is such a prick
But fear not, brave warrior
He's only half-cocked
(ae)

vote for brainless bush
or vote for spineless kerry
why not dean heeeaahhh
(damon)

Don't vote for Dumb Ass
Don't vote for Traitor Nader
Vote the leftover
(eoe)

No Bush in oh-four
Democrat is the right way
Neocons nevermore
(reggie)

Do not cry, dear Dems
On Nov. 3 this ends
Party at ae's!
(ae)

I see that some friends at the DNC did this, too.

Ours are better! Evidence these from our Haiku Editor eoe:

Apathy abounds
Blissful ignorance: easy
Citizens, clue in

Redrum: murderer
Cheney: evil incarnate
Bush: stupiderest

KenBoy stole millions
For BushCo and GOP
While retirees starve

And now we've got friends joining in! No one can fight the sweet siren song of haiku.

A choice is a gift
A gift that some do not have
Your vote is your gift
(eoe's pal julie)

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Goose, Meet Gander

Texans for Truth.

Script for Ad Featuring Alabama Air Guard Veteran Lieutenant Bob Mintz:

Opens with text: Was George W. Bush AWOL in Alabama?

Visual: Bob Mintz sitting in front of an American flag.

Mintz: "I heard George W. Bush get up there and say, 'I served in the 187th Air National Guard in Montgomery, Alabama.'"

"I said, 'Really, that was my unit? And I don’t remember seeing you there.' So I called my friends and said, 'Did you know that George Bush served in our unit?' and everyone said, 'No I never saw him there.'"

Text: Tell us whom you served with, Mr. President.

Mintz: "It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size."

Text: George Bush has some explaining to do.

Voice over and text: Texans for Truth is responsible for this advertisement.


Go send them some money! Let's get this on the air!

Dissent Channel Book Recommendation: Don't Think of an Elephant!

Have you ever thrown something at the TV when the words "tax relief" escaped w.'s lips? Does the term "partial birth abortion" turn you murderous with rage? What does "freedom" mean? How does it compare with the Founding Fathers' vision of "liberty"? And what in the dangfarbled heck is the "death tax"?? Well, read on!

Friends, this is a book I cannot wait to purchase or borrow or steal. George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and is a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute. Professor Lakoff would like it if we got off our linguistic duffs and paid closer attention to how issues are framed by the Right (see any FOX "News" TV poll for how conservative issues are framed; e.g. Does the US need a UN babysitter? Yes or No. Aaargh!) and how progressives can reclaim our rightful (leftful?) place as representatives of the national ethos, and, more importantly, influence national policy for the greater good. Remember that quaint concept? Lakoff's latest book, Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, was released yesterday to a hiccup, no doubt, because any more would require that the mainstream press actually employ what we in the regular world think of as "elbow grease," not to mention intellectual honesty and a little known commodity in those parts: humility. Not bloody likely. But never worry. Your friends at Dissent Channel are looking out for you.

You can find an excerpt from the first chapter here.

From the publisher's overview of the book:

Don’t Think of An Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing’s stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States.

Author George Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.


Let's get reading--and reframing--I say! Next one to say "partial birth abortion" gets a smack upside the head.

That Dang Librul Media Strikes Again for the First Time

Looks like AwOL's got some answerin' to do about his "service" in the Texas Air National Guard, his "honorable" "discharge," and how he thinks that a life of entitlement, privilege, and back room deals that saved his bacon have prepared him for ... well, anything. Thankfully, Paul Lukasiak is a good American and a patriot and had enough time and gumption to look at that 400-pg document dump that the Bushies unleashed on the press in February. Results (on-going) here: The AWOL Project

Salon article with a fine overview here.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

The World Hates Dumbyass Almost as Much as I Do

Tra la la.

From the report:
In 30 out of 35 countries polled, from all regions of the world, a majority or plurality would prefer to see John Kerry win the US presidential election—especially traditional US allies.
(snip)
On average, Kerry was favored by more than a two-to-one margin—46% to 20% (weighted for variations in population, the ratio was not significantly different).


Two to one! Not that I am the least bit surprised. Now I fully expect that the Repugnicans and the whole of media will apologize to John Kerry for their deriding him for (yes, I'll admit it was clumsy) announcing that world leaders had told him that they want B*sh out.

Holding breath....

Gasp! Choke! Sputter!

So what, you may ask. Who cares what, like, most of the world thinks? Well, it seems that 70% of Americans do. And over 50% already assume that attitudes toward the US are negative. This does not bode well for BushCo. Well, it wouldn't in a democracy with a free press, because this information would actually get to the people and have the potential for impact. I could see the media parlaying this into a couple days of, "Well, what do you say to this, Prick Cheney? The world hates us. Hasn't your foreign policy failed?" I will check the Gaggle tomorrow to see how Scotty prevaricates. At the very least it will be amusing.

GET YOUR FRESH HOT AK's...

Letter sent by me to Congresswoman Diane E. Watson (D- Ca) on behalf of Moveon.org to try extend the assault weapons ban that President Bush intends to let lapse on Monday:

"Please do not allow the assault weapons ban to lapse. Of course, no one who is in the Congress or the White House would have to personally deal with the effects of having these weapons on the street in their community, but it would be nice if our elected leaders just once acted in our best interests instead of the interests of those who funded their campaigns."

Sincerely,




Write your congressperson today, unless, of course, you happen to have cornered the market on assault weapons for gangstas.

Adios...

Because We Have to Laugh Every Once in a While, Too

From the Nightmare Headlines File: Bush: OB-GYNs kept from 'practicing their love'

What in the bejeezus is this moron doing trying to talk? Can't they keep the boy on a short leash? He's getting on my last nerve.

What does this mean "doctors practicing their 'love'"?? $@#%&! Are you kidding? Does dumbyass think we live in some sort of Little House on the Prarie reality where kindly ol' Doc Smith nurses our hurts with tenderness borne of lifelong community connection? When will he stop snorting coke and come back to reality? Is he so far removed from the HMO hell that most of us (though it's not many and now there are fewer of us w/ any coverage) deal with? Rhetorical question, obviously. But OB-GYNs practicing "love"? What was he trying to say? How can one of our leaders be so immune to the reality around him? Is he not aware of the fact that serious protocols are now in place because of the "love" that doctors did try to show their female patients? Has this never come up in the discussions on women's health he has with his evangelical advisers? This is why there is always a nurse present now. Women have enough to contend with in our lives to worry about this sort of crap, too.

Will no one say the man is an idiot? I will. The man is an idiot.

Project Censored 2005 - Top 25 Censored Stories

As if I needed any more reason to be pissed at the media.... Read 'em and weep, friends.

Then read this and weep. Apparently the media can legally lie. Well, finally somebody just says so. I suppose there's some solace in that.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

The B*sh Economy Finally Comes Home to Roost w/ Cock Cheney

What's that you say? Halliburton has not provided enough details to support $1.82 billion of work out of $4.3 charged in their no-bid contracts? No! Halliburton do something specious and unscrupulous and give the impression of impropriety? I don't believe it. I'm sure they have those receipts...um....right...uhhh, here somewhere.

---crickets chirping while we wait for rebuttal---

Looks like it's not coming.
Cha-ching!

Hey, even if the Army does split up Halliburton's contracts and re-bid them, Prick Cheney still gets paid. That's the beauty of his plan. He's on Halliburton's dime for a long time comin' with the retroactive payments for his years as CEO and the zillion and three shares he's got in company stock.

Fine, I'll ask it again: What world do we live in that this entire administration has not had to
1) resign in shame
2) go to jail en masse
?????

CHENEY TO VOTERS: Kerry will eat your babies!

Push, push, in the Bush...

Well, the GOPs are at it again. From the voice of the Republican Party, Fox News, comes this article about how VP Dick Cheney is telling voters that if they vote for John Kerry the country will be attacked by terrorists:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131692,00.html

This I guess is designed to frighten those who haven't yet grasped that our country is currently being RUN by terrorists (what's the threat level at these days?), but it's still galling that the news media (ha ha, lol!) hasn't covered speeches like this more closely and put the magnifying glass to all the Great Karl Rove lies. I like the Democratic response to this fearmongering (for once), but honestly it's about the most depressing thing in this presidential election--Bush calls Kerry a flip-flopper and everyone forgets about the ultimate flip-flop, the one about the WMD's in Iraq; Zell "Benedict Arnold" Miller questions Kerry's heroism, but no one questions the "Commander-in-Chief" who's never actually done an honest day's time in the service in his life; Cheney says Kerry is too soft on terrorism, but Cheney and Bush are in bed with the bin Ladens, the Saudi's and godknowswhoelse and the rest of the country (except for us leftist "wackos") is out whistling Dixie. And secretly hoping Florida gets hit with another hurricane.

My time is up. You've been a great audience. Please tip your wait staff and don't let friends vote Republican...


From the Ya Think?! Files

Will somebody please remind me to kick everybody's ass at the NY Times tomorrow when I have a moment -- that is, if I can squeeze it in in between beating Judy Woodruff and Bill Schneider and Wolf Blitzer and Daryn Kagan at CNN and the entire staff (and crew) of MSNBC? Thanks.

Careening from wild understatement to gross negligence, the NY Times comes up with this milquetoast headline: Bush Unlikely to Fulfill Vow on Deficit, Budget Office Projects

Sigh. What are we going to do with these people? The revolution I am advocating is a media revolution. Throw the bums out. "Unklikely to Fulfill"?? "Unlikely to Fulfill"???? YA THINK?!?!?

From the article:

Budget projections, by Congress as well as the administration, have been notoriously wrong in the past — failing to anticipate a flood of tax revenue during the last 1990's and then badly underestimating a plunge in revenue after the stock market collapsed in 2000.

But the new report is sobering because it arrives at similar conclusions even when analysts made extremely optimistic assumptions about war costs in Iraq and robust economic growth.

"The message is that you cannot grow your way out of this," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is director of the Congressional Budget Office and a former chief economist on President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.


Um, if one cannot "grow" one's way out of this, what is one to do? Could it possibly entail, say, dipping into--oh, I don't know, let's go out on a limb here--the Social Security Fund, or will the strategy to get out from under a $500 billion deficit (yes, that's Billion With a 'B', friends) be to, say, raise taxes? Heavens!

Further expressions of disgust later. Must drink many margaritas right now.

Friday, September 03, 2004

HooohaaaawwwwhaaawwwwHaaaaaHaaaaaHoooooooooHeeeeeeeeeHoooooHaaahaahhaahahahahahahhahahahhahah (and so on)

Well, lookie here. Everyone's favorite cranky conservative Republicrat is on the outs with the band of invective-slinging cowards he considers his buds. I think Little Lady Laura had to skool him and now Zell has been o-fficially disinvited from the Grand Ol' Party's grand ol' party. Teehee. We all know that Zell would be reaaaaaaaallllly bizzy the day after his speech with interviews and just would not have a moment to spare for sitting down w/ LLLaura in her box during the preznit's speech. Haahahhahooohhaaawwwheeeeehoooo! Wink, nudge.

Aww, and he was doing so well, what with the fake outrage and the outright falsehoods and the mean, beady-eyed look, not to mention the...hair. He fit right in. Whatever will he do now? Too classic for words that this tiresome and politically fickle demagogue has been played by the very slime he was playing against Kerry. Doesn't he know that BushCo. are ruthless? Zell, for all his finger-pointing, mock-indignant semi-sermonizing, and camera-hogging, was still one turnip shy of a truckload. What a rube! The ignominy befits him. He should've known it would end badly; it always does for the snakes. As Rove sez: if you can't run w/ the big whores, stay on the porch, Zell.

The Repugs can't help but bring the hate. I waited for it all week -- admittedly while studiously ignoring the speeches. I assumed that like other supernatural phenomena, if something so mindblowing occurred, I would hear about it. Or at least Jon Stewart would tell me. (Talk to me, Jon.) Good thing for CNN and CNBC I've been real busy at work, or the hate mail from these quarters would've been flying. They're so lazy that I'm thinking of hatching an evil plan to take over the world, fire all of them, and replace them w/ a cadre of 3rd graders.

Hate, it gets the blood pumping. This is what the Repugs do best (okay, maybe 2nd to Fear), and since they haven't secured their base fully yet, some of it just HAD to be on display in NYC. Ain't a one in that Garden who wasn't hootin' and hollerin' for more red meat from KEYNOTE SPEAKER Zell. We know who shows up at these conventions, and it ain't your grandma's delegate. More blood, please, is the general refrain. Mr. and Mrs. Yayhoo were mighty pleased to hear a "true" "Democrat" "finally" "tell" "the" "truth." [Oh, good Lord, y'all know that everything these dolts say has to be put in finger quotes to explain its utter remove from reality/fact.]

I wish someone (are you listening, Jon Stewart?) would do a little compare-n-contrast commercial with the Keynote speakers from both conventions. I'll put Obama up against anybody anyday anytime anyhoo. And the hope and dignity of Obama's speech contrasted w/ the bitterness, anger, hypocrisy, and inertia of Zell's... no reason why we shouldn't win.

And, oh yeah, one more thing: f*ck you, Zell. A little blogogram from me and John Kerry.

Alternative titles for this post:
Zellfire and Hamnation
Zell's A-poppin'
Dammit it all to Zell
Zell, NO!
Rebel Zell

CNN: Conservative News Network?

Some thoughts from the dissent channel nation about the lack of coverage of Kerry's rebuttal to Bush's rose colored, misleading, "compassionate conservative", completely untrue acceptance speech on September 2nd:

Me:
I laugh and cry every time some pundit, politician or just plain folk gets on the TV and talks about the "liberal media bias". How can there be such a thing when a network like CNN, supposedly more balanced then the obviously biased Fox News Channel, doesn't even give one minute of time to covering a major speech by the opposition candidate which rebuts several misleading statements made by the President of the United States? This leads me to believe that CNN (and CBS/ABC/NBC) wouldn't even give the opposition point of view of the State of the Union if they weren't sort of required to. It leads me to believe that their interests in this election--and they shouldn't have any interest, other than to report the truth--lies clearly with the power and the president in charge.

I encourage everybody reading this to go to John Kerry's website to read his rebuttal and to never trust CNN to give you the straight story on any political coverage again.

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

Some letters to CNN by my cohorts. Very pointed and truthful observations:


Dear Fox, Jr.,
I know you call yourselves CNN, but your lack of
actual news coverage coupled with your emphasis on editorializing, propagandizing, and flag-waving suggests to me that you're actually another pathetic arm of Fox Un-News. While I don't expect much in the way of unbiased news coverage from the networks, I naively believed that CNN was at least attempting to give its viewers a somewhat balanced viewpoint. But, when I tune in to CNN after the GOP convention and find no coverage of Kerry's response to the Bush/Cheney attacks on his character/abilities/attitudes/record/platform, I can't help thinking that you're as insidious as Fox. The bozos running Fox are so unsophisticated and classless that they can't even admit to their biases, but the bozos running CNN are just as bad for pretending you have no biases and insisting that you balance your perspectives. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's sick and tired of the so-called "liberal media" being at most, on the cusp of moderate, and at least, as "fair and balanced" as Fox. Stop kowtowing to the conservative viewpoint that a critical media is a bad thing, and give us the damn news! (EOE)


Where was CNN's coverage of Kerry's response to Bush?????? What is wrong with you people???

We sat up until after 1 AM waiting for some coverage of Kerry's midnight rally and there was nothing. CNN is increasingly disappointing. You better wish that nothing resembling real fair and balanced reporting and TRUTH TELLING ever shows up on cable! If so, your uselessness will be horribly evident! (LA)

Dear CNN,
Where was coverage of John Kerry's speech in Ohio last night (Thursday, Sept. 2)? I have checked cnn.com today, and I still do not find archived video of the speech or a transcript; neither is the screaming headline, "Kerry says Bush 'unfit to lead this nation'," on your front page. What gives? It's not enough that this article on CNN is from the AP wire? Where is CNN on the ground? Why doesn't CNN value retail politics? Why do I have to do a keyword search to get to this article? John Kerry makes the most forceful statement of the campaign so far and you are caught snoozing. This does not inspire confidence, and I am just one of many of your viewers who is fed up w/ the failure of CNN to fairly cover the news as it happens. CNN's attempts to mirror the dubious tactics of its rival FOX News fail again; selective presentations of events will not garner an audience. In fact, you have lost another viewer. I will seek to get my news from C-Span and the BBC. Here's a final note to your news director: things are happening in real time in the world, not only in pundits' fevered imaginations. You should give Bill Schneider and Kelly Wallace a vacation and go back to being a news organization.

Yours in disgust,
ae

Chris Rock has a famous routine where he talks about how Black people can get rich but can never get wealthy because we tend to waste money on flashy trinkets like rims that "are spinnin', they spinnin', they spinnin'. Look at them spinnin'". CNN, MSNBC, CNBC (is that even a network? I mean really?), Fox News--they can't ever report the truth because their pundits are too busy "spinnin,' they spinnin' and spinnin'". Here's hoping that all those conservative pundits spin in their graves one day, when we finally have the progressive revolution we deserve.