Sunday, October 31, 2004

Is There a Doctor(er) in the House?

Ooh, this story just gives me happy little goose bumps of Pending John Kerry Victory (PJKV)™ joy.

For those still wondering (I'm looking at you, Jodi Wilgoren) if the B*sh Administration has jumped the shark yet, ya damn skippy they have. Not that it is in the least surprising, but yesterday brings this headline: Bush TV ad pulled over doctored crowd scene.

Loyalty oaths were getting just too dang difficult, and it's not like theirs is a campaign of/for the people anyhoo. Why not digitize the devoteds and just be done with pesky reality altogether? Heck, shoot the whole speech in front of a blue screen, why not? We've got a pretender preznit regurgitating a spoon-fed speech of empty platitudes to pretender crowds. Jump, meet Shark.

In the meantime, I give you John Kerry and some of his 13,000 reality-based friends in Manchester:



Just One Comment to Make About the bin Laden Tape

Um, when Osama was taking credit for the September 11 attacks in his recent video appearance, did he mention his favoritest, best bud, partner-in-crime Saddam Hussein, cos I seem to recall that this administration thought those two baddies in a bunker (cf. two peas in a pod) were in cahoots?

(crickets chirping)

More Family Values from Lynne Ch*n*y

Hypocrisy, thy name is Lynne Ch*n*y. After the mock outrage over Kerry's mentioning Mary Cheney's name during the last debate, we certainly didn't expect to see Lynne Ch*n*y parade her 7-year-old granddaughter around the stage during a stump speech while making a disparaging reference to John Kerry's platform. Or maybe we did.

And how lucky for Lynne that her little granddaughter just happened to dress up in the most convenient way to sell Lynne's joke. This kid is seven, and we're supposed to believe that she chose to dress up as the Grim Reaper? Do 7-year-olds even know who/what the Grim Reaper is? Yes, yes, I can hear you all yelling in unison that she was so very obviously emulating her grandfather, but I still find it surprising that she did not want to dress up as a Disney character or Britney Spears or some other 7-year-old-related icon.

I mean, I never thought it possible that I could feel this level of disgust for people I did not know (barring those who so obviously fall into the Hitler/deviant despot category), but I think this woman is a walking nightmare.

Simply Brilliant

100,000 Iraqi Deaths Since the 2003 US Invasion

The Lancet, a top British medical journal (my apologies if I should be using a definite article instead), on Thursday published online the results of its recent survey of 33 clusters of 30 households each, and the results are devastating. The authors note: "Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

Richard Horton, writes the "Comment" (link from the survey article): (T)hese findings also raise questions for those far removed from Iraq—in the governments of the countries responsible for launching a pre-emptive war. In planning this war, the coalition forces—especially those of the US and UK—must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians. And these consequences presumably influenced deployments of armed forces, provision of supplies, and investments in building a safe and secure physical and human infrastructure in the post-war setting. With the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error. The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator, and the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population. Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer.

Well, what can one say? A war of choice. No plan for the peace. A craven disregard for human life.

Suddenly I am reminded how much I f*cking hate Donald Rumsfeld. Remember this masterpiece of look!-shiny-object-over-there! dissemblage:

"The construct I would suggest would be, um, what are the benefits - what are the advantages and disadvantages of not acting? And of course, the advantage of not acting - against the moon - would be that no-one could say that you acted. They would say, 'Isn't that good - you didn't do anything against the moon'. The other side of the coin of not acting against the moon, in the event that the moon posed a serious threat, would be that you then suffered a serious loss, and you're sorry after that's over. And in weighing the things, you would have to make a judgement ... or net ... do you think you are acting most responsibly by avoiding the threat that could be characterised - X numbers of people dying, innocent people, and it's that kind of a evaluation one would have to make."

Is it respectful to tell the Secretary of Defense to f*ck kindly off? No. Is it incumbent upon patriots the world over to do so? Yes.

All together now, kiddies: F*CK! KINDLY! OFF! RUMMY!

[Psst. Rummy's being sued. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.]

Saturday, October 30, 2004

B*sh Crime Family Flow Chart

Man, I have been looking for this!!

Then again, we will not for very much longer have to keep these many, many connections in our heads, logging every new thread of the B*shies' web of deceit. Blissfully, they will soon be out of office, though, even as I type this, I worry, knowing that this does not signal the end of their craven powergrab. Though I would not wish it on this country (or any other), these are precisely the people we need to see every day, those who need to be under the media lens (well, some lens anyway). They profit so handily from being invisible (Carlyle Group, anyone?); is it possible that their influence could be stemmed even one small degree -- enough to save thousands of lives -- if we just forced them into the light?

That's the end of the pessimism for me. Finito. Kaput.

Yesterday it hit me all of a sudden what an awesome responsibility John Kerry will have in the coming days and months. I felt sure that we were going to win, though I've said as much for quite some time. But then I was saying it hoping that saying it would make it so. Now I'm saying it, because the feeling is there, and that feeling is a stomach ache. You know you're going to win when it nauseates you to think of all that Kerry will have to do to right all the wrongs that B*shCo has perpetrated on this country, our Constitution, and the world community. If Kerry is half the man that those close to him say he is, and I have no reason to believe he is not (though you can feel that strain of gleeful push-the-story defeatism in the "reporting" about his "character"), we are damn lucky to have him. Who else could clean up this colossal, unholy mess, this "catastrophic success"? I hope to goodness that Kerry does not give one goddam inch in choosing his cabinet and choosing to prosecute those who have so grievously wronged all that is good about America.

We've got 2 days, friends. Let's do this! And no bellyaching. Every single little piece of help does good. Every single thing. Go talk to your mom/brother/cousin/neighbor, and make sure they know that it is imperative they vote. Tell them why it's important to you. Your words are eloquent enough, I guarantee it. Drive them to the polls and stand there for an hour-and-a-half with them if you have to. It'll be a good chance for y'all to catch up anyway. If you don't want to make calls at your local Dem party headquarters, then call up your own friends/family/neighbors/coworkers and encourage them to vote, and especially encourage the wishy-washy and/or apathetic among us. We're not f*cking around here. It's important. Eyes on the prize, with the prize being no less than halting the dismantling of our democracy. It's ours only if we fight for it.

And when you're done and exhausted by 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, think how satisfied you'll feel, how relieved, how elated, that John Kerry will be the next president of the United States, and he will have been elected with a majority, with a mandate to do the will of the people -- us! You'll sleep like a baby that night. And the next night, you'll come to a party at my house and we'll celebrate a true people's victory. (Greens and radicals, I'll get back to you on this.)

Friday, October 29, 2004

Mayor of America, My Ass

Yeah, the Repugnicans love the troops. That's why they fabricate imminent threats and then don't provide enough armor, reinforcements, or post-combat support (like, oh, health benefits, for instance). Oh, and they piss off worried soldier moms with weaselly statements like this:

''No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?'' he said on NBC's ''Today'' show.

Wow. What an asshole.

That said, roolllll tape! Looks like embeds are actually good for something, like showing that we were in control of the al Qaqaa facility
on April 18. Man, this administration never ceases to amaze, so catastrophically successful is its management by mental midgets.

Or......did our troops blow them up? Well, they blew up some portion of explosives, but they cannot state definitively that what they blew up was this same contested 377 tons of explosives. Sigh.

These administration weasels are so craven that they will say anything. Remember when the first answer was, Kerry is jumping to conclusions! And then came, Saddam moved them before we got there -- look! satellite photos! And then came, Haha, we told you there were WMD there! And then came, It's the soldiers' fault! (Screw you, Giuliani. -- Decency Ed.) Well, the article did have this to say:

Diplomats have said the IAEA cautioned the United States about the danger of the explosives before the war, and after the invasion told U.S. officials of the need to safeguard them. The explosives can be used in making conventional bombs and as a trigger in a nuclear detonation.

At issue is whether the material fell into the hands of U.S. enemies because the Pentagon failed to secure the site.


Yes, Pentagon/administration incompetence is the issue. Yes. Thanks for saying it. Why is that so hard?

Here's Why We Will Win



John Kerry and Bruce Springsteen in Madison, WI. What a sight! More pix and commentary at the Daily Kos.

NASA photo analyst: Bush wore a device during debate

This is one of those stories that I was all ready to let go, generously willing to give even the incompetent boob-in-chief a pass. I realize that wrinkles do not often appear in the shape of a rectangle, but oh well, stranger things have happened, and I thought that with all the criminality going on, dumbyass's crib sheet was the least of our concerns and just another possible example of our taking our eyes off the ball. That said, a NASA photo analyst has said that Bush wore a device during debate. Well, who am I to argue? The pictures do not tell a pretty story for the one-termer.

Obligatory incredulous comment: I mean, this guy has Nanny Hughes feeding him his lines and he is still so atrociously unprepared and ill-informed? A glowering, stammering fool. Oy.

The Velvet Bunnatine

FBI investigates Halliburton complaint.

SIGH. More later after I've had copious amounts of either coffee or something stronger.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Newspaper Endorsement Analysis: Breaking Down the Chains

Veeeery interestink. Who'd a guessed that Murdoch's papers would all have gone to B*sh? Don't let the big red lines fool you though. Those are generally for just a few papers. The real boost comes in the endorsements by circulation. We are way up, numbers-wise. I'm not sure what kind of stock folks put in their editorial pages, but Kerry's lead in endorsements can only help to further the idea of a Kerry presidency as being both legitimate and desired. The media loves to pound home the point that w. is so well-liked, so affable, whatta guy! all the while studiously ignoring the half of this country which reviles him w/ a rabid fury usually reserved for their favorite NASCAR driver's arch nemesis (realized in those ubiquitous "Calvin peeing on #(fill in the blank)" signs on trucks). And some folks are supposedly in the middle, can't or won't decide, etc., etc. I'm thinking these editorials, especially if reported as a big block going for Kerry, might sway a couple of those ninnies, seeing as how everybody loves to be on the winning team.

P.S. Check out the "flip floppers" section to see how many papers who endorsed dumbyass in 2000 have rejected him this time around. Mm hmm.

The Great Media Breakdown

Thank you, Todd Gitlin.

From the article:
If ever there were a time for unbridled journalism, this would be it: terrorist mayhem, war, corporate scandal, ecological crisis, economic upheaval. Public passion and curiosity have been stoked. But the potential investigators have been, to a considerable degree, otherwise occupied. Historians will someday burrow among the musty artifacts of America's supercharged 24/7 news organizations—TV with its glammed-up sets, its convention skyboxes and satellite feeds; the well-fed correspondents on a firstname basis with second-rate sources; the newsmagazines with their gloss, gossip, and fluff—and they will rub their eyes and marvel that a nation possessed of such an enormous industry ostensibly specializing in the gathering and distribution of facts could yet remain so befogged.
(snip...)
Yet even now, the news industry remains unwilling or unable to come to grips with the full scope and system of its failures, and the narrowness of the media's self-criticism does not inspire confidence that they will refuse to swallow government propaganda the next time. (Television news bigwigs, for one, have yet to admit any responsibility for having escorted the nation into a calamitous war.) In fact, the malfunctions extend far beyond the question of WMD, beyond even the routine deceptions of George W. Bush. The machinery of truth-telling has broken down.
(snip...)
Journalists have missed many a boat. But the problem of the past few years is that the media have taken to escorting the boat—amplifying disingenuous claims, downplaying doubts, belittling dissent. As it thrashed about in a state of emergency, America needed solid reporting—and solid skepticism—more than ever. Instead, large numbers of people were left believing that some of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqis, that Saddam Hussein was implicated in the terror attacks, and that the United States had actually found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It is not too much to say that the press has let the public down on every one of the big life-and-death stories of our time.
(emphasis mine) Begin with those unforgettable 35 days in Florida in 2000, when reporters let Republicans get away with their chosen story line: Bush was the presumptive victor and Gore was trying to deprive him of his due. NBC's Tim Russert again and again suggested that Gore be the statesmanlike gent and bow out. Never once did I see a network bigfoot suggest that Bush do the graceful thing and step aside. Bush was cast as president-in-waiting, Gore as the interfering usurper.

I can't stand it. I mean, these people live in America, too. Why don't they think to apply some modicum of analysis to their experiments in stenography? The abysmal polling numbers of the Republicans in the PIPA Poll suggest, at least in part, that our journalists are either terribly biased as a class, which I do not believe (though some yes, of course), or they are not particularly bright, which I am afraid may be closer to the truth. These folks, charged with something as important--vital, even-- as information dissemination, may suffer from the same failures of reasoning and imagination as the self-interested windbags about whom they are ostensibly reporting. As Gitlin states above, these are life-and-death stories. We're not f*cking around here. People are dying -- either quickly under bombs or slowly under policies which suck the life out of entire communities suffering under grievous poverty. If the journalists don't tell us, who will? (And by "us" I mean the folks who do not have access to the eleventy-thousand great blogs out here in the nethersphere.) I'm sick to death of it, and the first revolution I'm calling for is the information revolution. With apologies to Gil Scott-Heron, the revolution may just be broadbandized.

Monday, October 25, 2004

OINK OINK OINK: O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment

In His Own Words
On Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (8/7/01):
"I was screaming this, nobody else really drove the nail. But under the federal guidelines, as you know, if you have more power than a subordinate and you both work in the federal system, it's sexual harassment for you to have even a consensual affair with that person."

[Is O'Lielly trying to imply that Bill Clinton engaged in a consensual affair? Why does he hate America?]

When Ohio TV anchor Catherine Bosley resigned after photos of her participating in a wet t-shirt contest were posted on the internet, O'Reilly thought she should be let go (1/23/04):
"Let's be realistic. Politicians, news people, clergy all have images, and all depend on the trust of the public to succeed. So we have a young woman here who -- anchoring the news, and her pictures are all over the Internet..... So it intrudes on her ability to communicate the news, does it not?"

"The station has an obligation to put on people who are going to bolster their news image. This woman, in a community like that particularly, but in -- I think in any city in the USA, becomes a joke, and, therefore, the station becomes a joke, and you can't be a joke if you want to compete in the news area."

"Are you aware that in every newscaster's contract, there's a moral clause that says, if you embarrass the station publicly in any way, they can let you go.... Once you go public and do something like that, although it's not illegal, it embarrasses your employer because your employer operates on credibility."


[On this point of not being a joke if one wants to "compete in the news area," where is this "news area"? Is it anywhere in the vicinity of FauX News? Can Ailes & Co. walk around this "news area"? Do they even have a passing familiarity with its borders and terrain? Would they recognize a "news area" if they stepped inside one? Also, just wild conjecture here, but I'm guessing that since O'Lielly's employer does not operate on credibility, FauX will not have much to say about O'Lielly's having "embarassed" them with his pigaciously piggish piggery. (Apologies to pigs.)]

On October 21, 2003, O'Reilly said the following:
"Put yourself in this position. You make an enemy. That person accuses you of some sex crime, maybe harassment. You're totally innocent, but the accusation is made public. Your life will never, ever be the same. Talking Points believes society must rethink how this sex stuff is handled and that those who do bogus charges should be punished. Raping a person's character is a crime, too. And evil people who do that should be held accountable."

["Talking Points believes"? Talking Points believes?? Now this idiot is speaking in the third person and not even about himself but about a segment on his TV show? Oh, jeeezus merry and josuff, the guy is astonishingly bereft of any non-egomaniacal higher faculties. Narcissus was less enamored of himself.]

Oh, and he's an idiot. All of a sudden it occurs to him that someone who "makes enemies" is vulnerable to false accusations? Reeeaaallly? This bloviating blowhard needs a bona fide ass-whoopin', and my pacifist self is just dying to perform the honor. Where does one start? I've got one teeny question that comes to mind: who the hell walks around "making enemies"? Could it be harassing blowhard bloviators with falafel fetishes? I'm just askin'.

Obama Wins Kenyan Hearts, in a Landslide

Something to hope for. Illinois Democrat Wins Kenyan Hearts, in a Landslide

I feel the same way about Obama. I know that he is one of us. I know he won't forget us. I have hope that he can make things right again. Can Obama live up to these expectations, fulfill all these dreams? Probably not, but think of all these thousands -- millions, probably -- of people ready to surge forward with just a little nudge in the right direction. This is the amazing power that a truthteller has. The transformative power of politics. Put that in your cynical pipe and smoke it.

Whoopsie, Explosives Gone Bye Bye

Tracking the Weapons: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

Y'all remember when we thought they were evil but competent? When it seemed like they had a stranglehold on everything, that they were two steps of evil ahead of even our worst imaginations that's how thorough the execution of their overarching evil plan was? Those were the good ol' days, hunh? Now it is tragically apparent that these assholes are just playing at this war (and the rest of our lives) as if it were a game of Risk like a bunch of drunken, larcenous hooligans whose daddies will clean it all up for them in the morning. I've said it before here, friends, and I'll say it again: I hope to goodness that the Kerry Administration does not play the usual footsie with this administration with that boy's club/gentlemen's agreement/look the other way/my regards to your mother crap that goes on between presidents. Every single one of these assholes needs to pay for the damage they have done to human life, to the principles of democracy, to the function of government, and to the reputation of this country around the world. No less should be expected of a country and a system of government with even modest pretensions toward being just.

Ponder this for a moment:
The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed.

So, they want us to believe that 1) the National Security Advisor, Miss Condoleezza "I Don't Know" Rice, was informed "within the past month" that the explosives were missing, the explosives that, um, we went to war to make sure they didn't go missing into the hands of terrsts, and 2) it is unclear if the preznit of our country (it is ours, you know!!) has been informed about these missing weapons, cos, like, WHY WOULD THE PREZNIT NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE WHEREABOUTS OF ONE OF HIS RATIONALES FOR THIS GODFORSAKEN WAR????

Thud.

(smelling salts applied)

Right, I guess they were too busy guarding the files and ferns at the Ministry of Oil to worry about looting at the explosives warehouse that we knew about!

Thud.

Sunday, October 24, 2004

And a Child Shall Lead Them...

...Or at least parrot their parents' views. Forget Zogby! Here's some good news from Nickelodeon's children's poll.
A strong majority of American children support Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry over President George W. Bush in the election less than two weeks away, according to an online poll released Wednesday by Nickelodeon cable channel.

Children have always picked the winner since the popular channel aimed at kids began conducted the poll in 1988. In 2000, they backed Bush with 55 percent.

Some 400,000 children responded to the poll, and 57 percent backed Kerry against 43 percent for Bush.

"The 'Kids' Vote' seems to work as a good barometer of the actual presidential vote because, developmentally, kids between the ages of 2 and 11 share the same opinions and outlooks as their parents," said Cyma Zarghami, president of the television channel, part of Viacom International.

Woohoo! How long until the first wingnut rejection of this poll because Viacom owns CBS, that so-called Librul Haven? Yeah, it sure was great for us libruls when CBS refused to play that Move.On ad during the Superbowl cos they're so, um, librul.

"Weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm."

I'm just sayin' this could backfire on B*shCo:

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Wolfpacks for Truth!

They told us we were shooting a Greenpeace commercial! Hoohawhaw! Brilliant! How long did this response to B*shCo. take, a minute-and-a-half? Fantastic.

Well, we here at Dissent Channel are proud to support our lupine brethren and sistren. And inspired by the example of our friends at Wolfpacks for Truth, we present to you our Dingo for Kerry!




Everybody Loves Pie!

Won't You Come Join Me in the Reality-Based World?

WTF? Are my lying eyes fibbing to me, or are B*sh disciples living in another world? Could this Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll possibly be real??

From the PIPA report:
Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.


Could the True Believers truly believe those things? And, more importantly, how? Those polls were conducted in September and October!

Well, here's the "how":
Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

I love the first line: they "perceive the B*sh administration confirming (these beliefs)." They perceive, do they? Well, one can be forgiven for perceiving when one hears statements such as:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002

There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
9/6/2002

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, Squatter
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/2002

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush, Squatter
Radio Address
10/5/2002

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.
George W. Bush, Squatter
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

And so on....

But no, wait. I can't resist! There's more!

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

Your humble dissenters refer you to the quote just beneath the title of this blog. SIGH. Props to George Orwell are in order, methinks.

Friday, October 22, 2004

Get Your Fear On

Okay, I'm sorry, but the new "Wolves" ad doesn't impress. The shameless hucksters at B*shCo. should stick to their ham-handed, bludgeon-you-over-the-head-with-a-truncheon-of-fear-and-if-that-fails-lie-through-their-capped-teeth style of communication. Symbolism is not their forte. I think the puppies look pretty. And, btw, how DARE they even employ any of the symbolism of Nature, which they have done more to desecrate than any administration in history? Plus, I think the ad "reads" perfectly as a warning not to let the wolves of this administration guard our henhouse any longer. Woe to them if somehow this plays without the actress-y voiceover from someone auditioning for, like, "Alien Erotics IX" or something. Idiots.

Strange Bedfellows for Kerry

Jesse Ventura for Kerry.

Eminem for Kerry.

The American Conservative magazine for Kerry.

Republicans for Kerry.

And another Republicans for Kerry!

Rednecks for Kerry. I kid you not.

And a little bonus reminder that Jesus is a Librul (boo! scream the legions of faithful): Bush vs. Jesus.

Gosh, why can't the Prince of Peace kick more ass like dumbya? (The legions of faithful roar their approval.)

File Under: Lord Help Us: Grand Canyon Made by Noah's Flood, Book Says

As if we need another reason to vote Fundie B*sh out (not that he was ever voted in, mind you) sh*t like this is going down in our national parks, for the love of God!

Some yay-hoo who's "met the Lord" has penned a creationist "nature" "guide" that maintains that the Grand Canyon was carved out by Noah's flood, meaning that the Grand Canyon, is, like, oh...a couple thousand years old. Quoi?? Pardon?? Squeeze me??

Let's hear what science has to say about it:
George Billingsley, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, has been studying the Grand Canyon for 36 years and said scientists had never agreed about the exact age of the canyon, although most concur that the oldest formations are nearly 2 billion years old.

(snip...)

"We like to acknowledge that there are different viewpoints, but we have to stick with the science. That's our training," Adams said. She said there was no federal guideline for how to answer religious inquiries.

I would like to add my $.02 here to say that I'm glad there is no federal guideline to answer religious inquiries, as I do not expect the Park Service to have guidelines for answering questions about superhero comix or corn futures either. They're there to show us a beautiful and obviously ancient specimen of nature, not to lead us down one or another spiritual path. There is enough majesty in the Grand Canyon for one to have her/his own spiritual moment there; we certainly do not need a federally endorsed religious point of view to enlighten us. What is wrong with these fundamentalist types that they cannot survive a moment on this earth without the God palliative? "God" is writ large and small in everything one does if one chooses to see it or has the heart to understand it. Why would one ever need the validation of something as puny as a governmental entity (as in, The State) to reaffirm one's faith?

It bugs me, and I'm not even close to being a "believer" of any sort. Grrr. Get yer voodoo out of my parks, Galileo haters.

I Heart James Wolcott

I'm jealous. How does James Wolcott fire on all cylinders every second of his writing life? I lurvs him. Go! Check it out. Another example of how The (mainstream) Media and The Powers That Be (in cahoots? one-and-the-same? you tell me.) are trying to sell us the story of B*sh Victory Inevitability and B*sh Invincibility. Ptooie.

Feh.

I've said it almost daily for the last year: we'll be celebrating on Nov. 3. Bring your boogie shoes.

P.S. Be sure to read his entry about Annthrax Coulter for more giggles.

B*sh Campaign Gives Up the Ghost

Okay, that wasn't really the headline, but it was the serious subtext, and I could see it clear as day. Read the original headline, Bush Signs $136 Billion Corporate Tax Cut Bill, then read the article, and tell me you don't agree. They know they're losing this election, and this is just the first step in the last gasp smash-and-grab looting they'll do on their way out, the debased hooligans.

And though there is much more important malfeasance afoot, might I take this opportunity to say once again how much I hate the New York Times (as the penultimate representative of The Media Behemoth)? Um, assholes, who are these "supporters" and "opponents" of this bill? This is so weak, so listless, so uninspired. Oh, wait. This is from an AP feed. No matter. I still hate the NYT. I wish we could have a free press in this country. Nice dream.

Only the B*sh Administration could replace $5 billion in corporate tax cuts (deemed illegal by the WTO, that socialist workers' collective that it is) with $136 billion in corporate tax cuts that encourages even more corporate irresponsibility by way of allowing corps not to contribute to the pot. Ante up, goliaths, the country needs your revenue contribution. My God, the cajones on these assholes...astonishing. And, like, who knew importers of Chinese ceiling fans were such a strong lobby? (See last line of the article.) Right on up there w/ NASCAR race track owners and bow and arrow hunters. This is the White Trash giveaway, oh dear.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

B*sh Relatives Voting for Kerry

So there are some smart ones in the family!

Bush suppresses damning CIA report on 9/11 (So He Should Be Fired)

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

A Must Read for Those Idiots--er, Friends--Still Considering Nader

Friends, I will admit that I have had nanoseconds of doubt -- yes, whole entire nanoseconds -- about the Dems and their vision/platform/strategy/fortitude/(fill in the blank), but I do not waver long, being of steely heart and steelier mind. There is, simply put, no alternative right now. I know it seems like a desperate and feeble concession, but do not lose heart, progressive pals; the revolution is nigh. Some little birdie tells me that we are reaching (if we have not already reached) the tipping point with this so-called Repugnican Revolution, fueled as it has been in its most virulent form since 1994 by a blind and furious attack on all that is good in government (including, frighteningly, the concept in toto). They are trying to chop our great American democratic enterprise off at the knees, so they can, as Grover Norquist so eloquently put it, drown it in the bathtub. What a f*cking sicko that asshole is, but I digress.

I saw a bumper sticker today (it was thoughtprovoking, back off) that read: Kerry Sucks Less. Ha. Okay, I get it. Right. Poor us, no real choices, two rich white guys, business as usual, acka yacka fracka. Get a grip, folks. That's lazier than all get out and beneath the general analytical acumen of our side of the spectrum. This is the starkest frickin' choice in history. Lemme take you waaaaay back to '92. Remember those halcyon days? Remember thinking, "Woohoo! Finally, someone on our side!"? Funny how all that turned out. Now we know that there is less difference between Clinton and GHW B*sh than there is between Kerry and dumbyass. Think about it. Clinton spent 8 years (bless him, I miss him so) being a good moderate Republican, in effect. I'm not complaining! I see how far we've fallen, which is exactly my point. Wouldn't you wish old-oil-boy's-network GHW B*sh back over his redneck-fundamentalist-endtimes-network dim bulb son? I never thought I would say it, but I do. 2000 seems ages and ages and ages ago mostly because we've all been bowed by the utter awfulness of every day since Dim Son was appointed. (And no, I'm still not over it, dammit, why should I be? This isn't a f*cking game; it's what will determine the nature of our democracy!! Pant, pant, pant.)

Anyhoo, H. Bruce Franklin's essay, Ralph Nader and the Progressive Agenda, is about the most pure of heart and clear-eyed justification for voting for Kerry as any I have read. I actually gasped reading this. Though there are eleventy jillion and one reasons to vote against B*shCo., nothing strikes me as more important than the judiciary. Think Rehnquist and Scalia, friends, and then think that we could possibly have 4 more of them. It is not hyperbole to think that we will either live in a police state or we will live in America -- the one where there is due process, where one's physical integrity is paramount and a basic indicator of one's human rights. Don't make me pull out my "U.S. Out of My Womb" sign, y'all.

Let's just agree to agree with me, shall we? I say vote for Kerry, save the universe, and we'll give stalwart Ralph the Consumer Advocate Lifetime Achievement Award in a nice, polite, decent ceremony at the Kennedy Center in a couple of years.

(As I write this I'm thinking that there is no one who is seriously considering voting for Nader, but then those 2%-ers in all the polls do give me pause.)

370HSSV-0773H

Tee hee.

Osama bin Ladan himself decided to send George W. a letter in his own handwriting to let him know he was still in the game. B*sh opened the letter and it appeared to contain a coded message: 370HSSV-0773H

B*sh was baffled, so he e-mailed it to Colin Powell. Colin and his aides had no clue either so they sent it to the FBI. No one could solve it so it went to the CIA, and then to the NSA, then to the Secret Service. With no clue as to its meaning, they eventually asked Canada's RCMP for help. The RCMP cabled the White House as follows: "Tell the President he is looking at the message upside down."

Sunday, October 17, 2004

Extinct Species Watch: Evidence of a Scrupulous Republican!

Sit down, friends. I know this may come as a shock, but there are actually Republicans who do not worship at the altar of avarice, duplicity, and malfeasance!

Have smelling salts nearby. Don't say I didn't warn you:
In both presidential debates, Kerry has shown himself to be of far superior intellect and character than Bush. He speaks honestly to the American people, his ethics are unimpeachable and, clearly, with 20 respected years in the Senate, he has far better credentials to lead the country than did Bush when he was elected four years ago. And a far greater depth of understanding of domestic and foreign affairs to do it now.

Not that the sitting president has ever really been at the helm.

I am more fearful for the state of this nation than I have ever been -- because this country is in the hands of an evil man: Dick Cheney. It is eminently clear that it is he who is running the country, not George W. Bush.

Thud. (sound of ae fainting.)

You Own the Airwaves, So What Are You Waiting For?

By now, we've all heard that Sinclair Broadcasting Group is demanding that their 62 stations across this nation preempt their programming to play an anti-Kerry attack ad before the election, some on Monday, November 1.

Newsworthy? Scurrilous? Let Sinclair know. They've got a purty-smilin' little message for y'all right there on the front page:
We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000.

if you would like to make further comments on this matter, you may do so at:
comments@sbgi.net

Or better yet, file a complaint with the FCC about Sinclair's bias here.

And more importantly in this bottom-line world, let Sinclair's advertisers know what you think about their programming and about Chili's, Colgate, Johnson & Johnson, and Victoria's Secret, etc.

By the way, Sinclair Broadcasting reaches 25% of all television households in the US. Whether you think this cretinous crockumentary will hurt Kerry's campaign or not, this sets a very dangerous precedent. We're talking long-term influence, friends, not short-term corruption. We own the airwaves, and Sinclair is abusing our trust and their privilege. We can do something about it. We must do something about it.


P.S. How positively frickin' darlin' that the Sinclair folks have invited JFK to take part in their hanging, and, look! He can even bring his own rope! Um, might I ask why in the dangfarbled heck John Kerry would accept an invitation when "the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized"? Sigh. These people are clearly not professionals. They may have noticed (maybe not), Kerry's busy.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

God Bless Jon Stewart

This transcript is deserving of being posted in full, but we will link to it in the interest of efficient page loading. Blessings and peace to the wonderful Jon Stewart, a stellar human being and as near a saint as any could be here at Dissent Channel. Your faithful dissenters never cease to be astonished that our most reasoned, compelling voice in defense of the public comes from the world of comedy. And, oh yeah, Tucker Carlson is a dick. Well put.

Here's a choice little morsel for you to snack on:
STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

[LAUGHTER]

CARLSON: Wait, Jon, let me tell you something valuable that I think we do that I'd like to see you...

[CROSSTALK]

STEWART: Something valuable?

CARLSON: Yes.

[CROSSTALK]

STEWART: I would like to hear it.

CARLSON: And I'll tell you.

When politicians come on...

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: It's nice to get them to try and answer the question. And in order to do that, we try and ask them pointed questions. I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently.

[CROSSTALK]

CARLSON: ... up on the screen.

STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to.

[LAUGHTER]
...
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.

[LAUGHTER]

STEWART: What is wrong with you?


Oh, it just gets better, friends. I heartily recommend reading further. Smiles guaranteed.

Shorter O'Reilly: Title VII, Schmitle Schmeven

Anybody who expresses surprise about Bill O'Reilly's predatory bullying gets a poke in the eye from me. Come on! And I will admit that I am enjoying the schadenfreude -- both mine and TV analysts', who love to reveal the details with varying degrees of mock surprise and (real) disgust.

Lookie here:
According to the suit, O'Reilly threatened Mackris. He is alleged to have said: 'If you cross Fox News Channel, it's not just me, it's [Fox President] Roger Ailes who will go after you.' He claimed Ailes knew powerful people 'all the way to the top'. When Mackris asked, 'To the top of what?', O'Reilly replied: 'Top of the country.'

"Top of the country," eh? So O'Lielly reveals that Ailes has a direct pipeline to the Bushies (surprise, surprise!) en route to threatening someone in his employ with no less than retaliation by the Office of the President. Jeezus, this guy is such a damn bullying prick braggart, it's astonishing. I won't call him a pig out of respect for our porcine pals.

Help O'Lielly out by sending him a primer on the laws of the United States.

Doubts about US morale in Iraq as troops refuse 'suicide mission'

Well, I can't say that I blame them. You just cannot expect anyone fighing a confounding and ill-defined war, no matter how "patriotic" and dutiful they are to their fellows, to willingly walk into a death trap. By all accounts, these supply routes have been a weak link since the very beginning.

Read the sad news here. How will the military handle this? Will this disappear into the memory hole? Will the soldiers be punished out of all proportion to their actions? Things have gotten so bad with this administration that I feel like I am watching a "Sopranos" episode; i.e. my moral world view has changed to match this other reality. Just as Tony "has to" whack one or another disloyal associate, I expect that the military has to, in their way, "whack" disloyal subordinates.

I hope to whatever Powers That Be that Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Condi, Perle, Feith, and, of course, the Dolt-in-Chief suffer for their craven, criminal irresponsibility and mendacity. They make me feel vengeful, and I curse them for that, too.

Run--Don't Walk--to See This Movie. Go. Now!

The Corporation.

It is so mindboggling that I couldn't decide whether I wanted to crawl under my bed and hide for the next 10 years or marvel at the fact that a group of committed, thoughtful, and clever folks got together to tell some goddam truth, and effective truth-telling it is. It actually left me hopeful. If you can watch this and not change your consumption habits, you may want to have your heart and/or your brain checked out. Make sure you get a good view of the monitors to see if there are some squiggly lines. And beeps are good, too.

Give this as a present (available in U.S. March 2005) to your way-too-comfortable Republicrat friends and family!! Help them to help themselves (us).

Friday, October 15, 2004

Saudis Blame U.S. and Its Role in Iraq for Rise of Terror

15 out of 19 hijackers on September 11 were of Saudi Arabian descent, so a year-and-a-half later we invaded Iraq, apropos of nothing, which had the net effect (gross, too) of making the world less safe and energizing terrorist recruitment to record levels, thus resulting in attacks inside Saudi Arabian borders.

I suppose one could say that B*shCo. just took a more circuitous route in responding to "ally" Saudi Arabia for the September 11 attacks. I can see why dumbyass wouldn't want to offend Bandar B*sh with something as disloyal and unfriendly as, well, making war against his country. Better, I guess, that he picked a significantly weakened adversary nearby on whose land he could park his cronies' oil interests (tax-free, I might add).

The First Amendment is for Suckers, FBI Style

Sigh.

So the FBI seizes two servers of an independent media site, resulting in the shut down of more than 20 Indymedia sites around the world. The sites were down for a week, coming back up yesterday with no formal charges levied and no explanation given for the raid. Read the FAIR ACTION ALERT here: FBI Shutdown of Indymedia Threatens Free Speech.

From the article:

Indymedia, which provides grassroots reporting on social justice issues and protests, is a decentralized network that allows anyone to post news on its websites. If there is reason to suspect that participants on these websites are involved with criminal activities, shutting down the servers is rather like shutting down the phone system because people have been using the telephone to plot crimes.

To silence over 20 media sites around the world with no charges and no explanation strikes a severe blow against freedom of expression and should trouble media outlets worldwide. European media have been covering the story, but in this country, the media have been virtually silent. Aside from two AP articles (10/8/04, 10/14/04), one by UPI (10/11/04) and one in the Hartford Courant (10/13/04), FAIR found no mainstream news outlets reporting on the Indymedia story.

This is not the first time Indymedia has been targeted by U.S. authorities. During the Republican National Convention in August, the Secret Service attempted to obtain private records from NYC Indymedia's Internet Service Provider; the ISP refused. The FBI attempted to obtain similar records from Indymedia servers during the massive protests against the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas in Quebec City but lost the legal battle (Indymedia, 8/31/04).

If there is credible evidence of actual crimes that involve Indymedia websites, then an investigation that respects Indymedia's rights as a media outlet may be warranted. But FBI action that intimidates or silences media around the world under a shroud of secrecy is an extraordinary and grave threat to free speech.


I got nothin' in response.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

ACT Here: Get Out The Vote

Listen up, friends. This is no time to sit on your duffs complaining, or, worse, ignoring. Frickin' pick a task and get to it. Only 16 days left!!

Your reward: At least 4 years during which you will be able to relax and not obsessively watch C-Span like a lab rat jonesing for pellets. If you work hard for the next few days, you'll be able to take a load off, put your feet up, read some fiction, cos the Dems will be back. Plus, for further incentive: party at ae's on Nov. 3! Woot! Woot!

The First Amendment is for Suckers, Ed Gillespie Edition

Repugnican enforcer Ed Gillespie threatened Rock the Vote yesterday, demanding that they "cease and desist" their "Draft Your Friends" campaign, which aims to inform young people about the possibility of a draft. His evidence that Rock the Vote has "a reckless disregard for the truth" on this important question? Well, the laughable "proof" that "no less than the President of the United States," Veep Prick, and Rummy have denied that there will be a draft. Oh, you wish it were The Onion. Link to PDF of the Gillespie letter here.

Rock the Vote's responds:

Dear Chairman Gillespie,

The letter I received from you yesterday was quite a surprise. It struck us as just the sort of "malicious political deception" that is likely to increase voter cynicism and decrease the youth vote. In fact, it is a textbook case of attempted censorship, very much in line with those that triggered our organization's founding some fifteen years ago.

I am stunned that you would say that the issue of the military draft is an "urban myth"that has been "thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United States."

I have some news for you. Just because President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld, and for that matter Senator Kerry, say that there is not going to be a draft does not make it so. Just because Congress holds a transparently phony vote against the draft does not mean there isn't going to be one. Anyone who thinks that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is living on another planet.

By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with. There's a place for that kind of sentiment (and your threats), but it's not here in our country.


Be sure to read the rest here at the Rock the Vote blog. The young'uns know of which they speak, and the demise of the RNC can't come soon enough. The Repiglicans are about as "now" as the dinosaurs.

P.S. I dig how the kids end it:
Despite the strong and often strident tone of your letter, I would hope that we could both agree that honest and open debate is the surest guarantor of our democracy and liberty.

Let's not hold our collective breath waiting for Eddie to agree. "Honest and open debate" in the B*sh Administration?? Hoohawhaw. What a crack up.

Um, yeah... about that Green Zone. Not so safe.

How will the America haters in the B*sh Administration explain to us that bombs inside the one safe place in Iraq -- the Green Zone -- are further proof that our "War on Terra" is kicking ass? "Catastrophic success," yesiree. Hey, freedom is on the march, y'all ... on the march right into the Green Zone with RPGs, apparently.

More Upside-Down World From the Craven Hucksters - Gay Rights Edition

Bad Democrat:
We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.

Good Repugnican:
In an interview with 365Gay.com editorialist and the host of his own Sirius OutQ radio, Michaelangelo Signorile, Alan Keyes said that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." Signorile then asked Keyes, the GOP candidate for the US Senate in Illinois, whether he considered Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."
...
The interviewer then said: "I don't think Dick Cheney would like to hear that about his daughter." To which Keyes shot back: "Dick Cheney may or many not like to hear the truth, but it can be spoken."
...
"If my daughter were a lesbian, I'd look at her and say, `That is a relationship that is based on selfish hedonism.' I would also tell my daughter that it's a sin, and she needs to pray to the Lord God to help her to deal with that sin."

But you see, friends, it's Kerry who is "not a good man." These pigs (sorry, pigs) will stoop to nothing in their disinformation game.

Polls Show B*sh Bringing Republican Ticket Down

Kerry sweeps TV debates.

Teehee. If it weren't for dumbya, the Repugs would still be ahead in the polls. Too bad that just showing Dim Son for an hour-and-a-half "defending his own policies and outlining his plan for the future" (finger quotes here, please, because dumbyass hardly achieved even that simple goal) frightens the bejeezus out of the American people, who see this entitled and lazy frat boy stammering and smirking through what should be a simple recitation of his successes and ongoing challenges. Hmmph. You can take the incompetent moe-ron with an anger problem out of Texas, but you can't let him drink.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Sweet Jesus, I Detest Annthrax Coulter

First, why in the hangy-dang would the Gilded Hyena EVER get facetime on a supposedly credible chat show program, least of all to comment on something as important as electoral politics, including, but not limited to, the current presidential election? When did her handlers let her out of her cage? Does CNN just invite any certifiably insane person into the studio to do "analysis"? Even ol' Larry felt compelled to counter the inflammatory invective of the GOP's fave blow up doll, and it ain't like The King is a screamin' leftie.

So bitch-ass sez:

COULTER: Yes, but I keep hearing stories of this voter suppression in Florida and how, you know, blacks were denied the right to vote in Florida last time. No one's been able to produce a single case.

Oh, really?

I'm sorry, what?

Come again?

Well, the sun shines on even a dog's ass, so Annthrax was actually right in one regard: there wasn't a single case -- more like thousands, millions, and new ones everyday.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Who Said This?

"The president now needs to show leadership, consistently and with great clarity, from devising an exit strategy to developing favorable rules of engagement, from defining the criteria of success to detailing the timetables of operations. We have learned the hard way in this country that muddled military missions lacking clear leadership hurt our national credibility while putting our troops in harm's way."

Give up?

Tom DeLay.

About Bill Clinton's intervention in Bosnia.

I've said it once, I'll say it a million times: These. People. Have. No. Shame. (Is it a mental illness?)

The First Amendment is for Suckers, sez the WSJ

Hmm.

Seems Farnaz Fassihi, the Wall Street Journal's Middle East correspondent, who is currently reporting from Baghdad, has been benched by her bosses at the WSJ for her candid email to friends.

I guess reporting that "Iraq is already lost beyond salvation" might get those with something at stake in this election a little riled. Fassihi went on to note, "For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle."

Too much truth unflattering to Dear Leader for the delicates on the WSJ Editorial Board? Well, too damn bad. These idiots apparently only want to live in an America of their own devising. Sorry, shills, the First Amendment stands whether it suits your election hopes or not. Benching Fassihi until after the election is a slap in the face of all for which our much-hallowed troops are supposedly fighting. Hypocrites. (There is, of course, also the fact that this was a personal email, not intended for public consumption, and that the WSJ never expressed concerns about the quality or objectivity of her reporting. Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites.)

Come November 2, buh-bye to all these B*sh-types. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

NOW THE FIGHT REALLY BEGINS

Sinclair, Dirty Air

Okay...here's what you're going to do: there should be a link listed above this blog. If not, you need to go to www.sinclairwatch.org and you need to tell them that you own the airwaves and you didn't give them permission to air a blatant, biased, misleading anti-Kerry documenatry on their 62 television stations. Tell them that if they insist on going ahead and airing it, you'd like equal time from the Kerry camp--or at the very least, maybe they can show some of Fahrenheit 911.

I'm not really telling you what to do or think, but if I were you know what I'd be? A broadcaster. There is no such thing as a liberal media. If that fairy tale creature ever existed, it was in the gilded days of yore. We are not in yore anymore, Toto. These days, money talks and bullshit gets broadcast and all the money is being lorded over us peasants by the powerful multinationals and the sycophantic sister companies in the media. Could you imagine 62 stations dumping their prime time lineup and being forced to air Fahrenheit 9/11? You'd never hear the end of the screaming from conservatives and even many so called "moderates".

But this election, or any of the recent elections, is not about fighting fair. The "right" is going to use every dirty trick at their disposal, from free air time to fights in the Supreme Court. Those on the "left" need to respond to every attack, every strategic ploy with intelligence and vigor so that it doesn't go unchallenged. It's October 12th...the race for the White House and control of the Senate is really just getting started. Ladies and gentlemen, sharpen your knives! Send Sinclair a nasty email and then, if you live near one of their 62 stations, boycott their product. It's the least we can do in the dissent channel nation.

Colorado, a Mile High Florida?

From Yahoo! News and the American Foreign Press. (Full disclosure, I'm a Colorado native with a vested interest. Both Bush and John Edwards were in the state today):

DENVER, United States (AFP) - Colorado, where President George W. Bush (news - web sites) was scrambling to rally support, could hold the key to the neck-and-neck US presidential vote November 2 if a landmark electoral reform proposal gets the green light.

The reform would divide up the votes of the state's electoral college members -- those whose votes actually elect the next US president -- instead of using a popular-vote winner-take-all electoral college votes formula, as is used in most of the 50 US states and the federal capital Washington, DC. Colorado has nine electoral college votes.

State voters will weigh in on the proposal, called Amendment 36, on November 2 at the same time most cast a ballot either for Republican incumbent George W. Bush or Democrat John Kerry.

The Bush camp is fighting the initiative; Colorado tends to vote Republican (except in 1964 and 1992).

"Because a gentleman in Brazil is spending millions of dollars" the proposal could pass, Republican Colorado Governor Bill Owens told a rally Monday in Denver.

Jorge Klor de Alva, a former member of the board of directors of the University of Phoenix, who now works at a university in Brazil, has contributed heavily to back the possible shift.

"It's no coincidence that Mr. de Alva has maxed out for John Kerry," Owens added.

Polls show Colorado might actually be in the position of deciding the race -- pushing it in favor of either Bush or Kerry, now in a very tight race -- as did the state of Florida back in 2000.
At that time Bush won 51 percent of the vote in Colorado against 42 percent for Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites), while independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites) drew five percent support.

If Amendment 36 had been in force here, Bush would have carried five electoral college votes instead of all of Colorado's nine.

But the situation could backfire on the Democrats. Thanks to the popularity of their Senate candidate Ken Salazar, Kerry could outdo Bush here November 2, and end up suffering from the change.

Seen as in the Republican camp some months ago for both the presidential and senate races, Colorado now is considered the ultimate toss-up.

If Salazar is elected his win could shift the Republican-run US Senate over to the Democrats.
At the moment Republicans hold 51 Senate seats against 48 for the Democrats and one Independent who usually votes with the Democrats. One third of the Senate's 100 seats are up for grabs November 2 and about a dozen could swing either way.

With so much in play, Bush on Monday campaigned for Republican Senate candidate Peter Coors.

Just two other states currently apportion their electoral votes proportionally: Nebraska and Maine. Nebraska has five electoral college votes and Maine four. Under their system, the winner of the popular vote in the state automatically gets two votes, and the remainder are handed out based on the candidates' performance in all the congressional districts.

There are 538 electoral college votes distributed among the states based on their demographic weight. To win, the presidential candidate has to get at least 270.

In 2001, Bush was awarded 271 compared to 266 for Gore, though the Democrat actually won the popular vote nationally 48.38 percent to 47.87 percent for Bush. One electoral college voter abstained.

Debate Tomorrow Night

And the winner will be...well, you know who the winner will be. The difference will be, who will the media report that the winner is. We shall see...



Sunday, October 10, 2004

Dumbyass's "Dred Scott" Reference Explained: It's About Abortion

Holy sh*t.

Just when I'd stopped chuckling about the Chucklehead-in-Chief's biz-arre referencing of the Dred Scott decision during last Thursday's debate, this bit of investigative work by Kynn at the Daily Kos just in. Great work, Kynn. Next time, lie to me, please.

From the post:

The Dred Scott reference is code language for abortion rights. Here's how one anti-choice site describes it:
Stephen Douglas didn't see Dred Scott as a person with rights because he was black; now Al Gore doesn't see these children as people with rights because they are unborn.

...

When Bush made reference to "Dred Scott" he was assuring his anti-choice constituents that he would indeed only appoint Supreme Court justices who would remove abortion rights. It's unmistakable, once you know the code words. There's no other reason he said it, that damned fundamentalist fascist.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Kerry More "Likeable" Than B*sh No Matter What The Matthews Factor Says

Friday, October 08, 2004

pResident "Not Me" Speaks

Ask a simple question, get a convoluted but very revealing answer:

GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.

BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.


(What the hell is this irrelevant shit he's mumbling about? Answer the frickin' question already!)

And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human.

(Mr. Take Responsibility For His Mistakes immediately offers up the universal apologia "I'm human" to take the sting off.)

But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right.

(Somebody??)

That's really what you're -- when they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, "Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?" And the answer is, "Absolutely not." It was the right decision.

The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.


(Oh, good Lord. So now we DECLARED WAR ON A COUNTRY because they were trying to get rid of sanctions and reconstitute a weapons program?? Who can keep up with the B*sh flip flops? And if the biggest threat is terrorists w/ WMD, why did we go into Iraq?)

We knew he hated us. We knew he'd been -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.

(All this stammering is to admit Mistake #1: the Iraq War.)

On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.

(Admits Mistake #2: Tax cuts.)

Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.

(Admits Mistake #3: Appointments.)

But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.

(Boy, w. sure does like to talk about "history" judging him. Could it be that he hopes his judgment comes when he is loooong gone, that he cannot handle the truth of his actions when faced with them in real time?)

Kerry Wins, Of Course, But Not If You're Watching The Matthews Factor

John Kerry at tonight's debate: The military's job is to win the war. The president's job is to win the peace.

Answer that, Chimperor.

Transcript here. Read it for yourself because you will lose your mind if you listen to the post-debate "analysis."

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Darth Watch - Rewriting History on Tuesday Night

I would like to think that I would not support a party that would lie, mislead, obfuscate, and dissemble all with a straight face while trying to win at all costs. What happened to Americans' bullshit monitors? What happened to a healthy distrust of the hyper-wealthy to represent common interests? What happened to a revulsion to money- and power-grabs?

List of Ch*ney LIES from Tuesday night here.

Gosh, I wonder why a recent poll shows that 80% (eighty percent!!) of Republicans think Saddam had a direct involvement in the September 11 attacks?

And, no, it's not just because they're idiots, folks, no matter how tempting that conclusion may be. They have been systematically lied to. And, yes, Prick and his cartel did the lying (and lying and lying and they're still lying), but I blame the media. Where the hell was the check on their abuses of power and of language and the public trust? Where were the stenographers when Prick and his cronies were making these outrageous allegations? Why did we not hear from the countless lifelong civil servants and intelligence officials who were *fired* because their views did not fit the script? Why did we not receive ANY information to *balance* the administration's claims? Why can't I have water from the moon??

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Haiku on the Veracity of and the Curious Choice of Descriptors for the Veep

"I never met you."
Dick don't need no stinkin' facts!
Gravitas, my ahss.

Avuncular veep?
Dick to facts: go f*ck yourself!
My uncle's nicer

I have suspicions-
If Ch*ney were your neighbor:
Get off-a my lawn!

What's this "gravitas"?
A serious demeanor?
No "de-", just meaner.

Enjoy our haiku, dear reader? Then you'll enjoy The Genuine Haiku Generator!

U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03

So let me get this straight. In the last couple of days, Bremer says we needed more troops, said he should have been more persistent in making this request (read: his request was denied), denied making that request, then said that his remarks were intended for a private audience, and the White House first refused to comment on any of it, then released a statement saying the preznit only listens to his commanders on the ground and that Bremer supports the preznit's Iraq plan now so the whole thing is moot. And Rummy said that there was no tie between Iraq and al Qaeda and then he said that his comments were "misunderstood." Then chief American arms inspector Duelfer concludes that Iraq had no weapons and had no capacity to make them, meaning that they were never an imminent threat to us. Of course, all the dissemblers are now saying that since he had an intention to reinstate his weapons program when sanctions ended, he could have been a threat to us. And Condi? Where's Miss I Don't Know in all this? Why, she's busy telling us she, as National Security Advisor, didn't know (again) that her own energy experts did not believe that Iraq's aluminum tubes were for their nuclear program, evidence she used to rationalize the war with her "smoking gun as mushroom cloud" fearmongering. God, I hate that woman.

I wonder what would have happened if we had waited a minute-and-a-half before INVADING A COUNTRY THAT POSED NO THREAT TO US, KILLING AND MAIMING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, RUINING OUR REPUTATION IN THE WORLD, AND SENDING AL QAEDA RECRUITMENT THROUGH THE ROOF (WHICH IS ON FIRE, BY THE WAY)?

(crickets chirping)

Why do these people hate America?

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

More Lucky Duckies! or, U.S. job cuts at eight-month high in Sept.

First off, when Kerry/Edwards win in a landslide in November, will somebody please promise me that I will never again have to hear another word from shills like Nicole Devenish and all those other blond robots? Thank you. It will be a welcome quiet moment in 4 looooooong years of non-granted and wholly assumed -- hijacked, even -- mandate. They are forbidden from EVER referring to the "American People" in any sort of proprietary, finger-on-the-pulse tone again. Kindly f*ck off back to your evil overlord's lair, shills.

I do wish that Edwards had been able to get a clear word in edgewise about these new job numbers. Job cuts, meet cliff.

Nicknames for D*ck Ch*ney used tonight:

Darth Vader
Satan
Snarl
Prince of Darkness
Dark Lord
Lord of the Underworld
Beelzebub
Lord of Darkness
Dr. Evil
Mr. Evil
Prick

... and this is just what I can remember from reading Gwen Ifill's mind.

Brilliant!!

It's Wimblehack, the game of competing journalistic banalities during Election 2004! See the brackets here. How is it possible that no one thought of this before? An idea whose time is long overdue.

My money's on a Final Four of Elisabeth Bumiller, Jodi Wilgoren, and -- he's not mentioned this time but surely will make an appearance next week -- Adam Nagourney. I am partial to (hating) the Times, I guess. The fourth ... let me chew on it awhile.

Let the Hack games begin!

(Tip of the hat to Atrios)

UPDATE: Sweet Baby Jesus in His Crib, how could I forget the stupendously hacktacular, the positively hacktabulous, the unwaveringly hackariffic Kit "Katherine Q." Seelye?? We might have a winner, y'all!

Might I Remind the Electorate Who D*ck Ch*ney Is?

Talk about "evil"! We're not talking Dr. Evil evil, we're talking Darth Vader evil. We're not talking "evildoer" evil, we're talking Great Dark Lord of the Underworld evil. We're not talking Gospel of Thomas evil, we're talking Book of Revelation evil. We're talking plague of locusts x rain of fire x D*ck Ch*ney evil. He's so evil he's his own referent.

D*ck Ch*ney is a remorseless bastard; in fact, he is the reason the term exists. I have never seen in my limited experience on this planet Earth a finer example of all that a conniving, scheming, affectless, soulless, opportunistic racist with a stranglehold on the pulse of capitalism can accomplish in an open society, good God.

But let me not mince words. I speak from experience, having come of age in the era of apartheid. At my Southern (by God) university, we protested American investment in South Africa with all our hearts. We lived this, most of us white kids. Stephen Biko, a hero. For a post-Civil Rights generation, in which America had ostensibly made its peace with our tragic past (mountain of salt, please), South African apartheid was the most horrific example of all that was wrong with human imagination, the starkest desperate example of a system of hate writ large. Modern day lynching! Denial of suffrage, educational opportunity, legal redress, medical care -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! -- based on skin color, Lord have mercy on us all. How could any thinking, feeling person support such a system?

This heinous system of oppression was rejected by the entire world (save the former Reagan Administration), which cheered when Nelson Mandela was finally freed in 1992 after 27 years at Robbins Island--more years in jail than I had been alive at the time. Nelson Mandela, human rights activist, architect of the uplift of an entire people, beacon of hope for so many more, and future Nobel Peace Prize winner, the man whom Ch*ney labeled a de facto "terrorist." And who is D*ck Ch*ney? He is a person who actively, repeatedly, and with malice of forethought supported a system that would keep Nelson Mandela and millions of black Africans enslaved. Here's what else D*ck Ch*ney supported:

Opposed to women's reproductive freedom and against abortion rights, including abortions in the case of rape and incest. Co-sponsored the Preborn Children's Civil Rights Act of 1985.

Supported an anti-busing amendment and voted against ERA.

Consistently opposed funding of Head Start and voted against creating the U.S. Department of Education.

Voted to aid the Nicaraguan contras and against the override of Reagan's veto of a bill imposing sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa.

One of just 21 members of Congress who voted against a 1985 ban on armor piercing bullets, so-called cop killer bullets.

In 1988, he was one of only four members of the House voting against a ban on plastic guns that could slip through airport security machines undetected. The National Rifle Association did not oppose this ban.

On the environment, Cheney opposed re-funding the Clean Water Act. He voted to postpone sanctions slapped on air polluters that failed to meet pollution standards. And he voted against legislation to require oil, chemical and other industries from making public records of emissions known to cause cancer, birth defects and other chronic diseases.


And what do these votes all have in common? Well, that's easy. You can always count on D*ck Ch*ney to serve moneyed interests at the expense of individual freedoms and protections. Every. Single. Time.

D*ck Ch*ney is the loyal servant of an apparatus of greed, corruption, and human bondage so despicable that Jesse Helms would disown it. Absolutely without conscience and beyond venal. If John Edwards has harbored even as little as a single kind thought toward a person of color, then he is definitively the better person and the declared winner of this evening's debate, "gravitas" be damned.

Pardon me, I must go douse myself with holy water and garlic and scrub my mind out with soap.

Mess O' Potamia, to borrow a phrase

Paul Bremmer weighs in. Apparently, we needed more troops in Iraq post-invasion. Too effin' little, too effin' late, mofo. My God, these people have no shame. How could he possibly think he had any credibility after walking around the Green Zone doing the Shrub's--or rather, Prick's--bidding like the insulated little Mayor of Preppieville? 20-year-olds were dying then, too. Shit.

I read this story, and my first thought was, Edwards needs to use this tonight to show that the 'catastrophic success' in Iraq is just that, and this is exactly the sort of thinking I detest. Everything, everything, everything this idiotic administration does is politically motivated in service of their re-election campaign, in the short term, and their chokehold on power, in the long term, and I find it repugnant. I am sorry to have even thought the above. To look at bombings in Iraq or job losses through the prism of the election is just another symptom of American exceptionalism. The Country at the Center of Everything lets pesky details like 20,000+ Iraqi deaths and 1 million displaced Sudanese and nuclear proliferation and global warming just fall away like so much static in the headphones, and it's just not right (to be eloquent about it).

And oh yeah, there's this:

New poll shows that 55% of Iraqis do not trust the authority of the police. This is a precipitous drop from three polls done over the last year in which respondents gave the police approval ratings of 80, 74, and 76 percent.

Monday, October 04, 2004

99 PROBLEMS & BUSH IS ONE (or a lot more...)

Everyone is shocked, shocked by how poorly our Commander-in-Chief performed in last Thursday's debate. I myself was just as shocked, shocked by how much it hurt when I accidentally leaned on my heated stove top and burned myself. My God, what will happen next? We'll discover that snow is cold, that the Cubs won't win the World Series that Jesus was Jewish. Frankly, I'm waiting for a real revelation and you won't go broke betting that Kerry brings more ammo to a battle of wits.

At least John Kerry, the candidate America Would Like To Embrace But is Still Somewhat Confused By, finally has some much needed momentum after weeks (months?) of running a campaign that seemed to be going in circles like a Swift Boat with only one oar. (Clever allusions are thrown in at no extra charge as a service to you, the loyal reader). John Edwards, who is so cute I just want to pinch his cheeks (both sets), will undoubtedly make mincemeat of Dick "Evil Overlord" Cheney, who is so unlikeable even his own party floated the idea of replacing him. So it will come down to the final three weeks with Kerry holding a slim lead and having to decide whether to go for the jugular or play it safe and not squander what he's fought so hard to attain.

I say keep up the attack. Al Gore's greatest weakness in 2000 was a tendency to try and play it safe. He went soft when he should have been tough. He played defense when he should have gone on offense. And he won--but left it so close that the election could still be taken away from him by a GOP oligarchy that has always been more opportunistic than their Democratic counterparts. Kerry did an excellent job finally defining exactly what his position is on foreign policy and Iraq and he needs to do the same when it comes to both the "Town Hall" debate and the domestic policy debate, being careful not to let Bush and his handlers paint him as a tax and spend liberal.

(By the way, what's so wrong about being a "tax-and-spend" Liberal? This is a digression, but what we have now is a "no tax and spend" conservative, which means we don't raise any money, most normal people don't see much of a relief to the assault on their earnings, we get less services from our governement with less value while tax breaks are doled out to big buisness so that they send more jobs overseas with a bigger profit margin at home. This is preferable to a tax and spend Liberal? Just goes to show you how Progressives no longer control the debate in this country and are a long way from getting it back.)

To paraphrase Jay-Z (don't retire Jay-Z, please come back!), in a battle of wits President Bush vs. John Kerry is a like a guy who talks a lot but couldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight. It doesn't matter. Perception is reality and most people are comfortable with somebody who is "more like them", speaks plainly and taps into whatever hot button issues they view the election through. That's the challenge facing Senator Kerry the rest of the way and it should be obvious by now that his success will have a profound effect on the future of the American Republic as we know it going forward these next ten years. It's time for the "A" game not the "Z" game because it's all about the debates now people, and the best person for the job (not to be confused with the RIGHT person for the job) is going to need every single vote to win on November 3rd.

Out of Left Field

Because I don't play in "Right" field...the Boston Red Sox will defeat the Houston Astros in the World Series, 4 games to 2. The apocalypse will begin approximately 20 minutes after the trophy presentation. You heard it here first...


Democracy, Iraqi Style


Militant Cleric Considers Entry Into Iraqi Politics


So it seems that Moqtada al Sadr is considering disbanding his militia and formally entering politics via the electoral process. Various factions are interested in allying with al Sadr, who has the ear and the loyalty of Iraq's poor. You don't get your face on ladies' shopping bags if you're not successful at getting your message across. To wit:



Interestingly, and as most of us who understand what "liberty" and "freedom" really mean, it turns out that the conditions for al Sadr's entry into the democratic process are two-fold: 1) UN involvement (gasp!), and 2) "the absence of any interference from American and British military forces in the electoral process" (gasp! gasp!). Ha. No one should be the least surprised that the first exercise in "democracy" kicks the US out.

But here's what really caught my eye:

... Mr. Sadr's aides have begun to work closely with Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who was once a favorite of the Bush administration but who has since fallen out of favor. In recent weeks, Mr. Chalabi has been advising Mr. Sadr's aides in their search for allies, and he has encouraged members of the Shiite Council, a political alliance that he is a part of, to join with Mr. Sadr. Mr. Chalabi and his allies appear to be interested in tapping the vast support that Mr. Sadr enjoys among Iraqis poor and lower-class Shiites.

Quoi?! Ahmed Chalabi, you say? Well, I thought I should take a gander at the byline, cos surely it was our pal and Ahmed's, Judith Miller, who'd penned this report. Well, surely it wasn't! Hmmm. Remember back when Judith-n-Ahmed were sittin' in a tree selling the Iraq war to you and me? Before the NYT had to issue its mea culpa about, well, just those reports? Ahh, the bad old days of influence peddling. Funny, the NYT never called Judith out by name in that mea culpa. This journalism business sure is tricky, y'all. One day the guy selling you the war is your best friend (Judith and Bushies) and the next, you're pulled off the story and your best buddy is flirting with your adversary. Now, that's news! Georgie is probably still playing Tetris and hasn't gotten wind of this yet, but I'll bet Prick and Karl are working overtime trying to figure out how to villify Chalabi and embrace al Sadr. O, the tangled webs we weave...

Saturday, October 02, 2004

Get Your Damn Furriner Friends to Vote for Kerry!!

The French will determine our next leader! The UN weighs in! The Coalition of the Galling! Send them all here now!

Okay, they can't really vote in the election -- that is, until Karl Rove figures out a way for this to benefit the Boy in the Bubble -- but they can make their voices heard. Check it out. It's no surprise to anyone who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid, but it's interesting.

Sidenote: Is it just me, or has John Kerry suddenly become sort of attractive following Thursday's "debate" (read: routing)? Hmm. I'm going to extrapolate from my pop-psychologizing to announce confidently and with much bluster in the fashion of the punditocracy that this clearly signals a turn toward Kerry by the nation's women, who, driven by their subconscious interest in his strength and sexual power, now recognize him as a leader with an inherent protective kick-assness. Then again, it could be that any man who stands straight, strong, and sincere while passionately articulating his plan for a better world is attractive to people who suffer under the whims of a defensive, arrogant, and petulant incompetent, whose exercise of power gives them the heebie jeebies (plus a rash, shortness of breath, heart palpitations, and, in rare cases, stroke).

Remember: vote early and vote often. November 2 is just around the corner!

Friday, October 01, 2004

Deliriously Happy Friday

Tra la la. Kerry Trounces Dumbyass: A Deliriously Happy Country Sighs in Relief. This is my own personal headline for the day.



Read 'em and weep, Bushies! 49 to 46 for Kerry. Maybe y'all can teach Mr. Crankypants another two talking points for the next debate. (Not bloody likely.)

I've said it here before, friends, and I'm not afraid to say it again. That man is an idiot.