No Fear of Freedom

January 31, 2004

Here's A Headline I Never Thought I'd See

Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel peace prize

"Bush and Blair definitely still deserve it," said Jan Simonsen, a right-wing independent member of Norway's parliament who nominated the two for the 2004 prize shortly after the U.S.-led war toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in April.

"Even though they haven't found those weapons they got rid of a dictator and made the world more safe," he told Reuters on Friday, sticking by the choice. "They got rid of a madman."

Starting a "pre-emptive" war that turns out not to have preempted anything means you deserve the Nobel peace prize? Shouldn't Hitler have gotten some kind of award for invading Poland then? Maybe the getting-rid-of-a-madman prize, but I don't thing they're offering that one. If they were, it'd be like painting a target on Bush's back.

Thanks to Random Ramblings, just added to the blogroll.

UPDATE: Had this wayyy before Pandagon. In yer face, big traffic muthafucka!

posted 3:51 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Blacks Just Too "Dumb" To Vote GOP

From The Wilmington Journal:

Republicans 'Fail' Blacks

According to the NAACP’s mid-term “Federal Legislative Report Card” for the 108th Congress, made public this week, 228 Republicans in the 435-member U.S. House of Representatives and all 52 in the Senate earned Fs. Only one Republican, Rep. Mary S. Leach of Iowa, got as high as a D, voting in support of Black causes 65 percent of the time.

(snip)

The Republican Party, after receiving only 8 percent of the Black vote in the 2000 presidential election, has set a goal of winning 25 percent of the Black vote in November.

(snip)

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) set the tone for the GOP with the lowest grade received by any senator, an F, voting with the NAACP only 4 percent or just once.

(snip)

Among Democratic leadership, both Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California got As with perfect scores.

Kee-rist! Why won't those damn black folks vote for the party that energetically plunges knives into their backs?

In fact, the GOP "appeal" to blacks isn't aimed at blacks at all. Blacks aren't ignorant enough to buy it. It's aimed at middle class whites who wouldn't feel comfortable voting for a bunch of racist sumbitches if they knew they were racist sumbitches.

By-de-by, presidential candidates weren't graded. Instead, the NAACP sent out a "Civil Rights Questionnaire." Only two candidates fell into the "I don't give a flying fuck what the NAACP thinks," category. Lyndon LaRouche and GW racist pig B. Batter my butt with a butter knife.

Tip O'The Tam to Salon.com.

posted 11:56 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

The Anachronism Of The Right

I prefer to call myself a progressive rather than a liberal. When I use liberal I'm only trying to irritate the right because I resent the way they have demonized the word. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have almost lost meaning. About all they mean these days is "not conservative" and "not liberal."

The problem I see with the far right pseudo-conservatives, and to a lesser extent even with real conservatives, is that they want to apply the solutions of the past to the problems of the present. The right still thinks Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations can be applied to today's economic environment, though today's economic world bears lttle resemblance to the world Smith wrote about.

Same thing with trying to defend creationism as though science is no improvement over myth; with championing small government, which might have been a good idea in a nation of yeoman farmers, but which amounts to abdicating the power of the people in favor of corporate conglomerates today.

Progressives want to apply modern solutions to modern problems. That's me. My dear heart says something pithy about applying anachronistic solutions to modern problems, "Ain't gon' work."

UPDATE: A commenter asked me,

Hasn't the behavior of the Bush Administration and its borrow-and spend Big Government anti-liberty agenda convinced you of the evil of big government yet?

And here's my reply:

No, it's just reinforced my conviction that plutocracy is evil.

The coporate and other moneyed powers can dominate any size government. They usually do dominate city and county governments. I'm not sure plutocracy has anything to do with the size of government.

I'm pretty sure the problem with government in the US is that it is simply not government of, by and for the people.

One thing we need is a much more democratic form of government. I don't like the way the Senate works, it gives small and, especially, rural states too much power. South Dakota has 3/4 of a million people, California has 35 million, but we each get 2 senators.

We need proportional representation, and I hate the electoral college.

All of that still wouldn't solve the money in politics problem. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by a good argument, but I'm pretty close to resigned that great concentrations of wealth are inimical to democracy.

All that said, if California were to become an independent country I'd have no problem with it. I just don't think it would be a cure-all.

posted 8:34 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

If Ya Can't Prove It, Then Best To Ignore It

A tale of torture is testing rights in the post-9/11 era

Last week, a U.S. civil rights group used the Arar case to file the first legal challenge to a U.S. deportation practice called "extraordinary rendition," under which low-level terrorist suspects purportedly are given to countries where torture methods barred in the United States can be used to elicit more information.

"United States officials removed Arar to Syria so that Syrian security officers could interrogate him under torture and thereby obtain information for United States counterterrorism operations," claims the federal lawsuit, the first over the practice, by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

The dinged-wits' responses to these kinds of stories tears me up. "You don't know for sure that the US is torturing anyone -- gya-huk, gya-huk."

No I don't, and strong, strong, strong suspicion that the United States, the "leader" of the "free" world, is engaging in torture by proxy is certainly no reason to get upset. Besides, we're dealing with turrerusts and Amurricah haters who deserve to be punished for the crimes of which they've never been convicted.

And the dingers think they're the true patriots and champions of human rights.

posted 6:44 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Frodo Is A Movement "Conservative"

Yeah, and pigs are gonna build a rocket and fly to mars. On the government's dime. Dave Neiwert at Orcinus critiques Seattle Times columnist Bruce Ramsey's claim that, "Lord of the Rings is an implicitly conservative book."

First, Dave acknowledges the truth of Ramsey's statement, then he notes, "Unfortunately for Ramsey, his thesis unwittingly illustrates the utter corruption of modern conservatism -- which, in the thrall of the movement that now claims that name, has long since ceased to represent anything genuinely conservative, and instead now simply embodies power-mad corporatist reactionarism."

You movement "conservatives" ever decide to become real, decent, thoughtful conservatives, I'll stop beatin' on your heads like I think they're tin buckets (though I'll still mostly disagree with you). Until then, I'll have to go right on seeing you as a passel o' f'right-dinged, vicious, bullying, half-witted, sick-evil-psychotic fucks.

posted 5:55 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Dean's "Scream," A Network Mea Culpa. Too Late?

The Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk reports on January, 30:

Opening her segment, "It's a kind of mea culpa, and I'm as guilty as anybody else," [Diane] Sawyer went on to explain that Dean had raised the volume of his voice during his speech in order to be heard over the din of his supporters (a fact that many of the initial accounts of Dean's speech noted, but that most subsequent stories left out). Sawyer continued by pointing out that Dean had been speaking into a microphone that isolated his voice and blocked out the background noise of the crowd, demonstrating the effect herself with a similar mic.

Sawyer did the legwork so many reporters failed to do, collecting several tapes of Dean's address that included the noise of the crowd. She played one, and summarized what it showed: "[L]isten to how it was in the room. The so-called scream couldn't really be heard at all."

The sad thing is, I read a liberal commenter who said something like, "I don't want Dean anywhere near our nuclear arsenal after seeing that speech." Big media's constant twisting, exaggerating, and nit-picking of Dean has all but destroyed him, even among liberals to some extent. Meanwhile, Georgie's numerous and egregious sins go practically unremarked.

If you're one of the many who think Dean's responsible for his troubles, watch what happens to Kerry now that he's the front runner. Watch what happens to whichever Dem wins the nomination. Big media will use selective and slanted coverage to tear down any Dem candidate. Why? My own guess is that they know they can rely on GWB's FCC appointees to let the media run wild.

CJR's Campaign Desk focuses entirely on critique and analysis of campaign coverage. It's practically a must read if you want to unspin what the big media spinners have spun.

posted 5:17 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

January 30, 2004

Faith And Science Are Obviously Incompatible

Maja at Omnium is still all over this:

"Long" [in regard to the age of the earth] is a short word, but removing it is a very big deal and proves that the creationists have a lot more on their minds than discrediting Darwin: they ultimately want to discredit all science that conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Well, shit, peebles, as Ronnie Raygun said, "Facts are stupid things."

posted 7:52 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

What Is Poverty And How Should It Be Measured?

I made an argument that poverty is relative, not absolute in "Right Wing Idiocy About Poverty," responding to a couple of Heritage "scholars." Now I've encountered this in William Greider's new book, The Soul Of Capitalism:

Yet the burdens of inequality are spread more broadly than that [referring to those who cannot meet the most basic needs] and are more central to the discontents amid the abundance. Amartya Sen, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, has described a more supple social definition of poverty that is more relevant to our condition. Poverty, he suggests, is when people lack the means to appear in public without shame. By that standard, many more Americans are impoverished than the government has calculated, and Sen's definition perhaps captures the real inner dynamic driving mass consumption beyond acquiring the basic necessities. It is not simply a matter of keeping up with the Joneses or mimicking refined tastes. The consumption is required to keep up with American life itself. To avoid experiencing public shame in this society a family needs far more than food and shelter and, whatever personal desires one feels, the marketing mechanisms of commerce continuously reelaborate the social definition of what the "more" means.

We talk about it like it's a bad thing, and maybe it is and maybe it ain't, but people really do need the approval of others, they need social approval. A blogger I can't recall talked about how we've evolved into really smart pack animals. Yeah, kind of. Failing to get that social approval results in incalculable psychological damage, physical disease and even early death.

My dear heart grew up "poor" in a public housing project. Her family was certainly economically poor, but poor ain't poor if you don't know you're poor, and she didn't. It was the "rich" kids who got picked on at her school. The obvious flip side is poor sure as hell is poor if you know you're poorer than others, no matter how much stuff you have.

posted 5:38 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Paranoid Liberals Needlessly Worried By Black Box Voting

The NY Times reports "Security Poor in Electronic Voting Machines, Study Warns"

William A. Arbaugh, an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Maryland and a member of the Red Team exercise, said, "I can say with confidence that nobody looked at the system with an eye to security who understands security."

(snip)

In addition, they said, communications between the terminals and the larger server computers that tally results from many precincts do not require that machines on either end of the line prove that they are legitimate, an omission that could allow someone to grab information that could be used to falsify whole precincts worth of votes.

And the server computers do not have the latest protection against the security holes in the Microsoft operating systems, and they are vulnerable to hacker attacks that would allow an outsider to change software, the group found.

The authors of the report also said smart cards that are shipped with the system for voters and supervisors to use during elections have standard passwords that are easily guessed. That problem was cited in the original Johns Hopkins report, and it could allow anyone with a hand-held card reader and small computer to get the access of an election official. The company said that it has provided the capability for election officials change those passwords and increase security, though it still ships the products with the easily broken password.

(snip)

"Avi [Rubin, of Johns Hopkins] told them the door was wide open and unlocked," Mr. Arbaugh said. "They closed the door, but they didn't lock it," he said.

Very reassuring. This after Diebold has repeatedly told everyone who'd listen that there never was anything wrong with the system and, besides, they already fixed everything that wasn't wrong with it. Of course, we know Repukes would never, ever do anything unethical involving computers, just like they didn't in the Senate.

Tip O'The Tam to American Samizdat. I love that blog title. Every blogger who's trying to keep the truth alive is part of the American samizdat.

posted 4:57 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

The Rhodes Are Fakin'

Back in December Andrew Sullivan wrote, "(although Rhodes scholars are among the most irritating mediocrities on earth)."

Reea-llyy? So a multiple term governor and two-term president, a basketball star and Senator, and a four-star general are all, completely aside from whether you like 'em or not, mediocrities. I got a sneaking suspicion that if I had a list of all the Rhodes scholars of the last 30 years, and a list of their accomplishments, they wouldn't, on average, seem mediocre.

This is the thinking of one of the smart "conservatives." My own wild theory is that the right has to denigrate intelligence. There isn't all that much of it on their side. I also think they lie because they have to. How would they ever get elected if they were honest? We want to eliminate services to the poor. We want to eliminate Social Security. We want to tax the vast majority of Americans more and the tiny percentage that are very rich and really have no use for the money less. We want to eliminate unemployment insurance.

I'd love to see the f'right dingers run on an honest platform.

posted 10:59 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

It's Childish To Change Your Mind

Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal makes a rafter-rumbling good point about opinion in general and politicians changing their opinions, in particular. In, "Do the flip-flop boogie..." Dr. Cline first quotes Steve Chapman, then responds:

"Anyone is entitled to change his mind in the light of new evidence. The problem with politicians is that they never seem to change their minds in ways that would hinder their ambitions." He refers to such flip-flops as empty words.

Oh, really? In other words the collective opinions of a politician's (potential) constituents count for nothing.

Remember, leadership and statesmanship mean doing what the people don't want, which is how you truly serve democracy.

posted 10:07 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Get Today's Krugman, Who Usually Gets It Right

Where's the Apology?

These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse.

Tip via The Agonist, where Sean-Paul says, "If you are not outraged then you are not paying attention."

posted 8:59 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Kerry, In Most Recent Poll I Can Put My Pinkies On

The Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Jan. 22-23, 2004, has Kerry leading Bush 49% to 46%. Maybe I'm wrong about Kerry's chances. I soytanly hope so. Beating Bush is the most important thing on the planet.

From pollingreport.com.

posted 8:18 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Is There Room For The Three Stooges Up There?

A petition, signed by literally dozens of people, to put Dumbya on Mt. Rushmore: *I want President George W. Bush on Mount Rushmore with his peers*

S'Okay with me. Should we just tie him down, or sink shackle anchors into the rock?

posted 7:20 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Truth Catching Up To Bush

From his keyboard to God's daily briefing. The Toronto Star.

Also from Webocracy.

posted 6:51 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Medicare - Can You Say Payoff, Poison Goils?

Pelosi rips GOP lawmaker on job offer

Pelosi called it "inappropriate" and an "abuse of power" for Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, R-Louisiana, to consider the offer from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association (PhRMA), one of the city's most powerful lobbies, to head up the organization. The job would pay him more than $1 million a year, according to sources.

(snip)

Privately, some GOP aides say the job offer presents a public relations problem for the party.

See? It's not an ethical problem. It's a PR problem.

For those on the dingbat wing who may ask the question, no, I don't think Democrats are pure. I think most Dems have sold out to the coporatocracy too.

As with justice, in America today you get as much democracy as you can afford and, at today's prices, most Americans can't afford any. I was raised and educated to believe in government of the people, so if you're wondering why I'm vein-popping pissed, I have a one word explanation: Plutocracy!

Thanks to Webocracy.

posted 6:38 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

The Finest Fertilizer Salesmen In The Land

Body and Soul discovers another Rethuglican dirty trick. Tip via Omnium.

posted 6:15 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Sure, Journalism's Gone Bad, But What About Ethics?

In Search of Utopia asks, "Why is it that the Scandals Just Seem to Die?"

What the Hell happened to hard-nosed journalism?

I think I can partially answer that question. When corporations largely took over journalism they did what they do best. They cut the budget. There just aren't as many reporters as there used to be. I read about a paper where the police beat reporter had two or three other beats. He didn't have time to pick up the police reports at the station, so the paper decided to let the police fax over whatever they thought was important. A reporter, like an editor, is a gatekeeper. In this case, the police became the gatekeepers of news about themselves.

Investigative reporters, in particular, have almost disappeared. Investigative reporters cost more and not, mainly, because of their relatively higher salaries. Corporations are risk averse, never mind all the propaganda bushwa about "entrepreneurialism." By it's nature, the work these reporters do pisses people off. It results in risky and expensive lawsuits, angry advertisers who cancel their ads, and angry readers who cancel subscriptions. It's expensive. It's better for the bottom line to just not do any investigating.

Many reporters today are nothing more than high profile stenographers for government officials. Pay attention to the sources cited in news stories. See how many of them come from government officials, former government officials, right wing thinktanks (not always identified as such) and other insiders.

Search continues:

This whole issue of the Republican's rifling Democratic members computer files is so outrageous it is beyond the pale... What is really offensive is that the Republicans have the nerve to imply that it was the Democrats fault that the files were rifled, because they did not secure them properly... OH PLEASE! So let me get this right, if I forget to lock my door and you come in and steal my shit, it is I who should go to jail???

No, Dave, you shouldn't go to jail, but it is all your fault and no one should face punishment cuz no crime has been committed. Rethievelicans aren't evil like Clinton and the Dems.

Update: Now I think about it, why would I be surprised that the Repukes would blame the Dems for allowing their files to be stolen? Doesn't the right always try to blame the victim?

posted 5:47 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

January 29, 2004

I Don't Hate Conservatives!

It's the idiotlogues on the far right that I can't stand. Libertarians are ideological nutjobs, too. I like The Volokh Conspiracy, and I like Eugene Volokh's work. Here's one reason. I certainly don't agree with everything he says, but he's intelligent, he's reasonable and, unlike most of the pseudo-cons, he doen't seem to be smoking anything I wouldn't.

I really don't think I'm much, if any, to the left of Richard Nixon, except on one issue that I haven't fully worked out yet. I am questioning whether capitalism and democracy are compatible. If it comes to a choice, I'm goin' with democracy. I would truly love to know what choice today's right wing would make.

posted 9:51 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

One Might Ask, Whither Pensions?

If one were the sort to use words like whither, but it might take us perilously close to fabulous territory. Atrios posted on this, Senate Passes Pension Relief Bill, and used a pejorative for senators that, delicate as I am, I hesitate to repeat. Let's just say it rhymes with duckheads.

I don't know a whole lot about it, so if someone wants to try to instruct me I'll sure listen, but I think maybe Atrios is a little too harsh this time. According to the story:

Unions have also lobbied for the legislation. Although the legislation will result in smaller payments to pension funds over the short run, it gives some financial breathing space to companies that might otherwise go bankrupt, lay off workers, freeze their pension plans or renege on the promised benefits.

That makes me think that, although it's unpleasant, the legislation may be necessary. Unions rarely lobby against their own interests.

posted 9:18 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Muddy Waters Sang, "I don't trust nobody, nobody,

"not even myself." Man had a plan. The Center For American Progress piece, 'imminent' semantics helps us to compare and contrast presidential spokespigs. In a press briefing posted May 7, 2003:

Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.

Flash forward to a press briefing, posted January 27:

MR. McCLELLAN: I think some in the media have chosen to use the word "imminent." Those were not words --

Q The President himself never used that word?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those were not words we used.

And they also say:

But a closer look at the record shows the Administration not only used exact phrase "imminent threat," but also buttressed it with claims that Iraq was a "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat," "serious and mounting threat," "unique threat," and a threat that was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction"

So first they lie about the threat from Iraq in order to deceive the American people about the need for war, then they lie about having lied. And the dingers swallow it hook, linen line, and 40 lb. sinker.

But it's so disrepectful to call the heavy hitters in this administration liars, and I would never want to say anything disrepectful about this lying, sleazy, anti-democratic, pig-fucking, fifty-pounds-o-turtle-shit-in-a-five-pound bag administration.

posted 7:06 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Presidential Spokespig Grunts Annoyingly

The inimitable JulieBeth of ill-sorted ephemera links to a White House press briefing in which Helen (probably Thomas) not only repeatedly forces Scott McClellan into professional obfuscation, but also demonstrates his impressive incompetence as a sleazy liar.

posted 5:46 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

MoveOn Keeps The Heat On CBS

From a letter sent to CBS, signed by 26 Congress Critters:

CBS has said that the ad violated the networks's policy against running issue advocacy advertising, However, the network has run a White House issue advocacy spot on the consequences of drug use during a past Super Bowl. CBS also will air a spot by Phillip Morris USA and the American Legacy Foundation advocating against smoking during this year's Super Bowl. Additionally, the network profits enormously from the thousands of issue ads which air on CBS stations nationwide during election campaigns year after year. Because of these facts, we must call into question why CBS refuses the advertisement by MoveOn.org.

MoveOn's Eli Pariser sez CBS has received 1,000s of phone calls, and over 400,000 emails have been sent. If you wanta get inta the act, just click the banner at the top of this page.

posted 2:15 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

What's In A Scientific Name?

More proof that Repulicans want to force, not themselves, but the rest of us back into the dark ages. It's pretty dark in their brains already. Omnium discusses, and links to, a story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about how Georgia's Republican state Schools Superintendent wants to eliminate the word "evolution" from the middle and high school science standards, replacing it with "biological changes over time."

Here's something I don't get. These people don't want to believe in evolution. They want to believe that the world was created by an omnipotent God. So what do they think's going on with bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics? I mean, if it's not evolution, doesn't that leave only one explanation?

God's deliberately trying to kill us! Da-amn. First terrorists, now this.

posted 12:29 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Will Dr. Kay Get The O'Neill Treatment Now?

Until recently, David Kay was the Rove/Bush steamroller's pet weapons inspector in Iraq. But nobody crosses the Rove Perpetual Campaign Machine and gets away with it.

Ex-Arms Monitor Urges an Inquiry on Iraqi Threat

The headline doen't make clear that Kay called for an independent inquiry. Openness? In a democracy? That could compromise the most important national interest: campaign security. Especially in an election year.

"It's important that we gather all the facts, that we look at all that information and compare it to what we knew before the war," Mr. McClellan said. "That's important. But first, before we can draw firm conclusions, we need to let the Iraq Survey Group complete its work."

"Which will take at least until after the November election." Oh, he forgot to add that, didn't he. Yeah, well, McClellan, like all presidential spokespigs, lies for a living.

Ya don't s'pose the Caesar of secrecy (Whoever that is. I have a hard time believing Bush is in charge of anything.) has anything, ya know, damaging to hide, do ya.

But Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is his party's ranking committee member, quoted at length from President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in statements to the public that Mr. Hussein had stockpiles of unconventional weapons.

"The administration, in order to support its decision to go to war, made numerous vivid, unqualified statements about Iraq having in its possession weapons of mass destruction — not programs, not program-related activities, not intentions — actual weapons is what the administration's statements focused on," Senator Levin said.

They said there was "no doubt" that Saddam had WMDs, a shitload of 'em. When you say something with the intention to deceive, it's called a lie. When you lie about the reasons for going to war, you're not fit for any office in a democratic country.

Now, since some idiot keeps telling me it's not a lie if the liar doesn't know it's a lie, let me just say: if the members of this administration who deceived us into war didn't know they were lying, then they're not fit for office in any country.

posted 11:52 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Savaging Santorum, It's The Right Thing To Do

The opening page of this site, rated not for the kiddly-kids (But what kid would read my site anyway?) tends to roil my delicate tum. But, it is devoted to destroying the political career of a man devoted to spreading foamy shit throughout America. So I give you Spreading Santorum.

posted 7:56 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

January 28, 2004

Chris Matthews Not a Right Wing Shill?

Body-slam me with a mote. Chris Matthews: 'The French were right'

posted 10:02 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Life, Death, Politics And Freedom

Adam, of A Violently Executed Blog, posted this in response to a question of mine. Fight the good fight, peebles, please, God, fight the good fight.

posted 7:12 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Paranoia About The Voting Process Is A Good Thing

Omnium has a post about the potential dangers of online voting overseas. Dammit, the vote should be verifiable and verified, period! There should be no room for suspicion. And callin' me a paranoid conspiracy theorist ain't gonna cut no nasty-ass tofu.

You right wing cats, you'd be yowlin' yer furry heads off if ya thot there was any chance this shit would go against you but, right or wrong, you figure it favors you, so you make fun of anyone who has qualms about black box and online voting.

Ya know, I want true, constitutional, representative democracy, above all else. If the American people freely choose to do what I don't think is right, so be it. Now, I really want to know, can you dingers say the same?

posted 3:58 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Is Our President Stoopid?

"the illiteracy level of our children are appalling" - George W. Bush

The violent one links to the White House site where the salamander in Chief this brilliant statement is recorded. It's not like this is his first verbal gaffe. Raygun was, what shall we say, uh, disconnected from reality? But this is just dumb. I've heard what Molly Ivins and others have said about Dumbya's intelligence (it's relatively complimentary) but, I'm sorry, I'm just baffled. If the man has a brain, about all he uses it for is a seat cushion, best I can figger. WORST PRESIDENT EVER!! Jesus! What does it take to convince people?

posted 3:36 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

What Is Protected Speech?

Since the dingers're out in force on this Franken thing, screaming he's a fascist who violently limited free speech, I have a question. Is shouting someone else down, thereby preventing them from speaking, protected free speech? Should it be?

The best reports I have at this time, by-de-by, do not indicate that Franken was suppressing speech. It sounds more like he was suppressing violence.

posted 2:17 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

The Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal Media, Media, Media

D'ya b'lieve it yet? Economist Brad Delong does a nice job deconstructing the WaPo's editorial in "Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? Part DXX, The right-wing hackery from the Washington Post's editorial page defies belief.'

Tip via Eschaton (Atrios).

posted 1:36 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Is He Dense, Delusional Or A Liar?

It's all the same to me. Any one of the three should disqualify him from the presidency. See Digby at The American Street on the press corps' failure to hold Bush accountable for his own statements, while at the same time grilling Wes Clark endlessly on a facetious statement of Michael Moore's.

posted 11:53 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

GOP Says No Gray Areas, Except WhenThey Want Gray

TPM says the NYT is soft on the GHP. Oxblog says they're not. Hard to say. If you care, read the stories Oxblog links to and decide for yourself.

The major difference I spotted in the two stories was The Globe reported that GOP staffers said Dem staffers were told about the computer glitch, but the Dems denied it. The NYT didn't mention the Dems' denial. I don't know if I can hang the NYT for that. By-de-by, whether or not rules or laws were broken, this was ethically despicable.

NYT does report:

Senator Hatch has said at various times that he did not think the issue of the memorandums was a serious matter and at other times that he thought it was a great ethical violation.

The Globe reports:

Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, made a preliminary inquiry and described himself as "mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch."

Hey, Orrin, what happened to black/white, right/wrong, good/evil, absolute morality. Isn't it simple? The right always says it's simple.

My grandaddy taught me that there is no black or white in the world, only shades of gray, and I continue to believe it because it jibes with my experience. It ain't like I still believe everything else he told me. It's true that acknowledging gray areas leads to the proverbial slippery slope, but that's where real life takes place. The major problem with the slippery slope, and it's Orrin Hatch's problem here, is that when self-interest gets involved, the snow on the slope turns to sheet-ice mighty damn quick.

posted 7:38 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Dinger's Exaggerate Franken's "Fascist" Behavior

A Violently Executed Blog first put me onto this story. Ya know, if a liberal calls a "conservative" a fascist, well he's an evil, rotten, illogical, mudslinging bastard. If a "conservative" calls a liberal a fascist, even when he has no facts in hand, well he's just calling a spade a, uhh, umm, a trump card. Knew I'd get it.

The New York Post reported:

Wise-cracking funnyman Al Franken yesterday body-slammed a demonstrator to the ground after the man tried to shout down Gov. Howard Dean.

But CNN said:

Franken, a comedian and self-described liberal well-known for his attacks on the Bush administration and conservative-leaning media, helped carry out one of the disrupters. In the process, Franken's glasses were knocked off his face and broke in two.

Hmm, who ta believe, who ta believe. The sensationalist, right wing, Murdoch-ownded New York Fishwrap? Or the mainstream, moderate Conservative News Network? That's a tuffy. Let's go to the tie-breaker.

The Manchester Union Leader, with local reporters covering their own back yard, reports:

The heckler began yelling from the rear of the theater while the Democratic Presidential hopeful was taking questions from the audience, theater manager Peter Ramsey said.

Two members of Dean’s security team immediately moved in on the man, who shoved and elbowed them, Ramsey said.

“He was screaming. He was out of control,” Ramsey said.

Ramsey said he went over to help calm the situation and also got elbowed and pushed.

“All of a sudden, I looked to my right, and Al Franken was grabbing onto this man’s back,” Ramsey said.

“He (Franken) gave him a hefty Patriots block. He should be a Patriot,” Ramsey said.

“I never met Al Franken before. He is now my new hero,” Ramsey said of the former “Saturday Night Live” writer.

Ramsey said a news photographer later told him Franken reacted to being elbowed by the protester, who knocked his glasses off.

So the demonstrator became violent first. It really is pretty repressive of Franken to try to quell violence or defend himself. And it's been so typically "fair and balanced" of the right to wait until the facts were in before condemning Franken.

Tip from the League of Liberals.

posted 6:53 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Violating Sanctity Of Marriage Will Destroy Civilization

Defining Moment from Hullabaloo

In order to restore the sanctity of marriage I propose that we not only pass a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, but that we also pass one reversing all of the other changes to the definition of marriage that conservatives predicted would be catastrophic when they were first proposed.

This is a fantastic, or, as GWB might say, fabulous post that reminds us there have been many changes in the "traditional" definition of marriage, and, in every fuckin' case, conservatives predicted unadulterated disaster. Yet they never seem ta tire a bein' wrong.

I've never worried all that much about the culture wars because the con(servative) men are always destined lose on that front. It's the political front that worries me. (I know they intermix, but they're still not the same thing.) The corporations couldn't give a cancerous rat's bloated behind about the culture wars, but they're the real power behind the right wing's political throne.

My favorite paragraph from Digby, by-de-by:

And, as so clearly demonstrated by recent history, allowing the races to intermarry is tantamount to sanctifying bestiality. (Conservatives knew, then as now, that man is always teetering on the edge of mad dog-love and all it will take is a change in our definition of marriage to push him over.)

Da-amn! I'm kinkier'n I thought! (A dinger one time, when he found out my old lady is black, said, "Maybe that's how you really show your hatred of blacks." His italics, not mine.

Yup, this ch'ere's the best way to show your hatred of a people: Hang around wid'em sometimes, like some of 'em, love one of 'em.

Tip O'The Tam to ill-sorted ephemera.

posted 5:58 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

January 27, 2004

One Generation Forward, And The Next Back

The problem with feminism is that one generation pushes forward, and the next allows freedom to ebb away, writes Erica Jong.

It ain' just with feminism. I "remember" what life was like, and work was like, in the 30s and the 20s and even before, because my grandaddy, who raised me, told me. And today's generation is letting all the gains of the 30s and 40s slip away, because they take it all for granted. They've forgotten that corporations give you nothing.

Shit, piss, fuck, damn, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. The seven words ya use ta couldn't say on television. Thank you, George Carlin, for all you do, even though ya left out plain old fuck, ya vicious, cynical prick.

posted 9:27 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Worst President Ever, Bar None

I voted for Nixon in '72. I'm hardly a radical by nature. Yet when Ronnie da Raygun was elected in '80, my blood pressure shot up to 160/120, and I was a young man at the time. I heard a whole bunch of Ronnie's one minute spots on ABC talk radio in the '70s, and I had never heard such fantasmagoric stupidity, ever, in my whole life. The doctor put me on valium, my blood pressure came down, and after about three weeks I was relatively OK again. How bad is Bush? I'm achin' for the good old days of Raygun.

Dave Neiwert at Orcinus comments on the tax cuts, the deficits, and the coming disaster:

While all this may seem simply the purview of economists and wonks arguing over facts and figures, it has egregious long-term consequences. One of these, of course, is that whatever "recovery" we may be seeing now will not last beyond a quarter or two. The clue should be that this is what we are calling the "jobless recovery," which now joins the Lexicon of Oxymorons alongside "compassionate conservatism" and "honest Republican."

These aren't just yer old fashioned oxymorons. These're the new and improved, supercharged oxymorons for a new and improved corporatist age. And it's selling really well to the morons. Which is all that counts.

posted 8:28 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Logical Nonsense As A Political Weapon

"Conservatives" have steadfastly opposed hate crimes legislation and campus codes forbidding hate speech, but now they eagerly embrace the phrase "political hate speech." Hypocritical? You betcha, but that's their middle name. They're proud members of the Grand Hypocrisy Party. Check it:

"Political hate speech":
A case study in the use of language as a political weapon
By Brendan Nyhan

Since Sept. 2003, the Republican Party has been attacking Democratic presidential candidates for "political hate speech," the latest in a long line of catchphrases such as "political correctness," "media bias" and "class warfare" popularized in recent years by pundits and political operatives. As these terms - which draw on a set of associated stereotypes - gain wider use, they are often used in an increasingly vague and logically nonsensical manner. In this way, "political hate speech" and other bits of political jargon are used to trigger an emotional reaction without making an argument as to why the term applies to a specific case.

Dingers fall for it every time, yet they claim they're the logical, unemotional ones. Ya know, people get paid to come up with this shit, people expert in twisting language into a semblance of logic to manipulate emotions. How'd ya like ta be married to one of those moral giants. Course, maybe they don't swear an' they go ta church. See, if I'm bothered by civilian deaths in Iraq, I'm being an overly sensitive, bleeding heart liberal. But if the right wing dingbats get upset about my fuckin' language, they're being moral. I'll take my damn chances if I have to stand before God and be judged against those motherfuckers.

By examining it more closely, we can see how a phrase like "political hate speech" is constructed. First, it refers to a broad political stereotype with emotional resonance - the angry anti-Bush Democrat. The term also has a legalistic tinge since "hate speech" is banned on some college and university campuses and laws against "hate crimes" increase criminal penalties for certain crimes judged to be motivated by bias or hatred.

(snip)

In addition, as the linguist Geoffrey Nunberg argued in the New York Times, "political hate speech" is part of a recent trend in which conservatives strategically reverse civil rights jargon against liberals.

From Geoffrey Nunberg's article, referred to by Nyhan:

Conservative commentators analyze the Democrats' problems in therapeutic terms that they would once have derided as Marin County psychobabble.

(snip)

Originally, "hate speech" referred to speech that disparaged social groups on the basis of race, sex, religion and the like — an accusation that was more often leveled at conservatives than by them. By that definition, the mere expression of a personal antipathy to the president would hardly count as hate speech, no more than vandalizing a former spouse's car would count as a hate crime.

Somehow I'll see these evil sumbitches back in their two-bit bombshelters one day, if they don' gimme a stroke first.

Spinsanity's pretty good, but I swear they bend over backward to achieve "balance" by takin' the long road to find a way to criticize Dems, which I think they do in this article in the case of Wes Clark and his defense of Michael Moore's free speech. Mebbe it's only my perception. You tell me if I'm wrong.

posted 7:33 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Rev Al's Gone Beyond Stone Cold, And Beyond The Pale

Venturing beyond the pale in Ireland, back in the day, meant death for an Englishman. This ought to mean metaphorical death for "Rev." (Like there's anything holy about him.) Al (Maybe the holes in his morals.). I mean, I was pissed about the race-based attack on Dr. Dean, but this:

Sharpton's Bid Aided by an Unlikely Source

The Rev. Al Sharpton has demonstrated his quick wit and deft use of one-liners in his campaign for president. But while the delivery has been all his own, he had help shaping his message from an unlikely source: Roger Stone, a political consultant who worked for Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Mr. Stone, who describes himself as a Republican-libertarian, has had a hand in some of Mr. Sharpton's most effective attacks on Howard Dean, aides to Mr. Sharpton said. By extension, he has played a role in shaping the dynamic of the Democratic primary, political strategists and observers said.

Shit, shit, shit, SHIT! Even after the Tawana Brawley bullshit, ya try ta give a guy the benefit of the doubt an' then he goes an' takes a dump on your face. And I ain't kinky like that. Not that I was plannin' ta vote for him or anything, but I wasn't hatin' on the brother. Am now.

The EvenTheLiberalNewRepublic called this sewer slime GOP hitman "the State-of-the-Art Washington Sleazeball," in 1985. Goddamnit!! Jesse never pulled this shit. Now we know why he played the race card on Dr. Dean exactly the way a Repukelithug would have.

Tip from the left coaster by way of Seeing The Forest. Thanks for fuckin' my day in the ass, guys.

posted 5:30 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

We're Not Evil Like Clinton And The Dems

Honor and integrity my bleedin' ass.

Infiltration of files seen as extensive

From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight -- and with what tactics.

'Fact sheet' asserts no rules, laws broken

The Committee for Justice [Gotta love the name. The GOP is like Orwell's nightmares come to life. --Phaed.], headed by C. Boyden Gray, a former senior White House counsel during the first Bush administration, this week began circulating a "fact sheet" arguing that no rules or laws were broken by Republican staffers who exploited a computer glitch on a shared server that allowed them to access memos written by their Democratic counterparts without having to enter a password.

And it's not even immoral, either. Clinton was much sleazier than this.

Thanks to Heretical Ideas. (I get 'em all the time.)

posted 2:56 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Deficits, Dumb, Dumbya And Dumbyest

You know some people are born dumb, in which there is no shame. Some people have dumbness thrust upon them, through, say, lead poisoning or brain injury. But some people are willfully dumb, for which there is little excuse. This category includes many conservatives and, especially, Georgie-poo.

From the WaPo (Pronounce it "wappo." It's more fun that way.)

"But what a stellar crowd," Bush continued. "It looks like the index of Paul O'Neill's book. Let me say something about that book. Paul said I was disengaged because he talked to me for 45 minutes and I didn't say a word. I wasn't disengaged. I was bored as hell and my mother told me never to interrupt. . . .

Blogger Demagogue comments:

Joke all you want, but that explains why we are now facing a record $477 billion defecit and accumulated deficits of $1.9 trillion over the next decade.

I would only quibble with one little thing. The deficits are likely to be two and a half times that big. As the WaPo editorial said:

Because the budget office is required by law to ignore some likely costs, the more realistic scenario is that the federal government will spend about $5 trillion more over the next 10 years than it takes in.

Demagogue was tipped via Southern Appeal.

posted 2:29 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

The Corporatization of America - Why Votes Barely Count

The GOP, Inc. - Selling Public Policy as a Commodity

The G.O.P. was once a respectable political party, giving voice to cautious citizens who saw much to protect in the affairs of the nation. The Democratic Party offered a forum for less sanguine citizens to disagree and seek reform, and in the healthy conflict between the two a robust democracy served the nation well.

(snip)

Movement Conservatism is a self-serving and socially malevolent cabal of mega-corporations, right-wing think tanks in Washington, their archconservative foundation benefactors, and an intricate nationwide network of linkages in the communications media, religion, higher education, and law. It has been called the "conservative labyrinth," and common to all its elements is a theology of "free markets," an ideology coming to full bloom in the Administration of George W. Bush. Today, the G.O.P. seeks to impose it at every turn.

This is too good and too powerful a piece to miss. Richard W. Behan lays it all out better than I ever could: How government of the people has been turned into USA Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate capitalism. In short, how they're fuckin' us blind.

Tip O'The Tam to Omnium.

posted 1:12 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Don't Shop Vons, Ralphs or Albertsons - Support The Striking Grocery Workers

I'm printing this email in its entirety because it's that important. The working class is getting hammered in this country. These have been middle class jobs. If the workers lose, quite soon they no longer will be. First they came for the grocery workers. Someday they'll come for you.

Dear Working Families e-Activist:

Since mid-October, 70,000 grocery workers have courageously kept up the picket lines in Southern California. These brave workers are holding the line for health care and good jobs in the face of stubborn employer greed. The stand they have taken is not just for their own families, but for all families, at a time when too many employers are shredding the standards for decent benefits we worked long and hard to build. They're on strike or have been locked out by their employers, including Kroger-owned Ralphs, Safeway-owned Vons and Albertsons for nearly four months now.

That is a very long time for these workers and their families to go without their regular paycheck or health care coverage. They need your help.

REQUESTED ACTION
Normally we'd ask you to click on a link to help. Today we need something different. We're reminding you to change your everyday routine and not shop at Ralphs, Vons or Albertsons stores during the strike. This includes stores like Food 4 Less, Cala/Bell, Foods Co, Super Saver, Savon, Max Foods and other stores owned by either Safeway, Kroger or Albertsons. The striking grocery workers are asking you to do this because the companies that own these stores are stubbornly refusing to negotiate a reasonable contract. We all need to vote with our shopping choices and tell these giant grocery corporations that their actions are unacceptable and we will not support them with our business.

Please don't shop at Vons, Ralphs and Albertsons and help get the word out by forwarding this e-mail to your friends, family and co-workers.

These workers feel their struggle is essential to the well-being and future of their families. Maria Lopez, a five-year employee of one of the grocery stores, had this to say about the strike. "I've been out there [on the picket line] for 40 hours a week because I'm fighting for my health benefits. There are a lot of moms on the line. We are afraid to lose our jobs with this strike but more afraid to lose our health benefits if the company gets its way. If one of my kids gets really sick and I couldn't afford the insurance, I wouldn't know what to do."

By clicking on this link you also can donate to a special strike fund set up to help these workers. Some workers are in dire straits-especially if somebody in the family is sick.

Why is this strike so important? The grocery chains are demanding the workers accept what amounts to a 75 percent cut in health coverage for new workers and a 50 percent cut for current employees. Like too many employers across America, they are trying to boost their profits at the expense of workers and their families. If the grocery chains win, we'll all have a harder time holding on to health care benefits. The workers must win.

Learn more about the grocery strike on the AFL-CIO website by clicking on this link.

Visit the website of the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Thanks for all you do. Let's show 'em what solidarity looks like.

In Solidarity,

Working Families e-Activist Network
Jan. 26, 2004

--------------------------------------------------

Click on this link for more information from your union, online activism and benefits.

posted 10:56 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Oh, Christ, We're Gonna Lose

At least if this keeps up we will.

CNN-USA Today-Gallup, Jan. 24-25, 970 LV, MoE plus or minus 3. Jan. 23-24 results in parentheses.

John Kerry 36 (38)
Howard Dean 25 (25)
Wesley Clark 13 (10)
John Edwards 10 (9)
Joe Lieberman 10 (12)
Dennis Kucinich 1 (2)
Al Sharpton 1 (less than 1)

Call me crazy, but I don't think Kerry can beat Bush unless Bush starts falling hard.

posted 8:50 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

In Politcs, I Have No Hope

Took this ch'ere little candidate quiz, President Match, at Elections 2004, and knock me over with a renegade zygote, turns out Dennis Kucinich is my man, 100%. So naturally he's got about as much chance as Rev. Al of ever bein' president. If, perhaps as a result of the Heart Of Gold with its Infinite Improbability Drive passing near earth, Dennis did get elected he might live longer Rev. Al, were he to encounter such misfortune. The rest of my scores:

Kerry	86%
Dean	82%
Edwards	74%
Leiberman	68%
Bush	0%

Jeez-Louise, ya might t'ink I don' like Boosh's policies or sumpin'. Tipped to the test by :: MC Estoppel ::.

posted 8:33 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Deficits, GDP, Productivity, Wages - Oh, Screw Facts!

The first paragraph of the "liberal" WaPo's editorial:

Dangerous Deficits

Tuesday, January 27, 2004; Page A16

THE CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office released its new deficit projections yesterday, and the bad news is that the deficit is forecast to total nearly $2.4 trillion over the next decade, almost $1 trillion more than the estimate just five months ago. The worse news is that the actual prognosis is far grimmer. Because the budget office is required by law to ignore some likely costs, the more realistic scenario is that the federal government will spend about $5 trillion more over the next 10 years than it takes in.

Paul Krugman's details the reasons why. Here's one:

Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950.

An online dinger, who went by the marvelously humble moniker of SHEWHOISTHEONE, told me there's no reason to worry about the deficits because we'll grow our way out of them. How dinged was she? If she was a surfboard, she'd be in the trash. First, she got her economic advice from Paul Krugman's very own personal uber-troll, Donald Luskin, a man who claims to be an economist despite having left college after one semester. He implies that college was a frivolous waste of time. Second, she figured all we need to grow out of these deficits is sustained growth in GDP of 5% per annum. And growth is bound to skyrocket with Republicans in office, right? So I asked myself, how likely is such growth?

Since 1932 we've done it twice. From 1933-44, GDP growth averaged 9.2 %. For those who are gonna point to the war creating that growth, from 1934-41, it averaged 8.6%. For all of FDR's presidency, GDP averaged 9.2%, and, excluding the war years, it was 7.5%. If the New Deal was “the triumph of our socialist revolution,” (hint - it wasn't) as that wonderful judicial nominee, Janice Rogers Brown said, then I say, "Bring - it - on."

The second period of high, sustained growth ran from 1962-68, averaging 5.2%. So it has happened, but only under liberal Democrats. How have those hard-headed (or thick-skulled) economic pragmatists, the modern Republicans fared?

Under Raygun, growth averaged 3.4%. Under GHW Bush, 2.2%. Under the 1st two years of the Shrub-like critter, 1.4%. And during the incredible, fantastic boom years of our Republican Lite president, Willie-Jeff Clintone, 3.7%. Even Republican Lite is a big improvement.

The above figures were calculated from charts available at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (put in the right years and check "annual").

How, you ask, have working folks fared in the modern era of Republican-like fiscal policies? OK, so you didn't ask, but please ask.

From 1973-01, median wages, those earned by workers in the 50th percentile, rose -- brace yourself -- a whole 6.7%. Over 29 years. The average yearly growth has been so small it's practically non-existent. It comes to about three cents per hour per year. So shows a chart at the Economic Policy Institute.

Ah, but if we only raise productivity, the money will come rollin' in. So get out there and work your little tushie off and you'll get a nice raise. After all, over the same 29 year period, productivity only went up 65%, according to chart at the Bureau of Labor Statistics site (under Productivity, select output per hour). That's why we didn't get big raises.

So, productivity goes up, wages go up. That's what they tell us, isn't it? And wouldn't that be a hmm, whatchacallit, a, a -- BIG, FAT, FUCKING LIE?

Not to worry, though, the grownups are in charge now.

Tip on Krugman's column via Blog for America.

posted 6:56 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

January 26, 2004

Lying, Sleazy, Scumbag, Anti-moral, Anti-God, Hypocrites!

Those are the f'right dingers. Devoted dipshits of doublethink. If you want to get just the beginning of a handle on the right wing's degenerate hypocrisy (as if Annie "The Anorexic Rottweiller Bitch" Coulter isn't clue enough), you must read this post at Ungodly Politics.

The right's false outrage at the comparison of the Resident to Hitler is another in a mile-long qeue of hypocritical, cynical, PR-spin manipulations of Americans. If there's a God in Heaven, there's gonna be a lot of Repukeli-CANs in hell.

Tip via doublethink.

posted 9:13 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Harpin' On Money And Blowin' Political Blues.

I guess ya have ta know what blues harp is to get that headline. Blues harmonica. Greg Palast has a guest blogger for the first time, Charles L. Lewis, author of “The Buying of the President 2004.”

“The real powers that be in this country are not on any ballot. And they
are accountable to no one."

(snip)

Our electoral process is broken, with about half or more of America's eligible voters not voting in every federal election cycle.

(snip)

The campaign process has become so expensive that it limits the talent pool available today to only millionaires or those willing and able to raise substantial sums of cash from wealthy and powerful interests with business before the government.

(snip)

And big money mixed with irregular and high-tech redistricting help explain why the incumbent reelection rate in the House of Representatives the past three elections has been more than 98 percent.

And the House of Representatives is supposed to be the most democratic part of our government. There's a name for this bullshit: Plutocracy:

A Plutocracy comprises a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government.

--Wikipedia

We should be in the middle of the second revolution. Instead, most of the people have no idea there's anything seriously wrong. Amazing how public relations can spin up a pretend democracy as satisfying as a non-alcoholic, lite Zima. Course, this is the same PR/advertising industry that spun up both Zima and Red Bull like spinning gold out of thin air.

Tip O'The Tam to MetaFilter.

posted 8:17 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Here's Something I Never Thought I'd Do

Quote John Stossel:

Myth No. 6 — Republicans Shrink the Government

Republicans always trot out the slogan that they oppose big government and want to shrink the federal payroll. President Bush tells us that "big government is not the answer." President Reagan told us, "Our government is too big and it spends too much."

But for more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government. Since George W. Bush became president, government spending has risen nearly 25 percent.

Repukli-CANs don't spend any less of your money. They just spend it differently. Like on more corporate welfare.

posted 10:33 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Must See Moovie - The Drunk's The Qualified One

Adam The Violent links to "Who's more presidential?" A short flick on the net.

posted 9:40 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Wes Clark Unfit To Be President

Cuz he associates with that awful liar Michael Moore, who had the temerity to call Fearless Leader a deserter, and Clark didn't repudiate it. And the jabbering heads on TV won't let it alone until they have forced the electorate to understand that they actually should give a rat's ass. It's for their own good, and the good of democracy.

Now, Bush clearly is not technically guilty of desertion, and that is the standard the right used in judging Bill Clinton, isn't it? "He's not technically guilty, so we won't say anything nasty." That's the way I remember it anyway. (Damn 'shrooms.) However, Dave Neiwert over ta Orcinus analyzes this issue thoroughly, with many links, and points out:

Bush blew off his physical in the spring of 1972, thereby ignoring a direct order from his superiors.

Bush then definitely performed no drills at all for any unit of the National Guard between early May 1972 and late November 1972 at the earliest. This is a period of nearly seven months.

Those of us who used ta be cannon fodder, and those who are today, know damn well that we'd never get away with that shit. I guess it's different when you're born with a silver spoon up your nose. (Doh! Another unsupported allegation! All we know for sure is that he was into drunk driving. Like Cheney. So that's OK, then.)

So remember, Wes Clark's unfit to be president, but the AWOL drunk is highly qualified.

posted 6:58 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Real Pragmatism, Stern "Conservatism" And The Homeless

BoingBoing led me to this story in the Christian Science Monitor. Dennis Culhane teaches social-welfare policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

Studying shelters in Philadelphia and New York City in the 1990s, Culhane found that although the long-term homeless made up only 10 percent of the homeless population over three years, they were using half of all shelter beds on any given night. And when Culhane compared the costs of supporting those with and without permanent housing, he discovered that it cost a city just $1,000 more annually per person to offer supportive housing - with services for mental health, addictions, employment, and other needs - than to care for the chronically homeless.

(snip)

"The emergency shelter system wasn't created for them," Culhane says. Only with permanent shelter, he concluded, would the homeless population be drastically reduced.

Which led me to this report from the same source in July of '02.

While there's a perception that middle-class people also face an affordable housing shortage, a report done by the Department of Housing and Development last year found that the extremely low-income face the nation's only "true, substantive" housing shortage. It also recorded that for every 100 poor people in the country, there are only 37 units of affordable and available housing.
"Which helps explain why in Massachusetts we had 30 percent of the homeless people in the shelter system who were working full time jobs, and they couldn't get out because they couldn't afford to get an apartment," says Philip Mangano, now the executive director of the US Interagency Council on Homelessness, which the Bush administration recently reactivated.

I suspect that this solution might actually save money in the long run as people become more stable and productive, but I haven't delved into the report. He may have accounted for that. Either way, a 1,000 bucks per person per year is cheap.

To get a logical, pragmatic, "conservative" solution to the problem, I naturally turned to Free Repulic. Here's a "conservative" "solution" to homelessness in San Francisco posted by would-be mayor Roger.

There is a Yiddish saying, "It is no crime to be poor, but it is no honor either." Due to liberal policies the "indigent community," has been elevated to a special empowered group with special rights. This has to be stopped!!!

A "special empowered group with special rights." This genius oughta actually try bein' indigent and see how special he feels. I'm not gonna give you facts and figures on this one. I'm just gonna say that I been poor an' I been homeless, if only for five weeks. And I was one of the "elite" homeless. I still had a car. I've lived in or near poor neighborhoods most of my life. I know a little. This guy's a perfect example of how corporate jet "conservatives" and urban assault vehicle dinger dads don't know shit about the real world. That's why they were willing ta believe Ronnie Raygun's dumbass "welfare queen" stories, and why they're willing ta believe that the indigent constitute a specially empowered group.

To stop the sending of problem cases to San Francisco will take two actions:

1. The Mayor of San Francisco announcing to the country on 60 Minutes or by other means, that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. San Francisco will no longer accept being a dumping ground. To add teeth to this statement announce that for every city we find sending homeless to San Francisco, we will send 1,000 back.
2. Step two is to give the US Congress notice that they have 30 days to pass laws to stop Greyhound Therapy, or we will flood the neighborhoods where they live with homeless. This will have the effect of making Congress responsible for what is a national issue.

Yeah, that'll work. That's real "conservative" logical pragamatism for ya.

The Police need to maintain a strong presence and enforcement of current rules against common homeless practices such as public defection and urination, sleeping on the street, blocking doorways and aggressive panhandling. Shopping carts need to be outlawed on city streets. Raids on homeless campouts have to be performed as soon as they are discovered.

In general, the homeless have to be confronted on a regular basis and told that they are unwelcome on the streets of San Francisco.

Oh, the punitive approach. Dingers resorting to punitive solutions. Imagine that. Dingers are always "spare the rod and spoil the child" types, cuz everything in the bible is true and good for all time. Especially the stuff about genocide and slavery.

I'm just wildly speculating here, but I think most dingers were raised in stern, puunitive homes; homes where either physical beating or abusive brow-beating were common. That's why I'm never surprised when I hear of a "conservative" visiting a dominatrix.

Here's a reply to would-be mayor Roger from a Freeper (same page):

INDENTURED SERVITUDE

Homeless? Addicted? Hopelessly unemployable? Then come on down to Serfs 'R' Us! Not only will we help you kick the habit through our 100% guaranteed Clean Up Or Die recovery program, we also guarantee full-time, round-the-clock employment at any of our luscious Southern California estates in the BEAUTIFUL Mojave Desert.

At Serfs 'R' Us, you will enjoy, for FREE:

FOOD - Nothing but the finest fruits and vegetables, grown by you and your fellow serfs in our sumptuous green fields and orchards.
SHELTER - No more sleeping in the streets for you! You will sleep in luxurious comfort in our SerfHuts®, the new modern standard in geodesic design.
CLOTHING - Sick of wearing the same filthy rags for months on end? No problem! You will be provided with finery made from THE miracle fabric of the 21st Century - BURLAP! Taylored in the distinctive style of world famous fashion designer Jean-Paul Gaultier, you will cut a dashing figure wherever you may go on the estate.
So climb out of that gutter, leave your grocery cart in the cart corral, and get yourself down to Serfs 'R' Us - Where Your New Life Begins Today!

21 posted on 04/17/2003 1:13:23 PM PDT by FierceDraka (Hang 'Em High!)

Note the clever pseudonym. Such a nice guy. I don't know why I can't learn to get along with a guy like that.

Another post, same page:

2) I'd be quick to add that what has passed for compassion in SF and a lot of other places has been nothing more admirable than a manipulative design to keep 'em pregnant and down on the farm.' That is, to keep them dependent and adding to the voter rolls on the side of the commies et al.

3) It was somewhat of an admirable goal to take people out of mental hospitals who had poor socialization skills; were more than a hair batty; were nonviolent etc. But the result was, basically, to dump them on the street where they have remained.

4) I do NOT think the mental health profession; NOR political/governmental bodies NOR the average citizen or citizen's groups have made anything close to a rational response to the results.

by Quix

In fact, there are effective, pragmatic, comprehensive and cost effective ways to treat the mentally ill. Trust dingers not to know that. I live down the street from a place that does it. They combine psychiatrists with social workers, individual counselors, life coaches, financial managers, housing support, employment support, the works. But it's badly underfunded. Nobody wants to pay for it, especially not conservatives, who can only see the cost of something and never the benefits. That program doesn't cost money, it saves money. The untreated mentally ill are very expensive, in large part due to the high costs of emergency hospitalization, jail time and prison time. It's said that LA County's jail is the largest de facto mental institution in the country.

What about weighing both cost and benefits? Nope, too impractical.

posted 5:26 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

January 25, 2004

Grover Norquist, Principled "Conservative"

From Salon.com:

Norquist said his Nazi talk was justifiable because he was pointing out misguided "socialist policies." Yet he condemned submissions to the "Bush in 30 seconds" ad campaign that compared Bush to Hitler.

(snip)

But Norquist says he won't stop using Hitler analogies to criticize his political opponents. "The Left has misused the Hitler analogy for the past 50 years in defense of the socialists and the communists," Norquist said. "All my life Richard Nixon was a 'Nazi,' and Reagan was a 'Nazi,' and everybody on the right was a 'Nazi.' That's what the left does. That's their one standard thing."

-- Geraldine Sealey

So lemme see if I got this. It was wrong for the left to do it, therefore it's right for the right to do it. Makes sense to me. Ya know, in a typically sick, twisted way.

posted 8:11 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

War Criminal Recapitulates Errors, Applies Them To Iraq

Robert McNamara, self-acknowledged war criminal, on the war in Iraq:

"We're misusing our influence," he said in a staccato voice that had lost none of its rapid-fire engagement. "It's just wrong what we're doing. It's morally wrong, it's politically wrong, it's economically wrong."

"And if we can't persuade other nations with comparable values and comparable interests of the merit of our course, we should reconsider the course, and very likely change it. And if we'd followed that rule, we wouldn't have been in Vietnam, because there wasn't one single major ally, not France or Britain or Germany or Japan, that agreed with our course or stood beside us there. And we wouldn't be in Iraq."

Stoopid libruls just don't understand how smart Dumbya is.

Tip via American Leftist.

posted 6:03 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

F'right Dingers're So Sharp

If the world leaves America alone, America will leave the world alone.

For those who enjoy reading stupid motherfuckers, go here.

posted 5:12 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Who Is An African-American Anyway?

I seldom use the term myself, and my primary objection has been that it's six fuckin' syllables. I have trouble talkin' like a normal person. I got a lazy tongue. Might be a Irish t'ing, I dunno. But I got enough problems widdout tryin' to get out six syllables. An' I'll tell ya, I dunno who started this PC African-American thing, but I know a lot of blacks. Partly because I live in a mixed neighborhood, mostly cuz most of my inlaws are black. I think it has sumpin' ta do wit my dear heart bein' black. Well, like most American blacks, she's probly jus' mostly black. I mean, she tans. She ain't like a African, blue black.

I can't actually recall a black person using the term "African-American." They mostly say black, same as me. Now I got a new reason ta avoid African-American. CNN reports "Students disciplined for award campaign." Unless there's sumpin' left outta these reports, I don't see where these kids did anythin' wrong. The white kid nominated for the "Distinguished African American Student Award," was, in fact, a South African. Seems ta me that makes him an African-American.

What it don't make 'im is black. See, ya can say negro, ya can say colored, ya can say black. Blacks object to the first two of these terms, cuz they been used in a pejorative sense, and I don't blame them. But, wit all a these names, we all know yer talkin' bout a race. Now, race is purely a social construct, biologically it doesn't exist, but at least we know what we're talkin' bout.

I know black's not ideal, blacks, even native Africans, aren't really black, but white people ain't white neither, and we don't seem to let that bother us none.

African-American does not describe a race. It describes a place of origin and current residence or, at least, a place of ancestral origin and current residence. That kid is African-American. The kids who supported his nomination did nothing wrong, unless there's something goin' on that I haven't seen reported. They shouldn't have been punished for violating some arcane and unpublished rules of political correctness.

Tip O'The Tam ta Plastic. Whadda fuck kinda name is dat?

posted 4:10 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Righty Bloggers Celebrate "Conservatives" Net Dominance

For no good reason other than that's what they think they see in the blogosphere. Two years ago, Russ Stein wrote on LewRockwell.com:

And blogs are where the power is. Seriously! The future belongs to those who prevail in the political debates on the web. Right now the political ideas that will govern the future are being sharpened & polished on the world's computer networks. And the right basically owns the web. Where in the world wide web is the left? Where are the people who staff the government agencies, the diversity and affirmative action theorists, the marxists, teachers, socialists, commies, mural painters, greens, tax grabbers, democracy and human rights activists, and the defenders of the ruling establishment? They are no-where! They are fat, happy, stupid, complacent, computer illiterates with nothing but clichés and conventional wisdom to add to the debate, if they could even log on. They do nothing as we busily mock and de-legitimize them on the web.

Now either things have changed a hell of a lot in two years, or Stein is willfully blind. There's a lot of lefties in the blogosphere. What's more, blogs ain't where the power is, at least not yet.

Nonetheless, it is my impression that the blogosphere still leans right. In a post he wrote back in October, Oliver Willis puts his finger square on the reason why:

During the BloggerCon conference it would be easy to go home thinking that any problem of note in the world could be remedied by a simple addition of "blog" to it.

(snip)

I was the only black person in that room, and was one of a few minorities. I'm not whining about that, but simply stating the fact that a technology that is mostly the pursuit of upper middle class white males does diddly to change the real world.

The blogosphere is dominated by upper middle class white males. They're conservative by nature, and most haven't figured out that the Repukelicans, who once were a respectable party, went way right of mere conservatism long ago. They're basically among society's winners. Why wouldn't they want to keep things the way they are, or even turn back the clock to when their ilk were even more dominant?

Change is a comin'. I don't know if it'll get here soon enough, but it's a comin'. More blacks and Hispanics will get computers and become more tech savvy. More women will become tech savvy. It's already happening, and it will accelerate. Enjoy it while ya can, boyos, cuz the days of the white conservative boyz club in the blogosphere are numbered in single digits.

posted 2:31 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Right Wing Whores And The Johns Who Pay Them

Greg Easterbrook, senior editor at the EvenTheLiberalNewRepublic, who masquerades as a moderate, is challenging conventional wisdom again. The NY Times reports:

If there is one thing that most people think they know about incomes in the United States over the last few decades, it is probably that salaries have grown more unequal.

(snip)

In recent weeks, a new book has challenged this conventional wisdom, calling it a statistical mirage, and its striking claim has begun to receive national attention. Among native-born Americans, lower- and middle-income families have actually received proportionately bigger raises than the wealthy, according to "The Progress Paradox" (Random House), written by Gregg Easterbrook, a Washington journalist.

I like that. "Journalist." It's so polite.

Only a great influx of immigrants - many of them poor, but richer than they were in their home countries - has made inequality appear to widen in the statistics, Mr. Easterbrook says.

(snip)

The idea has echoed from the book into the pages of The Washington Post, The Chicago Sun-Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Times of London and BusinessWeek magazine, among other publications.

(snip)

It happens, however, not to be true.

He says he wrote that page badly, that it was an oops. Just another amazingly convenient, pro-right wing oops. But Easterbrook, to be polite, has had other oopses. From Amanda Griscom, reprinted at AlterNet:

On Tuesday, Oct. 14, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial by the widely known environmental gadfly Gregg Easterbrook – a senior editor at the New Republic and a fellow at the Brookings Institution – who set out to roast (or rather deep-fry) critics of the Bush administration's environmental record. He dismissed charges made by everyone from the Natural Resources Defense Council to Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.) as "baloney – baloney being rolled and deep-fried with cheese for purposes of partisan political bashing and fund-raising."

(snip)

Easterbrook's argument comes from "Everything You Know About the Bush Environmental Record Is Wrong," a report he wrote for the Brookings Institution and the right-wing American Enterprise Institute's Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.

(snip)

Easterbrook notes, for instance, a 33 percent reduction overall in nitrogen oxide emissions since 1990 when the number more widely accepted by experts is 12 percent. More intolerable, however, is the way he ignores the primary reason these improvements came about in the first place: the very "command and control" regulations that President Bush is trying to eliminate, and that Easterbrook claims are unnecessary.

The op-ed has too many transparently preposterous statements to eviscerate them all here (take "logging is one of the few endlessly sustainable industries," for example).

Why on earth would a senior editor at the EvenTheLiberalNewRepublic keep having these embarassingly pro-right wing oopses? Could it have anything to do with the fact Easterbrook got $135,000 from the Smith Richardson Foundation to write, "Is Life Getting Better?" (According to Media Transparency Or that he's worked for AEI? That's a lotta cab-BAHGE to a writer. Jus' maybe he's hopin' ta get more.

You might claim that left of center writers are sold out too. Well, they might be, except for the fact nobody's buying. The only reason to be a left of center writer is because you think it's the right thing to do.

posted 11:12 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Dean's Scream/Howl - La Partie Trois

Okay, it's not really part three. I just didn't want to say Part Deux. From my blog buddy (Does that sound vaguely kinky to you?) Dave Anderson at In Search of Utopia I got a link to an amateur video of the Dean caucus speech, and, having watched it, I still have no idea what the big deal is.

Maybe Dean's toast. I have zero faith in my ability to predict, so I don't know. But if he's toast because of that speech, then a lot of Democratic voters are idiots too. I guess I just don't understand that the primary qualification for the presidency is the ability to function as a totally scripted, barely emotional automaton. Maybe we do get the government we deserve.

posted 9:26 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

F'right Dingers'll B'lieve Anything, Even Bush Ain't A Liar

In mid-March of '03 (Press Release was dated March 17) Resident Bush said to the nation:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

No doubt! Got that, you idiotlogues? No Fucking Doubt! That don't leave much wiggle room.

Yet yesterday, we heard from Colin Powell:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who urged the United Nations to endorse a war to strip Iraq of supposed weapons of mass destruction, conceded Saturday that Saddam Hussein's government may not have had such arms.

"What is the open question is how many stocks they had, if any, and if they had any, where did they go? And if they didn't have any, then why wasn't that known beforehand?"

Powell made the comments a day after David Kay, the leader of the U.S. search for banned weapons in Iraq, stepped down and said he did not believe there were any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in the country.

So if Powell has real doubts, and if Kay doesn't believe they had WMDs, in sum, if there are such serious doubts now, how could there be no doubt in March of '03?

Ya know, our side never claimed Clinton didn't lie. We argued that a lie about a blowjob wasn't a BFD. So you should -- uh-oh -- you can't admit Bush lied. Using a lie to take the nation to war just might be the teeniest bit worse than lyin' bout gettin' yer dick licked.

I want one of you pinhead idiotlogues to rationally (I know that's tuff fer y'all.) explain to me how Bush isn't a liar, a delusional, or an idiot. Please. I'm achin' fer it.

posted 9:02 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

January 24, 2004

Man Of The People Award

Who'd a thunk? Bush doesn't win. Eschaton steered me to this link which provides a breakdown of presidential campaign donor demographics.

The winner is: Dennis Kucinich, with Howard Dean in second.

It's good to check out Open Secrets regularly. Follow the Money.

posted 9:11 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Another Bullshit Internet Test

This is supposed to measure your chances of winning a bloggie.

15%

There's a 15% chance that I'll win a Bloggie™.
What's Your Chance to Win a Bloggie™?

Trust me, peebles, this overrates my chances by a factor greater than 30. At least.

Tip via In Search of Utopia.

posted 8:44 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Should Kerry Be The One?

I keep sayin' I'm an anyone but Lieberman kind of guy, but I started having serious doubts about John Kerry when his flip-flopping on the Iraq war vote became absolutely pathetic at the time of Saddam Hussein's capture. Kerry like ta give himself a hernia tryin' ta jump on that bandwagon.

Now he's gone and used the relatively recent, always dreaded GOP fad phrase, "Get over it," in regard to the 2000 election. God, I hate that phrase! I am always, always, always being sarcastic when I use it.

Plus, he said, "Stop crying in your teacups." Teacups? Where's he think this is, the UK? There are 16 straight men in America who use teacups, and 14 of 'em are vegan shamans. Even when Americans drink hot tea, they drink it out of coffee cups.

Kerry is also one of those roll-over-and-play-dead-for-the-nice-Repukeli-CANS Democrats that we all know and love. Those sell-out sumbitches give me a gallopin' case of the wish-I'd-just-die hot, green squirts.

David Podvin has more unpleasantly reasonable things to say about Kerry over at MakeThemAccountable.com.

posted 6:15 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Dennis Kucinich Will Never Be President

Not because of his progressive politics. Something much bigger, or smaller, than that is at issue.

'Boy Mayor' Kucinich Took Charge in Debt Crisis

The boyish-looking 5-foot-7, 140-pound mayor. . . .

A man that small will never be elected president. That's how rational we are politically.

posted 3:51 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Freedom Or Security? It's A Silly Question.

In a UPI story, George Mason University economist Roger Congleton talked about the terrorist threat:

"I basically think we are really overreacting to this in a fairly large way."

(snip)

Congleton says that the risks of dying in more ordinary crimes or accidents — being run over by a car, killed in the traffic accident while driving, or even being murdered — are much higher than those of being killed in a terrorist act.

"All of these risks are historically vastly larger than the risks we face from terrorists," he told UPI. "The right thing to do is to seek perspective and then to think about the costs associated with policy."

He noted that about 15,000 people were murdered last year in the United States, and that the 10-year national average for murders is around 20,000 people per year, compared to the 2,800 who died in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

In 2001, he says, the risk of death from terrorism was less than one-fourth that of being murdered, and far smaller than the risk of being involved in a fatal car accident.

Sullivan at Last Day of My Life, posted about Patriot Act II (Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004) on 12/29/03, and linked to Armed Liberal, who asked:

Do we abandon security in order to maintain our freedom? Or do we abandon freedom to remain secure? Or do we compromise, as we are, to wind up half-free and half-secure?

Truth is, there isn't enough real risk to even be asking the question. Truth is, the Bushies are deliberately exaggerating the risk as a means of manipulating the people. They're psychological terrorists their own damn selves. If right wingers would stop acting like incredibly cowardly wimps, we could get back to trying to act like a democratic nation. I don't have much hope.

posted 11:46 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

George Dumbya Bush's Place In History

When Bush got elected, I really thought he'd be the worst US president in history. Man, did he fool me. He's a fuckuvalot worse than that.

posted 8:41 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Useful Career Information

From Bear Left on an Unnamed Road:

If the prospect of falling short of your potential keeps you up at night the way a telltale heart beating under the floorboards never could, you may want to invest some of your ill-gotten gains in a slim new manual by Neil Zawacki: How To Be An Evil Villain: Evil Laughs, Secret Lairs, Master Plans, And More . It promises to teach you all you need to "enjoy the fruits of limitless power, revel in unbridled greed and debauchery, and begin ... construction of ... enormous and needlessly complex weapons of destruction in your basement."

The site has a link to the book. Buy it, study hard, hone your skills, and you too can become a Republican political operative. Better watch yerself, Karl Rove.

posted 7:56 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

More Media Idiocy: Dean's Howl

I just saw a little clip of the key moments in Howard Dean's concession speech, thanks to the LA Times (in the sidebar). I don't watch TV, so I tend to miss these things. Dear Gawd. Another friggin' hurricane in an old hat. I've even heard liberals saying, "Oh, I don't want him near the nuclear button after seeing that."

C'mon, peebles, there was nothing about that speech that indicated instability. It was just an enthusiastic, crowd rousing speech. When did politics in this country become fuckin' high tea? Back in the day, fist fights and even gun fights broke out at political rallies. And that was just among the candidates.

Obviously (I hope), I'm not advocating violence, but now even emotion and enthusiasm are ruled out of bounds? You can tell lies about Clinton and John McCain having black love-children, but you can't howl. Shit. It wasn't even much of a howl. I can, and do, howl better than that.

posted 7:22 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Bush Admin Doesn't Lie. That's Crazy Talk.

From an LA Times story:

"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government," Cheney said in an interview on National Public Radio. "I am very confident that there was an established relationship there."

That assertion appeared at odds with the recent words of other senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who said in an interview this month that he had "not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence" of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Somebody's lyin', for Chrissake! Either that or it depends on what the meanings of "overwhelming evidence" and "smoking gun, concrete evidence" are. Anybody want to go back to the days of it depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

That's not the only lie Cheney tells, either. The infamous trailers, "We found them. We found the weapons of mass destruction," whose purpose is strongly disputed, which even David Kay refuses to say are biological weapons labs, are back. Cheney deems their existence "conclusive evidence." He's either a liar, delusional, or a fockin' idiot.

LINK to nowhere

posted 6:46 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |