Sunday, December 31, 2006

A Difference In Fates

Never cross the corpocracy. Consider the fates of two people connected to it who both recently joined the choir invisible, Gerald Ford and Saddam Hussein.
Gerald Ford, who, as has been stated in a previous post altered the wounds on Kennedy's medical report to the Warren Commission to fit Arlen Specter's magic bullet theory. He also pardoned Richard Nixon, thereby ending any investigation into the malfeasence embodied by the Watergate scandal. What does "the weakest link in a long line of disappointing Republican presidents" get for his actions? A state funeral, complete with several twenty-one gun salutes, a tour of the halls of power by your corpse and plaudits from your corrupt compadres, including invocation from evil incarnate Richard Cheney of how vital your actions to protect the corpocracy were to "the Republic". That the man who authorized the leaking of an intelligence operatives name in retaliation to an op-ed by her husband criticizing the Bush administration for it's wrongful interpretation (and outright acceptance of forgeries) that led up to it's decision to illegally invade a sovereign nation should be talking about "forgiveness" is an exercize in irony.
Now consider the fate of Saddam Hussein. A man who was so connected to the corpocracy he once was able to shake hands with Donald Rumsfeld. A man who was supplied with weapons of mass destruction by the corpocracy to test out on his enemies. A man who executed only slightly more people than our sitting president did as governor of Texas (Bush killing more in a shorter perod of time). What was it that caused him to fall from favor with the corpocracy?
Whatever the reasons, his fate has been dealt out. An execution video passed by cellphone to cellphone and lastly over the internet. Burial in an unmarked wooden box in the dead of night with no service befitting a former head of state. The irony being Saddam being executed for committing executions himself. And while 300,000 deaths were attributed to him under the time of his rule in Iraq, in a fraction of that time, the US, under the orders of war president George Bush has over doubled that number. And yet, Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld shall never see the hangman's noose for their crimes.
Never cross the corpocracy.

Friday, December 29, 2006

Iraq, Iran and the Uncertainty Principle

There's this guy, in Germany, Fritz something-or-another. Or is it? Maybe Werner, anyway, he's got this theory, you want to test something, you know, scientifically, how the planets go around the sun, what sun spots are made of, why water comes out of the tap, well, you got to look at it. But sometimes you look at something, your looking changes it. You can't know the reality of what happened, or what would have happened if you hadn't of stuck in your own Goddamned schnozz. So there is no what happened. Looking at something changes it. They call it the uncertainty principle. Sure, it sounds screwy, but even Einstein says the guy's onto something.
-Freddy Reidenshcneider in The Man Who Wasn't There
George Bush worked nearly three hours yesterday at his ranch to work out a new Iraq strategy. Wow! Three hours! He spent the time with, among others, Dick Cheney and Condaleeza Rice. They spent their time looking and loking at Iraq, hoping to apply the uncertainty principle (not to be confused with the observer effect)that merely by looking at something, they can change it. This is exactly the type of miracle Bush needs, a way to transform the situation in Iraq from an unwinnable quagmire to a notch in Bush's victory column, which he needs, considering the abyssmal failure his presidency has been.
Bush has somehow convinced himself, that success in Iraq is vital for national security, that if we fail there, as if we haven't already, not only will we be giving the "enemy", the extremists and radicals, a safe haven to launch further attacks (a safe haven that didn't exist pre-invasion, by the way), that they will be emboldened to "threaten the United States", which is one of the ten myths about Iraq. When all you have is unfounded fear to bolster your claims, you don't have a cogent argument.
The ISG, whose report on Iraq was released shortly after the election, suggested engaging Iran and Syria in diplomatic talks to help bring an end to the conflict in Iraq. The Bush administration may be planning to engage Iran, but not in a diplomatic effort. Already successful in bringing sanctions against Iran, for doing something they have a right do to do under a treaty signed by both the US and Iran, the next step is to provoke Iran into committing an act that will allow the Eisenhower Strike Group, already in the Gulf, to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. And now all we need is a 'trigger' that will allow the US to strike at Iran. For it's sure that Bush sees Iran as the way out of Iraq, expanding the war to engulf all of the Middle East. Because the only truly certain thing is Bush will try anything to provoke another war.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Gerald R. Ford: Bagman For The Corpocracy

Living in Grand Rapids, it's difficult to escape the shadow of Former President Gerald R. Ford. The Gerald Ford Freeway passes within a mile of my place. The airport by where I work is also named after him. And if I travel downtown, I can find his Presidential Museum. While president, Gerald Ford recorded a mesage saluting the Coast Guard, that is still played during the Musical Fountain in my hometown during the closing night of the annual Coast Guard festival, and more recently, he recorded a message that was played at my youngest son's kindergarten graduation.
Gerald Ford passed away yesterday, his political legacy being our first unelected president and vice president. He was also our longest living president as well. But Ford's legacy extends far beyond those little blue pinback WIN buttons that were the only hallmark of his term as president.
Ford had admittedly altered the findings of the Warren Commission, creating the "magic bullet theory", one that effectively placed all blame for the Kennedy assassination on one man, which then ended any further investigation into the assassination. Ford has stated that ''My changes were only an attempt to be more precise'', when in fact, they were a lie.
"President Ford was a great American who gave many years of dedicated service to our country," President George W. Bush said in a statement on Tuesday.

Yes, tampering with evidence would make Ford a great man to the guy who cherry-picked intelligence to start a war that is in many eyes unwinnable.
In 1973, after Vice-president Spiro Agnew resigned, President Richard Nixon appointed Ford to take his place. When Nixon stepped down in disgrace almost a year later, Ford became our first appointed president. Almost immediately, Ford pardoned Nixon, effectively ending an investigation into what the Watergate break-in was really about, once again covering up the political assasination that led to the rise of the corpocracy.
Dick Cheney, who served as Ford's chief of staff said:
"Gerald Ford embodied the best values of a great generation: decency, integrity and devotion to duty."

Decency? Integrity? How someone like Cheney could stand in judgement of these qualities which he so obviously lacks is anyone's guess.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Lew Scannon's Annual Christmas Music Rant

Well, I am proud to say, that my ban on Christmas music at work has been very succesful this year. (yes, I'm one of them). It's not that i don't like Christmas music per se,it's just that I don't want to have to listen to the radio station that plays Christmas music. Why? Any number of reasons.
The first is Jingle Bells. They play it every hour and a half (and never play the barking dogs version) by various artists like Bing Crosby and the Andrews sisters version (which I like) to Barry Manilow's version (which is the same arrangement, rendering it entirely pointless). But what I've noticed is, although there are four verses to the song, nobody sings more than the first verse and the chorus. Repeatedly. Granted, Perry Como sang all four on his Christmas album, but they don't play that version, and Smokey Robinson did half the second verse on his version, but, once again, they don't play that version. (extra brownie points to anyone who can tell me how the second verse goes)
Second is Silent Night. I have a beautiful version of the song sung in Gaelic by Enya, but it's not something I necessarily want to hear while I'm working. It's better suited to listening at night, preferrably a snowy one (which we don't get too much of any more)At home, it's uplifting, at work, it's a downer. And I don't want to hear Clay Aiken, or any other former American Idol contestant's version of it.
Then there's the Christian disco version of Mary's Boy Child the radio station plays that is so wrong on so many levels that I can't believe that anyone would enjoy listening to it.
Or how about Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas? Originally written, the song was kind of a downer. And sung properly (such as the Pretenders version), it's a beautiful song. But when the Carpenters do it, all meaning is drained form the song, and that's the most played version on our local Christmas music station.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no heartless Scrooge who proclaims "Humbug" like some Grinch with a small heart. I still get choked up watching Elf, and I've seen the movie several times. But there's a difference between something done well with real meaning, like, say John & Yoko's Happy Xmas (War Is Over), and something crass and exploitive done poorly, like Paul & Linda's Simply Having A Wonderful Christmastime. If Paul McCartney really wanted to tap into Christmas cheer, he'd have Apple release the Beatles 1967 Christmas record Christmas Time Is Here Again!, which would probably be a big seller, which leads me to believe he didn't write the song, otherwise he would have, so in the next Beatles documentary, he could take credit for it like he did for Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Just because an artist is popular is no excuse for them to record a whole album of Christmas standards. When Bing or Frank, or Dean did it, many of these songs were just written, but when today's artist are recording the same songs with out adding anything new to them, it reeks of exploitation. Or when they try to write their own Christmas song manipulating the same cliches used by Mel Torme` when he wrote The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting On An Open Fire) (best version:Chet Baker). And maybe it's me, but who really goes on a sleigh ride on Christmas (except for Santa) every Christmas?
Now, there's a list of songs that if these stations played, I might be more apt to tune into and listen, but since they're playing the crappiest of the crap, I'll just listen to them on my CDs.
1.Zat You, Santa Claus?-Louis Armstrong
2.Christmas Time Is Here Again-The Beatles
3.The Christmas Blues-Dean Martin
4.Christmas In Prison-John Prine
5.Please Daddy, Don't Get Drunk This Christmas-John Denver
6.Walking The Floor This Christmas-Ernest Tubb
7.Father Christmas-The Kinks
8.Christmas Wrapping-The Waitresses
9.Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)-Darlene Love
10.Merry Christmas (I Don't Want To Fight Tonight)-The Ramones
11. Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow! -Vaughn Monroe
And then, there's the three Christmas songs I hear too much, and really need to be given a rest:
1.Rockin' Around The Christmas Tree-Brenda Lee
2.Blue Christmas-Elvis Presley
3.Holly Jolly Christmas-Burl Ives
Please feel free to add your own songs to either list, as I'm sure there's some for both I overlooked. Happy Holidays to all!

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Obama Or Me

As 2006 winds down, and we head into 2007, when the campaign for the Presidency in 2008 begins to warm up, the US is offered two clear choices. On the one hand, there is the Republicans, led by John McCain, who wants to send more troops to Iraq, build more permanent bases there and attack Iran. On the other side we have the Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton who wants to send more troops to Iraq, build more permanent bases and attack Iran. That's what so nice abotu the two party corpocracy, real choices. We can bomb Iran as Republicans, or we can bomb Iran as Democrats. Just as long as we bomb Iran, who cares?
The only difference between McCain and Clinton is the cult of personality surrounding Hilary.(McCain lacks any personality for anyone to build a cult around)Many anti-war people will support Hillary because, well honestly, because she's a female, and will overlook and apologize for the tough talk rhetoric spewing from her as she appeases the DLC, who, even though seized control of congress due to an anti-war backlash, refuses to even mention drawing down troops.
In the meantime, the coporate media has already begun it's hit job on the only other serious contender for the Democrats, Barack Obama, hoping to find some skeleton in his closet that will haunt him as much as Clinton's vote for the authorization of force in Iraq.
"Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way," Mrs Clinton told NBC television.

Funny, but I knew that the Bush administration's claims against Iraq were all false, maybe I should be president! I mean if I was just voted person of the year by Time magazine, and was able to discern that Saddam had no WMD, while Ms. Clinton, with a large staff of well paid aides, wasn't, I guess she's no more qualified to be president than I. And certainly no more than Barack Obama (did you know his middle name is Hussein?)You see, we do have a clear choice in 2008, it's just not Sen. Clinton.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Newt Gingrich:Keeper Of The Corpocracy

Newt Gingrich, keeper of the Corpocracy, seems to have no problem suspendingfreedom of religion, or freedom of speech, as long as it's those whom he preceives as enemies he's silencing. (Fascism, anyone?) Gingrich also sees himself as outside the establishment, calling the ISG "appeasers", but refusing to openly criticize the current regime in DC outside of their lack of a second stage in their Iraq invasion plan. How a member of the CFR can paint himself outside the establishment, he is the establishment. He never will admit the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea based on lies, because he does work for the corpocracy, the people who have turned their backs on the voters who have called for a change in Washington and an end to the war in Iraq.
Newt also says that if we allow "defeat" in Iraq (without defining "victory" beyond the terms of the corporacy) then
"there are not enough Marine elements in the world to evacuate the embassies that’ll come under siege."

in other words, sending fear into the hearts of the television-watchers of a reprise of Iran 1979 to gain support for staying the course on a path that leads to nowhere.
Newt also thinks the way to win over the Iraqis is to flood the region with goods that would first be given to Iraqis and then later bought with paychecks (from jobs given to them to rebuild the country, an idea he shares with Sen. Clinton), in other words turn them into wage slaves buying products from American companies that are actually manufactured in China. Lots of money made for the corpocracy, none for the American worker. He's not really suggesting democracy, just mindless consumerism, which is what passes for democracy to the corpocracy.
All this preceeds Newt's awaited announcement of his candidacy for president in 2008. He states that if the Republican party does not have a clear front runner by Labor Day, 2007, he will toss his hat in the ring. Anything to prevent the election of a candidate who doesn't bend to the will of Newt's beloved corpocracy.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

O Come All Ye Racists

Being a white guy, I'm not opposed to Affirmative Action. If you can't succeed on a truly level playing field then you are condemned to the ranks of the mediocre.
I think I also have a pretty good handle on satire, having learned to read from old copies of Mad Magazine. And, having gone on to reading The National Lampoon, I can understand and appreciate good politically incorrect humor.
So when I read that a group of white conservatives at Tufts University wrote a parody of the Christmas standard "O Come All Ye Faithful", i was interested. Having written many parodies of popular songs that my buddy, the Coach, still sings some fifteen years later, I wondered what they had published. Entitled "O Come All Ye Black Folk", their screed was aimed at affirmative action, a bunch of priviliged white boys disgusted that they should have to share their priviliged birthright to those they have deemed unworthy. The parody, which the editors of the conservative journal that published it claimed was anit-racist, contained lines calling blacks "boisterous" and contained lines such as "Born into the ghetto. O Jesus! We need you now to fill our racial quotas." and "No matter what your grades are, F's, D's or G's, give them all privileged status." Sophomoric stuff that should earning them a spot on the writing staff for Rush Limbaugh or at Fox News, but not really funny at all. So, in the spirit of turnabout being fair play, I give you my version, dedicated to the staff of the Primary Source, I give you the unbrainwashed parody of "O Come All Ye Faithful"
O Come All Ye Racists
O come all ye racists
Intolerant and ignoble
O come ye white Nazis to the Primary Source
Come show your hatred
For those of different colors
O come let us oppress them
O come let us oppress them
O come let us oppress them
It's our heritage

We hate black students
Soiling our great campus
So let's hide our racism behind comedy
Fraternities and sororities
Don't want no minorities
O come let us oppress them
O come let us oppress them
O come let us oppress them
It's what Jesus would do

Monday, December 11, 2006

And These "People", Folks, Are Our Allies

Israel should be thanking Iran for holding a conference investigating the Holocaust. Why would they oppose it? If the evidence is there that indeed this horrible tragedy occurred, having an anti-Zionist state such as Iran expose it would shut a number of deniers up, right?
I guess this is the same thing as Israel blocking an UN fact-finding mission By Bishop Tutu into Gaza to investigate Israel's killing of nineteen civilians in Beit Hanour. If they did nothing wrong, why not let the mission continue?
At least Israel is finally admitting it has nuclear weapons, one of the worst kept secrets ever.
"We never threatened any nation with annihilation," Olmert said on German television station N24 Sat1.

"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?" he asked.

Well, Mr. Olmert, what Ahmedinejad stated was the Zionist occupation of jerusalem should be erased from the pages of memory, as Jerusalem is considered to be a Holy city but not only Jews and Christians, but Muslims as well.
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres, considered the father of his country's nuclear programme, said Israel would remain mum on whether it has atomic weapons.

"Israel will not say or not say whether we have nuclear weapons," he told public radio. "It suffices that one fears that we have them and that fear in itself constitutes an element of dissuasion."

"Israel is the only country threatened with destruction. Israel does not threaten any other state," Peres said.

Really? Israel never threatened Iran? with an attack because of Iran's civilian nuclear program? And hasn't it been threatening Iran since the days of Sharon?
Of course, Israel needn't worry about attacking Iran when we have assholes like John McCain threatening to attack Iran for Israel. Hey, McCain, why don't finish up one war before you even think about starting another one, which like Iraq , is another war for Israel.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Shooting A Sploodge Of Democracy Into Iraq

Speaking at his farewell to his staff at the Pentagon, outgoing Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that "to pull out of Iraq would be a mistake." Oh? And invading it wasn't? We constantly hear about the troops finishing their mision, but the mission was never defined. Bringing democracy was never the reason for our "mission", and as far as adding to stability to the region, we all know how that's working out.
Rumsfeld, who's up on a war crimes comp[laint in Germany for his role in authorizing the use of torture, as well as two cases filed by the ACLU and Human Rights First (which he's asked the judge to dismiss)doesn't see his disregard a for the Geneva Convention or the Constitution as mistake either.He said learning of the abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib,which was authorized by President Bush, and were approved by Rumsfeld himself.
Rumsfeld also today made a surprise trip to Iraq to say goodbye to the troops, and perhaps to search one more time for those pesky WMD that he claimed at one time Iraq was lying about not having.
Plus, as any stud like Rummy will tell you, you never pull out of the country you're fucking, first you shoot your spoodge of democracy, then you withdraw.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Where's My Share?

Now why didn't I think of this? It seems that some bloggers were selling out their web space to political campaigns, Why should I toil in poverty when I can make good money shilling for the likes of Sherrod Brown and Hillary Clinton? I've been wanting a plasma screen television set, so hey, where's my cut? The guy from Ankle Biting Pundits received $31,500 to tout John McCain, a small price for ones soul, but certainly enough to buy a big screen tv and a Mac, give me that much, and I promise not to write anything bad about the Senator. (Is that extortion? Mmmmaybe)Pay me enough annually and I might go away completely.
I realize that I don't generate the traffic of something like The Daily Kos (who had three diarist on the political payroll), perhaps that means I will work cheaper ( I personally think I draw more traffic than they do, the evidence is just being supressed by the man. It's all a conspiracy). Or maybe I can get a Max Cleland deal where I will continue to criticize the current administration until they appoint me to some board to shut me up. But since I don't see any of this happening, I'll continue to stay here and continue to do this for free.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Don't Let The Door Hit You On Your Ass On The Way Out Johnny

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has announced he will quit his position when his term expires at the start of the new congress. This is good news, not just for the US, but for the whole damn world. First off, the Justice Department doesn't have to spend time looking for away to skirt the law to keep Bolton in his position. Maybe now they can spend more time doing more important things like, I don't know, prosecuting terrorists maybe?
Bolton was always kind of upside down and opposite at the UN anyway. One of his proudest acheivements as our UN ambassador was his assembling a coaltion in an attempt to impose sanctions on Iran for, well, obeying the Non-Proliferation treaty. Meanwhile he vetoed a resolution against Israel for it's recent killing spree at Beit Hanour, in which 19 civilians were murdered by the IDF.
Deputy press secretary Dana Perrino, showing the disconnect withg reality prevalent in the Bush White House said Bolton had "strong bipartisan support from a majority of senators". Sure he did. that's why Bush used a recess appointment to put Bolton in his position. Of course these are the same people who insist things are going good in Iraq and victory is obtainable if only we throw our support behind the troops in their mission. The reality is Bolton had bipartisan opposition to his appointment, and with the Democrats sweeping Congres last month, Bolton's chances of a confirmation seems as likely as Donald Rumsfeld getting his job back.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Fun With Site Meters!

You know, sometimes when your sense of moral outrage gets stretched to the point it either won't spring back or snaps altogether, what can you do? How many times can you write about Bush's lack of plan strategy or foresight vis-a-vis Iraq before you fell you're just beating a horse that's been dead for quite sometime? Sure, it's ridiculous for him to state that we should stay in Iraq for victory without ever defining what that victory entails, but most of the time, we're just preaching to the choir. And everytime some right wing turd comes out to say we can't win in Iraq, we hear the same thing from the White House. Stay the course finish the job yada yada yada.
Weekends are getting harder for me too, because the kids are in the other room watching Pokemon, which makes it hard to find something outrageous enough for me to rant about (note to self:try to link Pokemon with alQaeda) because I know I should be doing something with them rather than spending all weekend at my computer. That's when I turn to my site meter.
Now I'm not all about traffic, I got a site tracker to help locate a long gone troll, so i rarely look at it now. But what's interesting is how people from all over the world come here to read the tripe that I type. For instance, there's a steady reader in Slovenia, and I think, why would anybody in Slovenia be interested in what I write?
Another thing I find interesting is how people find this page. The number one way for a new reader to find this page is to Google "aspertame", which leads them to this piece I wrote in February about Donald Rumsfeld and aspartame. The number one referring URL is The Truth Will Set you Free, a good blog, it just makes me wonder why they anyone reading well researched stories there would pick this page out of the many they have listed to go to next. (Must be the name)
But there are a couple things I find disturbing. One is the fact that someone from an unknown country visits here frequently. Why would you want to hide your country of origin to read ablog, especially this one?
The second concerns the map above. The domain name and ISP are unknown, yet it always gives this location (Lat?Long: 38, -97). I have two theories about this.
The first is hold over from my paranoid days, and the theory is that this is the NSA, monitoring my every word. They're just waiting for me to slip up and say something so they can declare me an enemy combatant and haul my ass away. Sometimes there is n referring URL, sometimes, they find this page by Googling aspertame.
My second theory is not quite as sinister. Since the browser they are using is Firefox, I think it's just me checking for comments using my Firefox browser, while my site meter is registered to my SBC/Yahoo browser. Then I become hankful i stopped smoking pot so many years ago, because if I still did, I wouldn't be here, I'd be barricaded in my bedroom, with the dresser pushed in front of the door, sure they were coming to take me away. Which they may do anyway, but not because of this blog.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Peace Be Upon You, Unless You're In A Subdivision

Christmas time is on us once again, and it's a time when people decorate their homes appropriately with lights, yard displays and wreaths. The wreath, originally gathered by the pre-Christian Germanic people, was used as a sign of hope in the coming spring and renewed light. Christians kept these traditions alive by using the wreath as a symbol of their Advent Hope, in Jesus as the Everlasting Light. You know, Jesus, the Prince of Peace?
Well, it seems a woman in Pagosa Springs CO has hit a snag with her homeowners association with her wreath. Apparently some of her neighbors are upset with hers because it is in the shape of a peace sign. The Peace Symbol actually was designed by Gerald Holtom as the logo for the Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament. It incorporates the semaphore letters N and D, for nuclear disarmament.
But neighbors of Lisa Jensen, the women who hung the wreath on her home see it as the symbol for the Antichrist, having read too many Jack Chick comics, er, I mean tracts. The association says it does not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive. Because, I guess, some people are opposed to peace?
The President of the homowners association, Bob Kearns, ordered to archetictural design to committee to order her to take it down, when they refused, saying it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything, Mr. Kearns fired all five committee members. Ms. jensen faces fines of $25 a day for leaving it up, but says she doubts they'll be able to make her pay.

Sunday, November 26, 2006


“The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the world began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness.”-Elihu Root, Secretary of War 1899
Such noble sentiments. And while it may apply to our troops serving in Iraq, it certainly doesn't apply to all of them. Haditha. Abu Ghraib. Only the tip of the iceberg of Iraqi people's suffering being caused by our troops. And now we have this video, showing occupation forces teasing and humiliating an Iraqi child with a bottle of clean water, something not readily available over there since the illegal US invasion.
Sure, I know what my anonymous troll is thinking, "Damn liberals and their pettyness" (sic), but these people overseas are representatives of the country as a whole, and when they behave in this fashion, it reflects poorly on the rest of us.
Bullying tactics against the populace, especially against children does not make our soldiers look like the advance guard of liberty and justice, law and order, or peace and happiness. It makes the US look like brutish thugs with no regard for the people we are consigned to protect. I'm sure a lot of troops don't like being there, I don't like them being there either, but they must remember while they are there they are representing our country, it's laws and it's ideals. And while I think the American character is slowly sliding under the weight of greed and acquisition of material posession, I don't think we've reached the point where this type of behavior is acceptable, except by apologists for the current administration, who probably find this as funny as a fart joke.
Update: An unnecessary bombing of a mosque video.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

War! Huh! What Is It Good For?

Well, it's not very good for the citizens of Iraq. It's not too good for our soldiers either. Or their families. It's not really good for the US, as it has destroyed our crdibility on the world stage.
But it is good for defense contratctors, obviously. Halliburton is benefitting handsomely from all the no-bid contracts they received. But, it turns out, the war in Iraq is good for someone else-Israel.
Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the war in Iraq was a boon to Israel's security, just like Cindy Sheehan said! He also said he has few regrets about changfes wrought by the invasion of Iraq of 2003. How could he? His people, while gaining the most from it had sacrificed no one to achieve these goals. Perhaps that's why Israel keeps goading Bush to attack Iran. If he was stupid enough to break international law once, Olmert is fairly certain that Bush will fall for it again.
"I stand with the president because I know that Iraq without Saddam Hussein is so much better for the security and safety of Israel," Olmert said.

Of course, the Iraqis now only have two hours of electricity a day, water is hard to come by and their country is littered with depleted uranium, but hey, what's more important? Their country is been torn asunder by sectarian violence, it's shaping up to be a theocracy, and the US tax payer gets stuck with the bill. At least someone got something out of the war, right?
Yuval Diskin, chief of the Shin Bet intelligence service, said in a leaked briefing earlier this year that Israel could come to rue Saddam's ouster if it deepens regional instability.
"When you take apart a system in which a dictator has been controlling his people by force, you have chaos," Diskin said in a recording broadcast by Israeli television. "I'm not sure we won't end up missing Saddam."

So in the immortal words of Edwin Starr, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

Monday, November 20, 2006

I Call Bullshit On That!

Soulless media chief Rupert Murdoch announced today his intention to cancel the OJ Simpson book and television interview that has so enraged this country.
``I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project,'' Murdoch said today in an e-mailed statement

Bullshit! All you thought about was how much money could possibly made from this project. You never considered anything else because you're a greedy bastard who would sell pictures of his grandma having mid-air sex with Osama Bin Laden over the troops in Iraq with a burning American flag as a fucking parachute if you thought it could bring in a couple more shekels for you already over-bloated bank account.
The outrage over this project was spreading like Paris Hilton's legs after a Saturday night club-hopping at all the right places. But somewhere in Rupert's gold-plated brain all he could think about the old maxim "There's no such thing as bad publicity".
"Cancellation shows that there is a level beneath which the public is not willing to sink, and it's good news,'' said Paul Levinson, chairman of the communications department at Fordham University in New York. ``Rupert Murdoch did the right thing and deserves credit on this.''

Bullshit! He wasn't pulling the book and interview because it was the right thing to do! Why would he back away from this? Could the cancellation come because of over a dozen Fox affiliates refusing to carry the show, coming as it did during sweeps, which determines television advertising rates? Or was it the fact the News Corp. stock price fell 17 cents? Or maybe a combination of the two? Rupert Murdoch doesn't think with his heart, his brain, or even his pecker, he thinks with his goddamn wallet and if it starts to lose even fifty two cents, he flip-flops more than Bill O'Reilly in the no-spin zone.
The only thing good about this is it beginning to renew my faith in the common decency of the American people following their rejection of the Republican party and their ill-gotten war in the election two weeks ago. Hurrah people! Now let's see what we can do about Dick Cheney.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Sorry Anonymous

Strange days are upon us, my friends. With the Democrats win of control of Congress, one wouldn't think that they'd be passing a resolution to reinstate the draft now, would they? While there may be noble sentiments behind Rep. Rangel's resolution, reasoning is wrong.
"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.
Hmmm. Seems like just the other day someone was suggesting to me that I turn my attention to something other than our intended attack on Iran, because now that the Democrats have control, that is sure to be off the table. I guess I'm just as pigheaded as Dick Cheney, who has dismissed a CIA analysis finding no Iranian nuclear weapons drive. Yes, when the CIA are the good guys, you know we are in strange days indeed. Actually, Cheney hasn't dismissed the report as much as he is hostile towards it. It's just a piece of paper, Dickhead, you can tear it up, just like you did with the Constitution! According to Seymour Hersh, (in an article to be published in the November 27 New Yorker) Cheney has stated that the November victory of the Democrats would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran, and that if they did, the White House would circumvent any legislation and thus stop Copngress from getting in it's way. (El-Turdo's writing the briefs right now)
And then there's the five hundred pound gorilla that has said that Bush doesn't fear an attack on Iran. Probably because it won't cause the slightest bump in his bubble.
Which brings us back to Charles Rangel's noble intentions. Would anyone in the Bush administration be so keen on sending troops into quagmires like Afghanistan and Iraq if their children were among them? Would Congress vote to support another war for Israel if their children were dying in it for them? Sorry, anonymous, but as long as there is a Bush/Cheney administration, the threat of an attack on Iran still exists, and I will still post on it. And as for gays in the military, I can think of no more honorable way for a person to avoid military service than to proclaim as loudly as possible that they are indeed a homosexual. That's how Bruce Springsteen avoided VietNam.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

It's All A Matter Of Perspective

President Bush, meeting last week called Iran "A threat to world peace". Even though Iran has not threatened any country at all, or attacked any country. It's civilian nuclear program has yet to provide any evidence of a major weapons program. Even with all this evidence, the US is planning a possible attack on Iran.
But once you leave the US and Israel, who does the rest of the world see as a threat to world peace? Half of Germans see Bush as a threat to world peace.Nearly three-quarters of Brits see Bush as a threat to world peace. The Swedes see it that way, too. Our neighbors to the north also see Bush as the greatest threat to world peace. In fact, the whole damned world ranks George Bush as a threat to world peace.
Why is this? Is it because other countries aren't dominated by a corporate media that runs pro-war propaganda non-stop? Or are we blinded by our own chauvinism? Or is it because The US rejects international law and breaks treaties? Or possibly is it becaue George Bush is the greatest threat to world peace?

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Crazy High Schoolers!

Bush met yesterday with the Iraq Study Group, which sounds fairly innocuous, like a bunch of teenagers getting together to study about Iraq.

Muffy: What are Iraq's major exports?
Biff: Uhh, oil and ....terrorism?

Sorry Biff, but the terrorism is actually being imported into Iraq.
The high school mentality of the Bush administration shows through though when the ISG, as well as Tony Blair, recommend opening a dialogue with Syria and Iran. Bush's response? "I'm not talking to Iran until they give up ther nuclear ambitions". See? Just like a high schooler. But excuse me a minute, Mr. Bush, wasn't that your strategy for dealing with North Korea's nuclear ambitions? We all know how successful that worked out now don't we? Seems like the true mark of an insane person is when they keep repeating the same actions over and over and expect a different result.
Like Richard Perle. The man who was the chief neocon calling for the invasion of Iraq later said he wouldn't have supported the invasion if he knew it would have been handled so incompetently. Now Rummy's gone, and Richard Perle is back, calling for an attack of Iran. Some people may remember Mr. Perle as part of the Pentagon's civilian defense board who stepped down from his position because he was dealing arms (along with Henry Kissinger) to the US. Of course he wanted a war!
The ISG was set up by James Baker III, Bush family bag man, who once again is bailing out one of the Bush boys like they were in high school again. Nice work if you can get it!

Friday, November 10, 2006

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

While America was dancing for joy for eradicating the Republicans and their death grip on the Constitution, half a world away, a tragic massacre was taking place. In Gaza, in a town called Beit Hanoun, IDF were conducting an offensive against the people of Palestine. That offensive led to these offensive pictures, victims of indiscriminate shelling by Israel.
The French Ambassador to the UN demanded an independent investigation into the incident, a move that was expected to be vetoed by Israel's bitch in the UN, John Bolton.(What? You don't really think he represents us, do you?)
Not satisfied with the genocide being committed within their own borders, Israel's deputy defense minister suggested Israel may launch a strike against Iran. A preemptive strike that George Bush said he would understand, in other words, turn a blind eye to, as well as get John Bolton to veto any reprimands in the UNSC against Israel.
So if you think that with the change of thge balance of power, things are going to really change in DC, think again. In fact , this past summer, while Israel was dropping cluster bombs all over Lebanon, Nancy Pelosi was attacking Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki for not supporting Israel. No criticisms of Israel for it's part in the complete destruction Of Lebanon's infrastructure.
The US needs a balanced hand in dealing with these MidEast crisis. While we certainly should demand that the Arab nations recognoze Israel's right to exist, we also must demand that Israel allow Palestinians their right to exist with self-determination as well. When we condemn Hamas for shelling Israel from Gaza with Qassam rockets, we must also be willing to condemn Israel for offensive measures that take the lives of civilians.If both sides are wrong, we should supprt neither.

The Democrats have already stated they won't push for impeachment, or an end to the war in Iraq. Have we really changed anything?

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Lessons to Be Learned

As this midterm election finally draws to a close, and all that mud is mopped up from the various candidates flinging it back and forth at each other while never stating what they were about, we can all take a breath and relax, but don't get too comfortable. Now is the time for the Democrats to prove they have the mettle to lead this country back to it's glory days, not positioning and posturing for potential presidential ambitions two years from now. There's a lot that needs to be done, a lot more that needs to be undone, and the time to start is now. So here are some important lessons the Democrats should learn from this last election.

It's Still The Economy, Stupid
Foreclosures are up, while the housing bubble is deflating, leaving a lot of Americans with debts that can't be paid off because the outsourcing of jobs, while producing lots of cheap consumer goods, doesn't make for a strong economy. Sales are flat lining, and curiously enough, gas prices are starting to creep back up again. The Democrats need to close the trade deficits that leave countries like China with a lot of dollars in reserve and nothing to back them up in this country.
I find it interesting that in the final days of this campaign the republicans switched tacks, going from the Democrats winning will help the terrorists, back to their other standby, Democrats will raise taxes. But somehow someone needs to deal with the largest budget deficit ever created, as the dollars pumped into circulation to cover these debts will only increase inflation.

Lobbyists Only Have One Vote
In the previous, Republican controlled Congress, the lobbyists ran the show, hell, the congress only met ninety days last session, Their $165,000 a year salaries equaling out to $18,000 a day. the rest of the time they were playing golf, going on golfing trips financed by lobbyists, and lining their campaign war chests with contribution from lobbyists. Most of these lobbyists were looking for legislation contrary to what the majority of Americans wanted theuir government to do. And the Republicans forgot, not only what they opposed when they took congress in 1994, but how many people out there pay their salaries and demand something in return for it. A lobbyist only has one vote, but an enraged voting bloc can send you apcking back home.
Pay Attention To The Polls
I realize most polls are there to create opinion, not reflect it, but when the polls say most Americans are opposed to the situation in Iraq, strongly disapprove of how the war is being handled, you better fucking listen! Bush found out too late and had to scapegoat Rumsfeld (damn! won't have him to kick around anymore)in order to save face with his party.

Beware Of The Blogosphere
That's right, you, me, mikevotes, all have contibuted in some small way, whether it's disseminating information, or possibly convincing a non-committed voter to voting democrat (I know I have one avid reader who voted all Democrat this year because of what she read here. Or so her kids told me.)So whether it was Daily Kos, WRH or justKvatch kvetching, or sumo and her cartoon collection, we all contributed something positive to this election. We need to be as vigilant with the Democrats as we were with the Republicans.
As an aside, is it me, or did all the trolls suddenly disappear about three months ago? What ever happened to the one who was going to make all hippies retreat?
and finally, The Truth Is More Important Than The Party
Every major scandal, from Abramoff, To Foleygate, to Plamegate came about because the Republicans seemed more concerned with protecting the party than protecting the people. This led to all the Republicans being painted with the same brush. Covering up crimes is akin to condoning them. Don't give the right cannon fodder for their fight against us, distance yourselves immediately from those within your party who would bring disgrace to it.
While I am satified somewhat with the outcome of yesterday's election (sure, there are some I would have liked to seen get trounced)I realize the Democrats have along road ahead of them to prove themselves to me. Because if enough people get disgusted with both parties, we can always find another one.

Monday, November 06, 2006

License To Bitch

Thank whoever that tomorrow this election will be over with, and if the polls are correct, I won't have to look at Dick DeVos' shifty eyed weasel face for a long time. Right now, Granholm is leading DeVos in the latest poll by seven points. A comfortable margin, sure, but only if people get out and vote. I'm certainly not going to take Granholm's lead for granted, and besides, if I don't vote, I have no one to blame but myself.
I know of people who don't vote merely because they don't like who either major party is offering up as a candidate. Hey, guess what? This country has a lot of other parties that, if they captured the votes of all those people who didn't exercise their rights and duties as citizens, they might be able to break the two party lock on the legislative process. And if, as one non-voter rold me, they become as corrupt as the major parties, you can vote for someone else next time around. Keep voting against corruption and eventually, they'd get the message.
Personally, I'd like to see the Greens and the Libertarians make some inroads, I'd take either one over the Republicans. Right now, the Republican dirty trick squad is hard at work, trying their damnedest to misinform voters. So much for the Republican Christian base and not bearing false witness. Another dirty trick is call Democrats posing as Democratic candidates, then piss them off so they don't vote for the Democratic candidate. They must have a clue Americans have no interest in what the Republicans are offering, or what they have given us in the last twelve years of Republican dominance in Congress. In New Mexico a judge has ordered the Republican party from calling voters with hispanic surnames to tell them the polling place has been moved. Desparate people are reduced to desparate measures, I guess. I'd be ashamed to call myself a Republican if I were them, but apparently, they have no shame. Or ethics or morals either.
*UPDATE*Here is a list of Democratic candidates being harassed by Republican ROBO calls.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

The Voting Challenge of 2006

With the news of a guilty verdict in the Saddam trial being reached today (well, actually, not today, but two weeks ago), one of the 27 reasons given by the Bush ADDministration as to why we needed to fight this war, and more importantly to them, why we need to stay the course, or full speed ahead, or whatever cliche they are using this week to describe why we need to be mired in that unwinnable situation, the next reason given is because we need to build a democracy in that region to stand as a shining beacon for the rest of the Arab world.
The irony of this situation is that while we are fighting for democracy there, the very same people are doing their damnedest to eradicate democracy here at home.
In Maryland, for instance,security concerns on Diebold election machines were withheld from the election board and the governor. Meanwhile, in that same state, the Republican party has passed out handbooks to aggressively challenge the credentials of potential voters. The idea is to challenge most black voters to discourage them from voting and create long lines, because a mere six percent difference in black voter turnout will effect the results of the election.
In every state, the requirements for eligible voters differs. And in some states, these requirements have been changed to make it more difficult for people to register. For instance, in Ohio, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican, isued new restrictions for registration in an efort to discourage people from registering, as most new registrants are young people and naturalized immigrants, both who have a tendency to vote, Democratic. Also Blackwell requires you carry a picture ID with you to the polls, a new law he has not informed the voters of, insuring lots of potential voters being turned away this Tuesday.
While not all attempts to squelch the opposition voters are carried out by Republicans, this List of The Worst Places To Cast A Ballot (or Try) shows for the most part these are being carried out by the Republicans. The most devious was the fliers sent out by someone in Franklin Co. OH, telling voters that because of high registration, Republicans would be voting on Tuesday, and Democrats would be voting the following day. Back when we had a Republican governor in Michigan, he refused to implement the motor/voter law, which allowed for people to register to vote when they got a driver's license, saying there was no mandate for it.
Diebold, who is the major manufacturer of electronic voting machines, has tried to block HBO from running the documentary Hacking Democracy, which shows just how easily these new voting machines can be rigged to change the outcome of the elections. What is even more interesting is are the major investors in companies that manufacture these machines. Northrup-Grunman, Lockheed-Martin, and Accenture, defense contractors, and you can bet they have a lot at stake in these elections, especially this one, which is being framed as a debate on the Iraq war.
This country does not have a uniform voting law, leaving it up to individual states to decide who can and cannot vote. Unfortunately, this led to a slew of problems and forced Congress to pass The Voting Rights Act, which prevented black voters from being disenfranchised. And until we can pass uniform voting laws nationwide, the voting rights will always be subject to the whims of partisan politics.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Forecast Calls For Massive Vote Fraud

Remember in 2004, when the exit polling didn't match up with the voter tallies in states like Ohio? And then, as it turns out, the exit polls were correct and the "official" tallies were wrong? So rather than ditch the electronic voting machines, which still are rigged to register votes for Democrats as votes for their Republican challengers, AP/Ipsos decided it will do away with exit polling instead.
What is being written off as technical glitches, are in fact early evidence that, once again, the GOP is going to steal another election. Who needs an October surprise when you've got Walden O'Dell and Diebold pledging to deliver their votes to you? So it's no wonder that AP/Ipsos has stopped exit polling for this important midterm election, corporate America has decided the best way to commit a crime is to make sure that this time, there aren't any witnesses. And if anybody asks too many questions, the whole thing can be blamed on Hugo Chavez, because everybody knows how much Chavez hates Bush and wants him to keep his power, right?
Luckily for them, November kicks off a sweeps month, which means most television-watchers will be too busy catching the newest episodes of their favorite show before they are released on DVD to take to the streets like they did in Mexico when the results in that election were suspect.
So when some self-proclaimed efender of American liberty freedom and democracy takes to the streets to tell people not to vote Democrat because your vote doesn't count, what he really ,means is your vote doesn't count for the Democrats.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Bush On Trial

There are some similarities between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein. Both have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, they both are fond of torture and neither one was ever elected to their position of power. But even more, this November will be seen as judgement day for both, as the midterm elections will be a referendum on Bush's failed war policy in Iraq, and will also see the verdict in Saddam's trial as well, both occurring within days of each other.
Originally, Saddam's verdict was to be announced on October 16, but for some inexplicable reason was moved until November 5. However, Bush's trial that should be is not forthcoming, as Nancy Pelosi has stated that an impeachment trial for Bush would be a waste of time. Not that they couldn't cobble together a conviction for the many various violations he has committed, but by the time a trial was finished, Bush would be out of office (and well on his way to Paraguay)and irrelevant, and besides, then the Democrat in the White House would be liable to be held accountable for (gulp)her actions.
And if you think that the Bush ADDministration wouldn't politicize something like Saddam's verdict, you haven't been paying attention the last six years.A guilty verdict (unless you thought it'd be a different one) on the Sunday immediately before the elections would open up all kinds of corporate media chatter vindicating Bush for bypassing the UN and illegally invading Iraq, just the kind of blather they're hoping the television-watchers will believe. "See, Saddam was a bad guy(as if there was any doubt), so we were right to destroy that country". Plenty of plastic flags will be passed out and a fresh new crop of "Support Our Troops" magnetic ribbons will be purchased to replace the ones that have faded away. Given that October is almost over and Rove's promised "October Surprise" has yet to materialize, I'd bet the farm (if I were a betting man, or had a farm to wager) on this as being what Rove was talking about. Unless, of course, the other rumors were true and Bush is planning on invoking martial law to save his sorry ass.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

For You Princess: A Peekaboo Poledance Toy!

At a loss as to what to buy your little daughter for Christmas this year? Why not buy her very own Peekaboo pole dancing kit? As shown, it comes with pole, peekaboo dollars, a 'sexy dance garter' to stuff those dollars into, an instructional DVD that shows suggestive dance moves! Unleash that sex kitten today!
And if you think about it, it's not such a bad idea (yes, it is), I mean, what with college so expensive and out of reach of most parents, why not train her in a career that will help her pay for college? If she has her sights set on an unrealisitc goal of being a doctor or lawyer, this will help bring her down to Earth while providing her the inspiration to 'ho her way through school!
This little item was actually for sale on Tesco's website until parental protests forced them to stop selling the item. they were also selling the Peekaboo Strip poker set as well. Tesco removed the item from it's toy section on it's website and moved it to the fitness accessories. Because a product this good is fit for everyone!

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

A Smudge On The Game

A controversy is brewing in this year's World Series over a smudge on the arm of Detroit Tigers pitcher Kenny Rogers, not to be confused with the chicken roaster and faux country music guy. A number of people are questioning whether a smudge on his arm from Sunday's game is actually another substance other than dirt.
I'm not really big on sports, in fact, if professional sports were eliminated tonight, tomorrow I would wake up and not notice any difference. But the year, Wilbur decided he was going to be a baseball fan, and so began to root for the home team, as the song goes, to win the world championship.
"Don't hold your breath," I told him, having witnessed many seasons of disappointing baseball coming out of Detroit. But, oddly enough, the Tigers started winning this year, each time I dismissed it with a "They still have plenty of time to blow it. We are talking about the Tigers, after all."
I don't know how serious the charges against Rogers are, like I said, I'm not much of a sports fan, but what struck me most was a quote I heard attributed to a player for the Cardinals. "If he was cheating and got away with it, good for him."
If he was cheating and got away with it, good for him.
Yes, Americans seem to admire a cheater who gets away with it, but if you're caught, well, just ask Bill Clinton. Yes, cheaters are respected in this country, it's how we got our current president. Everyone cheats, we are led to believe, so what's wrong with it? Look at Ken Skilling and the whole Enron scandal, just another cheat, and when he got caught, denied any knowledge he was cheating at all, while sitting on a big bag of ill-gotten gain. Who hasn't cheated at golf, on their taxes, on their spouse, on their job, or on a test? It's cheating that allows lawyers to prosper, even in hard times.
Now, I know a lot of people who were upset when the Tigers beat the pinstriped prima donnas, the NY Yankees, whether it was because of Rogers cheating, we'll never know, but what this exemplifies is our need to win at any cost. Right and wrong are consumed by the desire not to be the losers. And I feel I have a legitimate gripe, because in the long run, I pay the outrageous salaries of the ball players. Through tax breaks, advertising, and sky boxes for CEOs who, like the Yankees when they lose, earn their salaries whether their company is turning a profit or not, and feel entitled to perks like the best seats in the stadium, the price of baseball is tacked on to every Budweiser I buy*.
I realise sports stars are never good role mdoels, but what does it say about us when we condone practices in one person that we wouldn't in a business partner, just because they happen to play a game. How do you explain this behavior to your kid, if the ask, or do you chalk it all up to "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." This is the mindset of those who would keep us bogged down in Iraq because they want a victory on their record. Sportsmanship and character don't count, because they can't buy you anything worth having.
Baseball, along with mom and apple pie used to represent Americans to each other, Now mom has been replaced by an SUV driving bleach blonde helmet headed MILF, apple pie is now mock apple pie and cheating seems to be America's favorite pasttime.

*I don't actually drink, but am merely using this as an example.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Digging Deeper in a Hole Just Gets You More Buried

Last night I saw a Republican ad lambasting Governor Granholm and it really got me thinking. Is Jennifer really responsible for the jobs leaving Michigan? She never supported NAFTA, as far as I know, like DeVos did, and NAFTA is the main culprit behind the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs in this state, oh Hell, why don't I just say the whole country.
In the ad, it featured a young woman, younger than me anyway, complaining about the conditions in Michigan, all the foreclosures, all the people who are going to lose money when they sell their house.
Which got me to thinking. Is it Granholm's fault these people ran up large debts on their credit card bills? Such large bills that these people felt compelled to bite the bait of refinancing? Did Granholm leave them to believe that the only way out of debt was to crawl deeper in to it? Didn't these people realize that what goes up (in this case, housing prices) must come down?
Now, the Republicans are all about personal responsibility, yet here they are running and ad where the people disavow any personal responsibility at all. I know people who have gone down the refinance road and now are stuck with a house they paid too much for, but I don't se where it's the governor's fault. And, lord knows, I've made some really stupid financial decisions in the last two and a half years, but in the end, they were my bad decisions, and while I may have at one time tried to blame someone else, I realize now it was my own pigheaded stubbornness that caused them and nothing else. I don't blame Jennifer Granholm, or Dick DeVos.
I can kind of see DeVos' argument for building a plant in China, they have protectionist policies in place there that require all goods sold there be made there. But why did he lobby Congress for MFN status for China if that is the case? If protectionist policies are bad for the US to have, then isn't just as bad for the US to continue to do business with other countries that have them?
And exactly what is DeVos' plan to change things in Michigan? Cutting the single business tax may help some, but the revenue would have to made up somewhere else, and DeVos hasn't clued anybody in to where they would come from. Unless, he continues to run deficits like Granholm's predecessor, John "Fat-Boy" Engler did. And if you ask someone who is paying more money for a house that was refinanced at the rate houses were going for before the housing bubble popped, getting deeped in debt won't get you anywhere but deeper in a hole. Is that where Michigan needs to be?

Friday, October 20, 2006

Borderline Sacrilege

Normally, I don't pay attention to the annoying Kidz Bop series of recordings of shitty pop songs rendered unlistenable by a chorus of warbling children, because what do I care if they ruin bad songs by the likes of Creed or Kelly Clarkson, it's all crap anyway. Now, however, they have deigned it upon themselves to destroy the music of one of the greatest rock and roll bands ever.
Yes, those wonderful folks at Kidz Bop have decided to make a whole CD of the Kidz Bop Kids singing Ramones songs. I can understand why, as the Ramones primitive melodies and basic two and three chord songs are perfectly suited for younger listeners. My youngest son loves the Ramones, and when he was four, refused to cut his hair because he wanted to be Joey Ramone.But the difference is, when Joey sang, the lyrics were somewhat unintelligible, so a song like "Beat On The Brat" sounded to my son like "Pizza On The Front". Now of course, they would have to change the lyrics considerably, which is akin to changing passages in the Bible.
It would be hard to imagine them recording a song such as "53rd and 3rd", a song about a famous chickemhawk corner in NYC where older men could buy the services of younger men, and it's story of one such chicken who, after servicing a trick, kills him with a razor blade to prove he's not gay. And while it was somewhat ironic to have a six foot Jewish freakazoid from Queens sing, in "Today Your Love, Tomorrow The World", I'm a Nazi schnatzi/ and I fight for the Fatherland, it would be totally wrong to have the Kidz Bop Kids sing that phrase, let alone get the glory like Charles Manson as Joey does in "Glad To See You Go".The less said about songs like "Chinese Rock" or "Wart Hog ( I feel so bad/I can't sit still/just took some dope/and I feel ill)the better.
The Ramones music is all over nowadays, songs like "Blitzkrieg Bop" are used in commercials for Vonage and Diet Pepsi, while movie trailers for RV and School For Scoundrels have used Ramones songs "My Brain Is Hanging Upside Down" and "I Wanna Be Sedated" respectively. It's just too bad none of the Ramones are around to enjoy this upsurge in their popularity, Joey having died from lymphoma five years ago, Dee Dee dying from a drug overdose shortly after, and Johnny dying from prostrate cancer two years ago.
My problem is the fact that even to record the milder songs in the Ramone oeuvre that the Kidz Bop people are covering will require extensive lyrical changes. Are they really going to sing "The KKK Took My Baby Away"? Or will they change that to something else? "Suzy Is A Headbanger"? What about "Blitzkrieg Bop"? When the original was used in Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius, the offending line "shoot 'em in the back now" was edited out. Is that what the Kidz Bop Kids will do? They will also be recording "Rock And Roll High School". Hmmm. I don't care about history/that's not where I want to be/ I just want to have some kicks/I just want to get some chicks........I hate the teacher/and the principal/don't want to be taught/ to be no fool, I really can't see those staying. And then there's "I Wanna Be Sedated", which they also will record, but I can't imagine (well, I could imagine, but shudder to think) how they would change that song.
What's next? Kidz Bop Sings The Sex Pistols?

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Can't See The Quagmire For All The Sectarian Violence

Bush yesterday acknowledged that the major offensive by the Iraqi insurgency (in it's last throes, according to Cheney, for the last year and a half, or so) is similar to the Tet offensive. Well, he didn't use the term Tet offensive because it's fairly certain that unless some one explained it to him, he wouldn't have a clue as to what the Tet Offensive was. No, he was just responding to an assessment by NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman.
One might think this could be a step towards acknowledgement by the people who keep telling us how wonderful their war is that maybe they're starting to recognize it as the quagmire it truly is, but these are the people who've seen Rambo:First Blood PtII one too many times and think we could have won in Viet Nam if only our soldiers had been given the chance to win. What they're really saying is that if all you war protesters just shut up and supported our troops, the enemy wouldn't feel energized to continue their campaign of resistance to a foreign occupation force. Because God knows, the liberal media here gives in-depth coverage to each and every protest staged in this country and beams it out all over the world via sattelite for the insurgents to see, when they have electricity to power their television sets.
White House press secretary Tony Snow stepped back from Bush's statement with utterly the most cockamamie statement of his own:
"We do not think that there's been a flip-over point, but more importantly from the standpoint of the government and the standpoint of this administration, we're going to continue pursuing victory aggressively."

Gee, it's about time! Perhaps if they had pursued victory aggressively from the start, this sordid little chapter in American history would be done with, but of course if they did that, all that off the books cash to defense contractors and the like would have dried up and they'd have to go back to cooking books to afford that new Park Avenue co-op.
Bush still sees al-Qaeda as being active in Iraq, what better place to recruit people to fight your enemy than the people whose country was completely destroyed by your enemy? Of course, al-Qaeda wouldn't even be in Iraq if we had stayed in Afghanistan to fight them, instead of cutting and running to a country weakened by years of economic sanctions.
Now even some of the wingnuts are saying the war was a mistake but
The WMD fiasco was a global intelligence failure, but calling Saddam Hussein's bluff after 9/11 was the right thing to do

Saddam's bluff? He never claimed to have any weapons of mass destruction, and anybody with a computer, an internet connection and half a brain could have told you that as well. Not only was the war a mistake, but it was totally unnecessary as well.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Don't Put Your Eggs In One Basket

A lot of concerned Americans are looking to this fall's midterm elections to change the course of the country. They feel that the current Republican majority under President Bush has taken the country far from it roots as a democracy and one step closer to a dictatorship. The current government has engaged our military in needless wars of choice, as well as showing disdain for any sort of diplomacy at all. And so these concerned citizens have placed their faith in a Democratic majority in changing all the detriment caused by the Republican leadership in the last six years. I say, don't hold your fucking breath.
A release by Nancy Pelosi of what Democrats plan to do in their first 100 hours includes a lot of nice token gestures to "the little people", raise the mininum wage, cut the interest rates on student loans, and work to lower prescription drug prices for Medicare patients. They also plan to put new rules in play to "break the link between lobbyists and legislature", as well as enacting all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated 9/11.
Well, what about Iraq? Or, more importantly, what about Iran? Will the Democrats pressure Bush into calling off the planned attack against Iran, or will they allow it to move forward? It seems the the Democratic leadership is putting it's money behind the candidates who oppose pulling out of Iraq. And now, potential Democrat candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, after saying no to torture has reversed her position, and said stated she is okay with torture.
The Longhouse Coalition has a list of things that the Democrats won't be doing, that they probably should:
impeachment of Bush and Cheney, reversal of the fascist Military Tribunal Act or the Patriot Acts, demands for documents from the White House so that Congressional oversight can be exercised, demands that the signing statements, which render Congress irrelevant, be stopped- in short, Pelosi and the Dems have NO PLANS to seriously challenge the Bush White House reign of terror vs. the American people.

Nothing about changing the tax laws back to reverse the flow of $$$ from poor to rich people, or restoring the privilege of bankruptcy. Nothing about restoring environmental protections. Nothing about withdrawal from Iraq, nothing about ensuring that Iran is not bombed gratuitously.

In short, the Democrats are just as much a part of the corporatocracy as the Republicans. It was a Democrat controlled congress that repealed the act that called for equal time on America's airwaves, which has led to the proliferation of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity-types to permeate our airwaves. And it was a Democrat controlled congress that passed NAFTA, which was signed into law by a Democrat president, against the desires of a majority of American, that has allowed a mass hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs out of this country. And while I would agree with most people's assessment of the Democrats as being the lesser-of-two-evils, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

When You're In The Company of Bill O'Reilly, You're In Good Company Dude

Bill O'Reilly and Fox News recently took on a 9/11 truth seeker on their broadcast. Listen to the logic Bill uses to discredit Jim Fetzer:

FETZER: Bill, you're obviously not going to give me a chance to talk about any of these things, so...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not, because you're a nut.

Yes, rather than take on the evidence piece by piece, O'Reilly has this gentleman on, proceeds to say things like:
why don't you just say that you have a Martian living in your bedroom, sir?

and of course, the favorite stand-by of all real truth seekers out there:
You hate your country
Yes, rather than look at or discuss any evidence Jim fetzer might put forth, O'Reilly had this man on to belittle him. That's good objective journalism.
So Mr. Fetzer was n't able to present evidence such as this:

This picture is evidence that thermite was used to bring the towers down. It's about the only evidence left, as the remains of the building were shipped off and destroyed before investigators could get a look at them. Now, if there were witnesses reports of explosions in the WTC before the towers fell, and we have photographic evidence that thermite, an explosive used by demolition companies to cut main support beams, was present at the WTC, I think that makes a strong case that something other than two planes crashing into the towers brought them down.
And since the charges would have had to been planted sooner (such as in the weekend before, when there were intermittent power outages in the WTC), that implies that someone was aware that the WTC was being targeted by alleged terrorists. I say alleged because at least six men on the FBI's list were found to be alive and innocent two weeks after the attacks occurred.
Now, for all these facts to come to light, there would have to have been a rigorous investigation. But after resisting for years to conduct a formal investigation, the Bush administartion finally set-up the 9/11 Commission. There were told what they could look at, essentially, intelligence failures, and then limited the amount of time and the budget for the commission. And if that wasn't enough, when called before the commision themselves, Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath (Hello? Wasn't perjury what led to Bill Clinton's impeachment? Why give your poltical enemies that weapon to use against you?) So even thought there was eyewitness and photographic and even video evidence that thermite was used in the WTC, there was no follow-up investigation whatsoever. Why not? Who could have ordered any investigation not to take place?
Bill O'Reilly then finishes up his hit piece by concluding:
If you had the evidence, sir, you would be on the front page of The New York Times in a heartbeat.

Well, Mr. Embodiment-Of-Fair-Balanced-And Responsible-Journalism, if you won't let Mr. Fetzer present his case, why should the New York Times?

Monday, October 09, 2006

Once Again, The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

North Korea's recent testing of a nuclear device has elicited a strong response from the Democrats, and rightly so. John Kerry said:
"While we've been bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, a madman has apparently tested the ultimate weapon of mass destruction."

While the Clinton administration was offering incentives to Kim Jong II to stop his pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Bush ADDministration, in another golden moment of defining shortsightedness, decided to break off negotiations with the Jong regime. Way to go! Now look what you got.And while they never have stopped their planning of how to "deal" with Iran building a nuclear power plant, they just kind of let this madman within striking distance of the US develop WMD. Two words, one starts with an 'o', the other with an 'I'.
And once again the Republicans, in standard fall back position has chastised the Democrats for, are you ready for this, "playing partisan politics with a nuclear weapons threat." This from the people who turned playing partisan politics into an art form, blasting Democrats for being weak on national security for not allowing the president to repeatedly rape the constitution. And they've consistently played partisan politics with 9/11, even though they were the ones in charge of watching the henhouse when the tigers struck.
But by constantly calling the Democrats "weak" on national security (gee, isn't that playing politics with a threat?) the Republicans have opened themselves up to the same treatment when it can be shown that:
a). The war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism, not reduced it (the NIE)
b). By focusing on non-threats in the Middle East (Iran, Iraq) the Bush ADDministration has allowed real threats to become more threatening.
c).By refusing to use diplomacy at all, the Bush ADDministration has made the country less secure.
Of course, the Republicans are really grateful for this, as it allows the television-watchers attention to be turned away from the Foley-gate scandal. Of course, I don't think Kim Jong II making Bush look like a total fuck-up is going to help their case.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Questions I'd Like To Ask Dick DeVos

This Wednesday is the second gubernatorial debate between Gov. Jennifer granholm and wannabe Dick DeVos, which will be broadcast locally on WOOD-TV 8 and moderated by new anchor Suzanne Geha. Which causes me to ponder, if the last one was on Fox, and this one's on TV-*, when will the moderators be more favorable to Governor Granholm? Fox has shown it's tendency to lean right, and WOOD-TV has shown a clear republican bias, with mopderator Suzanne Geha nearly orgasmic when Bush stole, er, I mean "won" the election in 2000. When will the people have a chance to ask questions of the candidates?
Well, as it turns out you can submit a question here and perhaps it will be used by the moderator. So here are some of the questions I would like answered.
Mr. DeVos, you have been a major contributor to the Republican party, which has controlled the legislature for the last eighteen years, as well as a donator to many foundations such as the Heritage Foundation, which advocates the outsourcing of American jobs as one of it's beliefs, can you name a specific legislation passed by the Republican legislature that would create more jobs in Michigan that has been vetoed by Governor Granholm?
Mr. DeVos, in your campaign advertisements, you state you want to work to create a better Michigan for all people. How will your voucher program, which will take money away from public schools and fund private and parochial schools, make a better Michigan for everyone when we all benefit from having decent public education?
Mr. DeVos, you tout your leadership abilities to create jobs as President of Amway, yet you fail to mention your failure to address abuse problems brought ot your attention as a primary investor in Alterra, which continued after you took control and placed one of your cronies in charge. You also appointed a crony who mismanaged the Orlando Magic, causing attendence to drop at home games there, which you then attributed to the arena itself, to which you are now asking the city to give you a tax break to build a new stadium. Is this example of leadership, or the type of cronyism rampant in the current Bush administration, to which you contributed to as well?
Mr. DeVos, you blame the state's current economic woes on Governor Granholm, but isn't it true that she inherited a record deficit when she took office, which was created by her predecessor, John Engler, whom you supported and financed as the leader of the state Republican party? Can you name one piece of legislation that Governor Granholm has vetoed that would have worked to create more jobs in Michigan?
And finally, Mr. DeVos, since you as president of Amway shipped jobs to China, as well as invested in China, isn't it true that your interest in attaining the governorship is to forward your far right agenda of teaching intelligent design as science, funding religion from tax dollars, anti-abortion and anti-gay legislation and other extremist policies rejected by the voters of Michigan, such as your voucher plan?

Thursday, October 05, 2006

W Stands For What The Fuck?

In a move moving the US one more step closer to becoming a fascist dictatorship, George Bush declared that he can edit security reports about whether Homeland Security is obeying privacy rules. Once again exhibiting his predilection for crapping on the Constitution, he claimed this power in another signing statement to a bill passed by Congress stating that no-one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints. He claimed this under his power as the unitary executive, a position not outlined by the Constitution, but hey, to him it's just a Goddamned piece of paper anyway.
Bush also issued other signing statements in the Homeland Security spending bill, none of them maing much sense, least of all his disregard for a rquirement that the FEMA director have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."
And Bush's logic (or lack thereof)? It "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office." In other words, more political hacks he needs to appoint to a position because of favors owed to them by the current administration. Only a truly brainwashed television-watchin' Republican could understand why a law requiring a person to be qualified and knowledgeable would rule out a large portion of those qualified by experience and knowledge, but I can't understand why Bush has any support at all as he slowly descends the nation into a fascist regime.
And if you really extend Bush's logic, driver's licenses that require a driver to be qualified by experience and logic are ruling out a large portion of those people who want to drive cars. Or, states that require a doctor to be licensed as experienced and knowledgeable are stopping a lot of people from entering the medical field.
So if the Foley scandal hasn't already rendered this Congress to be irrelevant, then Bush's signing statements sure have.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

It's All A Plot By The Democrats.....

...and Mark Foley is concerned with catching sexual predators! Even though The aide that convinced Foley to quit claims he told Dennis Hastert about it three years ago, the Democrats waited until right before the election to leak this. I saw Newt on CNN imply that this was leaked by a Democrat, although he offered no evidence, his implications enough to grab the attention of the corporate media. Well, if this story was leaked, that would infer that someone else was covering it up, wouldn't it? Lucky for Newt, your average television-watcher lacks the capacity to reason as much.
And the Reublicans are all ready for an investigation, only it's not the one that should be held. They want to find out why this story surfaced on the last day of the legislative business before the November election. Not why Fatturd's office sat on this story for three years, then denied any knowledge when the story broke. So if the Justice Department does investigate this, which investigation do you think El-Turdo will hold?

And by now, we've all seen the screen capture of Foley being indentified as a Democrat on Fox News fair and balanced Bill O'Reilly liefest. When all else fails, you can always count on the corporate media to disinform the television-watchers. Is it any wonder so many Americans still think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
What this is all about is people placing party politics first. Already struggling supporting an unpopular president and an unpopular war, not to mention spending the first part of the year embroiled in a lobbying scandal, Republican leadershits have proved that nothing is as important as their party (unless it's the party they're planning for the end of the war in Iraq)and will sacrifice anything or anyone to keep their majority.So it's only natural they'd blame the Democrats for leaking the story, it's what they would have done if the shoe was on the other foot.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Spoiling The October Surprises

Karl Rove promised to deliver George W. Bush and the Republican party an October surprise. Something that will help turn the party's sagging ratings around and help them retain the majority that they need in order to continue their plan of converting the US into a fascist corporatocracy. Many people have speculated on what this may be, I thought I'd take a second and speculate on what it won't be.
War With Iran
Right now the propaganda campaign is amping up for a US military strike against Iran. However, there is still some diplomacy being tried on the part of the EU, only because Bush is no statesman and Cheney doesn't believe in diplomacy. However, while I think an invasion will occur, I believe this won't happen until after the election. Here's why:
Right now, oil prices have begun to lower. There are many reasons and theories for this oocurance. One is the discovery of a huge oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Another is the eased tensions in the Middle east due to Iran's desire to negotiate it's nuclear power ambitions. Another theory is that the oil companies have lowered the price of oil to help out their buddy in the White House.
However, the theory that I think fits best was postulated by Kunstler (September 18) in which he speculates that orders are down because Third World countries can't afford gas at $70 a barrel, therefore, they're not placing any orders. Also, the nation's largest consumer of oil, the US military may have stocked up on oil and has stopped placing orders as well. If they were planning on attacking Iran, they would need a lot of jet fuel as they seem to think they can win a ground war from the air, and would continue placing orders. A strike against Iran before the election would drive oil prices up again, thereby angering the US voters who are grateful to be paying over two dollars a gallon right now. Therefore, a strike against Iran as the October surp[rise, in my opinion, is out of the question.
Osama Bin Laden
Prior to the leaked intelligence out of France,Osama was suddenly on Bush's mind again. He even met with the president of Pakistan, where Osama was rumored to be holed up. Right here on this page, I speculated that the capture of Osama would be Rove's promised October surprise. But the cat's out of the bag now. While no one could prove he's dead, nobody could prove he wasn't either. The leak got a lot of people to question why Osama only turns up on tape when it serves the White House's agenda. A tape now would cause people to doubt it's authenticity, especially an audio tape alone, while Osama's "capture", undoubtedly dead, would give creedence to the rumors and have people (like me)say I told you so.
Another Terrorist Attack
Foiled or not foiled, another terrorist attack would prove to the people who are paying fucking attention that the NIE was right, and the Bush way of dealing with terrorism isn't working. There's not many more things that airline passengers can give up now short of flying naked, and we've all had a laugh at that. Another successful terrorist attack would prove that torture doesn't help, and that as much as they like to bluster about, the Bush regime cannot keep us as safe as the television-watchers have been led to believe. There is only one way that Bush could use another terrorist attack to his advantage.
In recent days, the Republicans have taken major hits. The Mark Foley scandal shows the voters that the people who claim to protect us from sexual predators are in actuality, the people we need to be protected from. The fact that party leaders sat on this information hasn't helped them out, especially if the corporate media has a field day with this, and cover-ups involving sexual improprieties is where they excel the most as far as exploiting. Nothing keeps the television-watchers tuned in like a good sex scandal and this one has all the details they need.
The lobbying scandals have caused some key Republicans to scurry off the map, campaign war chests in tow, which have now been converted into legal defense funds. All one has to do is remind the voters that the Republicans gained control of the legislature by running against the corruption in Washington, just don't expect it to come form the lapdog corporate media, because while they love a tawdry sex scandal, this type of scandal causes the television-watchers to switch the channel. So what's a war criminal to do when he loses his rubberstamp? It's almost as if he'd be better off if there were no elections at all.
Which is not that far-fetched. Powers granted to Bush via the PATRIOT Act include imposing martial law in case of an epidemic. Also, as Commander-in-Chief, Bush could suspend all elections. Congress just gave him the power to declare anyone, even American citizens, enemy combatants and the detention camps are being built. Is this the October surprise? I don't think so, although Bush's warning to citizens not to buy in to "the enemy's propaganda" concerning the NIE ( who is the enemy? The CIA?)sure gives one pause. All I know is what it won't be, so I guess we'll have to just wait and see.