Republicans Behaving Like Children

Right now, words fail me. Idiotic, childish and moronic spring to mind, but they don't quite convey the sense of stupidity I feel when Republicans find fault with a visit from the former president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami. For one thing, the guy isn't even president of the country anymore. Another thing, he's coming to the US to attned a UN conference to promote dialogue and speak on religion's role in promoting peace. Peace, you can't have that around without the Republicans going all ape shit.
In fact, the head of the house subcommittee on the middle east, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Khatami's visit is "threat to U.S. national security interests and Middle East policy objectives." In other words, if Khatami shows up talking of peace, how can the neofascists so intent on nuking Iran scare the voters into supporting another war.

"It is mystifying that we would roll out the red carpet to a person who has incited violence against civilians and who has expressed incendiary rhetoric against the United States and our allies," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

Really? How has Khatami, a moderate in Iran, done that? In fact when he was president of Iran, he tried to start a dialogue with the US (under the Bush regime)about everything the Bush regime would like to attack Iran over, but the Bush administration, being the mature and responsible stewards of our country, stuck their fingers in their ears and "NA-na-na-na-na-na, I can't hear you". Well not really, but they did refuse to set up diplomatic channels between the two nations. And really, how can any Republican point a finger at a person they claim has "incited violence against civilians", when they supported the war in Iraq, as well as next year's war against Iran with out looking like a total hypocrite? They can't because they are.
Always one to jump on a bandwagon, if it gets him votes, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum called Khatami "one of the chief propagandists of the Islamic Fascist regime." Kind of Ahmedinejad's Karl Rove, chief propagandist for the American neofascist regime.
This is why we need to purge the legislature of Republicans. They've already decided on war with Iran, they don't need no peace spouting "Islamofascist" to muck it up for them. It kind of spoils the propaganda they are starting to lay on the American people in preparation for the coming invasion.

The New Fascism Vs. The Old

Fascism(fash` iz em),n. The form of government with strong control of industry and labor by the central government, great restrictions upon the freedom of individuals, and extreme nationalism and militarism. Strong opposition to radical socialism and communism.

The United States is fighting "a new type of facism," US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a veterans' group here Tuesday.

14 points of Fascism (hat tip to Left Of Center)

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared today’s situation with the situation with Nazi Germany. Let me see, militaristic nation pre-emptively strikes another, rounds up people to send to be tortured-he's right, the US is like Nazi Germany.
The Defense Secretary is on the defense as more and more Americans voice their displeasure over the increasing quagmire in Iraq. He blamed the terrorists for manipulating the media. I imagine the terrorists now as invisible gremlins, attaching themselves brainslug-like to reporters, forcing them to print stories that reflect poorly on US forces. Sure, everything looks bad if you examine it, trust the guy who lied to you. This is merely a reiteration of a claim he made six months ago. Desperate Donald must be getting to the bottom of his bag of tricks.
When they were reporting administration claims verbatim, Rumsfeld $ Co. had no problem with the media, but now, he says administration critics are suffering from moral or intellectual confusion.
Am I confused, or is it Mr. Rumsfeld? Maybe I'm the one confused because given the various reasons we needed to invade Iraq by the administration, every single one has been refuted or denied by same said administration. So if all these reasons were erroneous, why do we continue to stay in Iraq?
But then my confusion passes and I remember, we are there to make sure that all the oil goes to the US (and not China). In other words, we're stealing the oil. No moral confusion there, stealing is wrong, and killing innocent bystanders while you do it compounds the crime.
That's when Rumsfeld brings out the big guns. We are fighting a new kind of fascism, by being more fascist ourselves. Kind of like how we're fighting the terrorists by being bigger terrorists ourselves. The Islamofascists, we're told, want to take over the world and establish world wide Islam, so in order to counter that, the Christianazis want to take over the world (or, at least all the spots where Islamics sit on oil)and establish worldwide Christianity, no offense to the Jewish people, you're not invited.(But feel free to kill as many Muslims as you please for us. Thank you!)
Someone in the administration has stated "We're an empire now- we make our own reality"-just like the fucking bull-goose loony people do. Rumsfeld is a doddering old fool who needs to go, and the only way to get rid of him is to remove every other neofascist crazy in the administration.

Bush:"I Ain't Gonna Do A Damn Thing!"

Following on his declaration not to leave Iraq "As long as I am president" at a press conference last week, Bush now says that New Orleans may need a decade to rebuild following it's devastation last year by Hurricane Katrina.
"Let some other president fix it. I'm not going to," Bush said at a press conference today."My duties as president extend to making sure the Republicans hold on to their power in Congress, and starting wars to enrich my wealthy campaign contributors. The most I can offer for the people of New Orleans is a tax cut for it's wealthiest residents."
"If I had to fix every problem in this dang country, I'd never have anytime to go fishing with my daddy, or clear the brush from the Western White House, my ranch at Crawford."Bush then when on to state he had other things on his mind. "We're giving birth to a new middle east here, I don't have time for rebuilding America. Like withdrawin' our troops from Iran, I'll just have to leave that up to another president."
When a reporter pointed out that we have no troops in Iran, Bush replied, "Not yet."
(cross posted at The American Insurgency)

We've All Seen This Before And We Know How It Ends. Not Good

Let's play a game called "Who do you trust"? If you had to choose between a report on Iran, which one would you believe, the one authored by intelligence agents, with people in the region who understand the subtleties of the situation, or a bunch of congressmen, who are receiving deceiving reports from the White House? Intelligence agents, whose job it is to report on what's going on in Iran, or Republicans with a neo-fascist agenda?
Before you answer, remember who it was that told the truth about Iraq. The White House and it's congressional lapdogs told us a load of crap that they later have denied shoveling or (rarely) have admitted they were wrong about. Now these same people are doing the same for Iran. These are the same people who told us Iran was going to start a nuclear war, WWIII on August 22. Never happened. The same people who insist that Iran’s legal nuclear ambitions will be dealt with by the security council. That’s not going to happen, either.
What this means is that once again, the US will go it alone. Or build another “coalition of the willing”, because as neofascist guru Bill Kristol said on Fox the other day :

“I think we could be in a military confrontation with Iran much sooner than people expect. I don’t think this is an issue that’s going to wait two and a half years until President Bush leaves the presidency. I think he will decide at some point next year — in 2007 — he’ll have to make some very tough decisions about what the U.S. and the world can tolerate”

So now the decider is making decisions for the rest of the world? How much longer will the world be able to tolerate the bullying tactics of the Bush administration? Who will be blamed for faulty intelligence when this war becomes another quagmire? The ones who insisted we go to war to fulfill their neofascist agenda? Or the small minority of people who support them?

DeVos Takes On Bush. Kind Of.

Echoing calls made by Gov. Granholm, Republican gubnatorial candidiate Dick DeVos has called on President Bush to meet with auto makers. Why the sudden change of heart from a man who said automakers should "stop crabbing" about foreign competition? Could it be that DeVos is trailing in the polls?
The number one reason the automakers are hurting is a direct result of outsourcing, something that candidate DeVos has supported through donations to The Mackinac Center,the Acton Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Istitute, all major foundations advocating outsourcing of American jobs.
Look at it this way: If a large corporation lays off 1500 American workers and outsources their jobs, the ripple effect across the economy is detrimental. 1500 people on lay-off aren't going to buy 1500 new cars, houses, furniture, or appliances. That means less orders for those, which means the manufacturers have to lay off people. Not only that, but the community suffers as well. Grocery stores don't sell as many groceries, bar and restaurant business slows, people forgo seeing the doctor because they can no longer afford it, so cuts have to be made in these fields as well. Now, the original company that outsourced the jobs finds it orders down, so it has to lay-off more workers, beginning the whole downward spiral again. Even though we're being told by the idiot President that the economy is booming, the stark reality is the economy is on a downturn, and the outsourcing of jobs is one of the main culprits.
DeVos likes to talk about leadership, and how our state needs a leader, neglecting to mention that he cut 1400 jobs as President of Amway, a company that has invested over $100 million in China over the past five years. So much for some one investing in Michigan's future. The only future DeVos cares about is his own.

DeVos's criticism of Bush is a distancing tool as well. His family contributed more than any other family to the Bush campaign and the Republican party. DeVos says Bush has ignored Michigan too long, but perhaps he's annoyed with DeVos. In 2000, DeVos promised to deliver Michigan to Bush. DeVos also placed his voucher proposal on the same ballot, which brought out more voters than usual to strike it down, causing Bush to lose the state in 2000.
In his ads, DeVos doesn't even say he's a Republican, but he and his family have been closely associated with the Michigan Republican for years. His wife, Betsy, was even National Chairperson of the party. he tries to paint himself as an hoest down to earth guy, a guy who just happens to fly back and forth over the city in his own private helicopter. Since leaving Amway, the only jobs DeVos have created, besides the time Betsy paid some people to protest outside Fountain Street Church while Michael Moore was inside giving a free speech, have been in the field of PAC's.
DeVos's pet project is getting public funding for private schools, either through vouchers or tax cuts. If he was really concerned about Michigan's future, he would put an effort into making our public schools better by putting tax money into, not taking it away from them.
Face it, if DeVos were really honest, he'd mention his connections to Bush and Tom Delay (who held a conference on DeVos's yacht), but he doesn't want voters to know the real Dick. Dick is a Republican, the same people who have been running the legislature for years. Granholm is not a unitary executive, she can only sign bills passed by the legislature. She inherited a budget deficit from John "Fat Boy" Engler, who in turn inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor Jim Blanchard. But the problem is not the politicians, it's the greedy bastards like Dick DeVos who have sacrificed Michigan's labor force so they can attain more wealth, which in turn they would like to use to tell those displaced workers
For Kathy, here's my own Amway story. In 2002 I was working at Amway for the company i am presently employed by. Throughout the facilities, at every break area and cafeteria, there are television monitors giving Amway approved news headlines for the employees. On September 11, 2002, everyone was given plastic American flags that were made in China to attach to their cars. At the time of the first plane impact, everybody was herded to a television set to observe a moment of silence. The monitor focused on the flags in front of world headquarters, flying at half mast. Amway World Headquarters is located on M-21, a busy thouroughfare, and the camera was stationed across the road. But whoever was running the camera forgot to turn off the sound, so at the time we were supposed to be observing a moment of silence, we were instead treated to the sound of traffic rumbling down the highway in front of Amway.

Debunking The Imminent Nuclear Attack.

Today on the radio, the propagandists were discussing an op-ed piece in the WSJ by Bernard Lewis that stated that tomorrow there's a likelihood of a nuclear attack by Iran. I haven't even read the article and I know it's bunk, neofascist propaganda setting up Iran as the fall guy for a false flag operation. I don't know what's in there, but I'm sure he puts forth his case well enough that the ill-informed (such as the "deejays" on the radio and much of their listening audience) might believe it to be so, but I don't buy it one bit.
First off, the reason the he speculates that tom orrow this will happen, is because tomorrow is th deadline for an proposal made by the UN for Iran to stop enriching uranium, something it has every right to do as a signee of the NPT. If Iran refuses, the matter will be brought to the Security Council, who will then vote on sanctions. Mr. Lewis proposes that Iran will start WWIII rather than face the sanctions imposed on it. However, what Mr. Lewis probably doesn't inform his readers with is the fact that security council members Russia and China have deals with Iran. Russia is building the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, while China, quickly becoming a large energy consumer, has made a deal with Iran to supply China with the oil it needs to feed it's growing economy. Neither one is likely to vote for sanctions, so in reality, Iran has nothing to worry about in the security council.
Iran also doesn't want to go to war. I know that Mr. Lewis' article probably refers to statements made by Iranian president Ahmednejhad concerning "wiping Israel off the map", an interpretation offered by the Israel paranoia leaning MEMRI. However, other interpretations of Ahmednejhad's statement have been Israel "should be erased form the pages of history". Neither statement reflect the Iranian president's desire to do this himself, it was more a statement of frustration with a country that mistreats it's Muslim population. But Iran offered to suspend it's uranium enrichment in exchange for a guarantee that the US will not attack it. This offer was rejected by the US.
However, Israel would like nothing better than to force regime change in Iran. If not for the statements made by it's president, than surely because Iran is arming Hizb-Ullah with missiles that Hizb-Ullah is firing at Israel. And of course the neofascists who signed the PNAC would like to force regime change in Iran as well. Why? Because Iran has made a deal to sell it's energy to China, meaning that all those oil profits that should be going to big oil in America will instead be going to Iran. And as we speak, people working for Dick Cheney are cherry picking intelligence and forging documents, just like they did for Iraq, to justify starting another war in the middle east. One that will be called the "war on terror", but will have nothing to do with terrorists acts or 9/11 or alQaeda at all.
Dick Cheney was a little disappointed that Israel's recent incursion into Lebanon didn't spread in to Syria, as an Israeli war with Syria would involve Iran and the US. In order to secure the gulf region's resources, according to the PNAC, the US must use it's role as the world's remaining superpower (while it still can) to effect regime change throughout the region. That's why we went to Iraq and why we're staying there until every last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground.None of this I'm sure is mentioned in Mr. Lewis's piece.
Neither does Mr. Lewis probably mention the plan Cheney had STRATCOM draw up last year, calling for a nuclear strike against Iran following the next terorist attack, even if Iran is not involved.
Iran has not the missile capability to strike the US. The most it's most recently tested rockets can go is 15,000 metres. It will be able to strike US soldiers in Iraq, and it will be able to strike at Israel. Unfortunately, IT WILL NOT BE A NUCLEAR ATTACK. Why? Because Iran has NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS!! They lack the 64,000 centrifuges it requires to enrich enough uranium to make a nuclear device. Our own National Intelligence estimate from November of last year puts Iran at least ten years away from having the capabilities to build a nuclear device. Since they do not have nukes, how are they going to nuke anyone?
No, the only two armed forces in the region with nuclear capabilities are the US and Israel. If Iran were to strike at Israel with one nuclear weapon, Israel would make sure that it didn't happen again. Look how they responded when two of their soldiers were captured by Hizb-Ullah in Lebanon. Now multiply that by, I don't know, ten million, and you'd have a pretty good idea of what Israel would do. Ahmednejhad would be a fool to do so, and let me tell you, he's no fool. Unlike our idiot president who can't even finish a sentence.
So who are you going to believe? Someone from the media, the same media that said :
1. Saddam has WMD
2. Iraq has ties to alQaeda
3. Iraq was involved in 9/11
4. The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror,
all of which are lies. Or are you going to look at the facts.

UPDATE: It turns out Mr. Lewis is a professor of Islamic studies! That explains his lack of knowledge as per the nuclear capabilities of Iran! But it sure has a bunch of ill-informed people scared!

An Important Portent

I'm more confused than a Republican in an ethics class. First, Joe Lieberman loses in the primaries. Then the Bush ADDministration backs Joe as an independent, over the Republican candidate for the senate seat in Connecticut. Now today, we have Lieberman Calling for Donald Rumsfeld to step down. More campaign rhetoric from a man trying to distance himself from the Bush regime, or a portent of a shake up already in the works.
Rumsfeld has been the point man for criticism of the way the war has been handled, because he has been handling it very poorly. he bought into Cheney's rhetoric that the Iraqis would throw flowers at our feet, and claimed he knew where those non-existent WMD were. Then there was Hilary's pillorying of Rumsfeld last week, where it seemed even the propagandists in the corporate media were mocking him. Does Cheney want someone else in the DoD for Iran and Syria?
Lieberman, for his part, criticized the Bush ADDministration, now, after he lost the primary because of it, for poor planning in it's invasion of Iraq, which he still cites as a good thing. (Even though it was a violation of international law)He said the ADDministration must put pressure on the Iraqi government to end sectarian violence in that country. WTF? How do you propose we do that Joe? Take away their running water, their electricity, their oil? We've already done that, thanks to the war, people who had all that 24/7 under Saddam, are now having to do with out under the US puppet regime.
And once again, like all the bought and paid for politicians, Lieberman links the war in Iraq to the war on terror, "we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.
If it was meant to end terrorism, it didn't work.
So, is Lieberman distancing himself from the Bush regime? Is he doing it by calling out the one person who is probably on the way out anyway? Or is Rumsfeld the easiest to criticize? (In this administration, who isn't?)Whatever the reason, Bush has allegedly refused Rumsfeld's resignation before, I doubt he'll listen to Joe, no matter how good a kisser he may be.

CorruptCo Update

Two former executives at DHB Industries were arrested today on charges they manipulated the books to make millions of dollars in inside trading. Faithful readers of this blog (both of you) may remember them from the Corruptco blogfest piece I did on them in February of this year, And Then He Changed Into A Pink Leather Outfit For Aerosmith, which was about DHB Industries CEO, David Brooks and the lavish bat mitzvah he through for his daughter. David Brooks has been placed on indefinite leave by the ASE pending the outcome of investigations.
The two executives, Chief Financial Officer Dawn Shlegel and Chief Operating Officer Sandra Hatfield, inflated DHB earnings and profit margins between 2003 and 2005. They then sold thousands of shares based on inside information, netting a cool $8 million. Which is not as much as the CEO spent on his daughter's party, but enough to get them thrown in the clink for up to twenty five years (as if), while they'll probably go the Ken Lay route and spend all the money they bilked the investing public out of to keep themselves free on appeal until all their money's gone, or they croak from a heart attack at the prospect of actually having to bear punishment for breaking the law.

You Can't Teach An Old Elephant New Tricks

Now that the primaries are behind us and as we head in to the final stretch of the campaign, the Republicans are unleashing their "new" strategy.
Are they trumpeting the booming economy? No, new housing starts fell in July, even after economists lowered their expectations. The once booming housing market has cooled down, as people who are paying more for gas are deciding mortgaging their future for a McMansion isn't within their reach anymore. But hey, the guys at the top are doing well!
Are they touting success in the war on drugs? No, actually opium production is up in Afghanistan, thanks to intervention there by the US military. I guess the war on drugs is off the burner completely and back in the fridge until some future administration needs it to take more of our rights away from us.
Is it the success in Iraq? Well, they can't use that as 67% of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, WMD, or terrorists, and even the Iraqis are ungrateful (in Our Supreme Leader's eyes) for the freedoms we have brought them. Along with the lasting effects of depleted uranium.
So what's left in the GOP bag of tricks? Of course, the only thing they poll well on, national security, the good old war on terror. That's why we have Orrin Hatch saying the terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again." Who wants to bet on the terrorists striking the US after a big Democrat win in November?
Then, following a court ruling thatthe NSA wiretapping program is illegal, we have US Attorney General El-Turdo Gonzalez stating terrorists are in our neighborhoods. We call them Republicans. They need to keep the populace paranoid to maintain their power and protect the president's programs aimed at dislodging our constitutional rights from us. And if that isn't terrorism....
It would be nice to have a Congress and president focused on domestic issues instead of obsessing on making the middle east over in some twisted neofascist wet dream. The only domestic issues the Republicans care about (aside from shielding Bush from any responsibility for his actions) are flag burning (when was the last time you saw a flag burned? In this country, I mean) and gay marriages (those horrible, horrible things that cause irreparable harm to no one). I think it's time the voters taught the Republicans a new tune, because I'm sick of the same old song and dance.

The Terrorists Must Be Working For The Republicans

Why is it that terrorists only plan to attack in election years? Last year, there were no serious terrorist attacks or plots in the US, and already this year, they've uncovered four, the last one unveiled right after the pro-war crowd declared that voting for the anti-war crowd will lead to more terrorist attacks. And now that public sentiment has turned away from the war in Iraq, all of a sudden there is a rash of foiled terror plots aimed at Americans.
The idiot American, those incapable of rational thought think, they're attacking us because we're soft on the war in Iraq. The rational mind would think a). they're still attacking us in spite of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, therefore the whole purpose of fighting the war to fight terrorism has been a dismal failure that has gained us nothing and lost us plenty, and b). therefore the wars in the Middle East have not deterred those who wish to attack us over here, as opposed to over there.
Every cut in the constitution, every suspension of our rights has been, we've been told, to prevent the terrorists from attacking us. Still the terrorists conspire. Violate the Geneva convention? The terrorists still conspire. Suspend habeas corpus? The terrorists still conspire. Spy on American citizens? The terrorists still conspire. It's as if Bush really believes they hate us because we're free and he's doing everything in his power to insure we don't stay that way too much longer. We are losing everything and gaining nothing, especially if they feel compelled to spring more terrorist conspiracies on us in the months leading to the mid-term elections. They tried banning gay marriages, and protecting the flag, to no avail, now they're back to what works best for them:terrorism.
What America needs is someone who will examine the true causes of their hatred for us, and in case you aren't listening, it's not because we're free. It's not because they want to take over the world and establish world wide theocracy (that's what the fundamentalist Christians want), it's because everywhere Arabs and Muslims are being threatened in their own countries, it's because the people handing weapons over to Israel and vetoing any resolution against Israel in the UN as they take more Palestinian and now Lebanese land away from the indigeonous people is the US. The power propping up oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, is the US. The ones threatening regime changes to puppet governments more attuned to big oil's interests than the people they govern is the US. And the US doesn't give a fuck about whom they kill to do it, civilians or not, it's not as important as making very wealthy white people wealthier. All they want from you is your tax dollars and they'd let the alligators get you given the chance.
In the five years since alQaeda allegedly hijacked four airplanes and flew them with impunity over the most secure airspace on the planet, we've allowed alQaeda to escape into Pakistan and take over Somalia. In the meantime we've invaded one sovereign nation and enabled our ally as it bombed another, because we wish to start more wars with everybody except the people we claimed were responsible for the original attack. Osama Bin Laden, if he's not dead is still running around forgotten by the Bush ADD-mistration and the neocons as they strive to remake the region over like a drunken heterosexual on What Not To Wear. Their plans are not working and we are none the more safer because of them! Just imagine what will occur once they get the opportunity to invade Iran and Syria, which is more certain to happen if the Republicans and pro-war Democrats hold on to Congress, and is why they must be defeated at the polls.
Republicans accuse Democrats of playing politics with the war in Iraq (which, they want the brainwashed brain dead brain damaged beer swilling flag waving chemically imbalanced NASCAR watching American idiots to believe is somehow connected to the war on terror), but the terror conspiracies always are uncovered when it's convenient for Republicans. Coincidence?

Chemical Mixture Causes Media Paranoid Hallucinations On Severity Of Terror Conspiracy

This seems a bit, odd. While Pakistan claims that the recent terror conspiracy (because that's what it was, a conspiracy)has ties to alQaeda, (and not the ISI), Michael "Cryptkeeper" Chertoff says there is no conclusion on alQaeda being involved. Which is a bit of a back pedal from what he said the day before. What's going on here? Why is the media making a foiled conspiracy seem like another 9/11?
As people board planes, they are asked to dump all liquids into bins. Now, I never took chemistry, but I know that certain chemicals can not be mixed. Even simple household chemicals. And what they're doing here is mixing all sorts of bases and compounds together with out regard to any chemical reaction that may occur.
My theory is that all these chemicals mixed together have caused a vapor to be released at the airports, making media types covering the story hallucinate paranoid visions. And Michael Chertoff, who made his most recent speech from the Ronald W. Reagan International Airport, simply succumber to these vapors.
So what's going on here is something similar to mixing the wrong medications. Sometimes it can lead to death (we're lucky a cloud of chlorine gas hasn't formed yet in these airports. And if it did, you can be sure it would be blamed on the terrorists, and not the idiot who came up with this plan), sometimes it can merely cause you to see things that aren't there. Like a 9/11 in a foiled conspiracy.

(For the idiots:conspiracy-the act of conspiring; some secret planning to do something unlawful or wrong)

The Thirty Nine Percent Fascists

The recent hype about the "foiled terror plot" seems oddly timed. Right after Joe Lieberman's loss in the primary was seen as a referendum on 'the war on terror' on cue comes the tightening of security, even though they have been investigating this for the last 18 months. You can always tell when election is near by the "Islamofascist paranoia level" being run by the Republicans.
But who really is the fascists here? 60% of Americans now are opposed to the war in Iraq, which has never had anything to do with the war on terror and everything to do with the Project For A New American Century. Lieberman and the Republicans have labeled them extremists, when in fact, they are the extremists in this case.
Now think about this:39% of Americans advocate that Muslims should have special ID's. You know like the Star of David or Pink Triangles the Nazis made the Jews and the Homosexuals wear. Thirty nine percent is also the highest Bush's approval rating has reached post-Katrina.
I'm sure that these 39% would also support taking action against Iran and Syria for the failed terror plot, even though the 'terrorists' were second generation Pakistanis, because they lack the mental faculties to discern one Islamic state from another. Even Michael Chertoff suggested that alQaeda was behind this, because along with 9/11, al Qaeda is the magic shit-your-pants word for the thirty-nine percenters.

Fox Backs Lieberman So I Don't

Just as I was preparing to take a night off, I stumbled across this story concerning the Democratic Senate primary in Conneticut. It seems Joe Lieberman has cancelled scheduled campaign events today in order to spend the day making get out the vote calls. No big deal, I was almost going to say what does it matter who wins the primary as long as the Democrats hold the seat in November.
But then as I read the article, it became clear why Lieberman must be defeated. Fox News is backing him up! A report today on the channel on Ned Lamont featured the headlines "Have Democrats Forgotten The Lessons Of 9/11?" What did we learn from 9/11? Apparently nothing, as we still keep playing the enabler to the Israel war machine as it continues it's offensive measures against the whole country of Lebanon. We still are pushing for regime change throughout the region while mired in two wars with out end already that have yielded nothing but more hatred towards the US. And, ultimately, what does the war in Iraq have to do with 9/11 anyway? Not a fucking thing!
The report also featured the headline "A Lamont Win, Bad News For Democracy In Mid East? Yes folks, if Lamont wins, he'll be sure to vote against any further military actions the Bush regime has planned for the erst of the Mid East, namely Syria and Iran, we'll leave the Saudis and Kuwaitis to their respective monarchies, which shows you what a heap of shit this whole "war on terror" is, I mean most of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Osama himself, were all Saudis, but they get a pass because Bush likes holding hands with Prince Bandar.
Sean Hannity even pledged his support for Lieberman back in February of this year. One wonders who Hannity and Fox will back in November if Lieberman wins. Or decides to run as an independent. Lieberman turned Hannity down, Joe has already received the kiss of death from Bush, he doesn't need any more help digging his political grave from a fuckwad like Hannity.

The Pro-Life Drain Comissioner, Who Mailed The Anthrax, and The Finicky American

The Pro-Life Drain Commissioner
Today on the radio, one of the hosts of the morning show was discussing a pamphlet he received from a candidate for county drain commissioner. At the very top of the candidates list for qualifications was the fact that this person was "pro-life". The host then wondered if that should really be considered a qualification, as none of the decisions that person would be making would affect policy in that area. And he was right, the best qualifiaction for that position would be someone who was aware of the issues dealing directly with the duties of drains, preferrably someone who was maybe more environmentalist, as to keep the shit from flowing into the Grand River.
But this got me to thinking: perhaps instead of voting for the candidate who has the same position on the issues you have, it would be better to vote for the candidate more qualified to make an intelligent and informed decision on an issue, rather than one who has already made up their mind. Of course, what this really means is, the person who has made up their mind on the issues has shown us how they would resolve them, regardless of any new or relevant facts that may spring up on any issue.
Who Mailed The Anthrax?
Of course, right after this, the show went onto ridicule the people who don't buy the official story on 9/11. How can it be a government conspiracy?
Well, the first way, would be for the government to arrest the person who excercised the 'put' options on American Airlines and United Airlines whose stock went down in the days following 9/11. Also included were reinsurance companies, and financial service companies.Basically, these people were buying options on the basis that within a time frame, the price of these stocks would fall. What's more, is that call options, that is, people who predicted the price of a stock would rise, also rose on companies such as Raytheon, a weapons manufacturer. Somebody knew something was going on and intended to make money from it. But who? Since put and call options can't be purchased with out ID, they know who, they just haven't released it to the public, and the SEC went as far as to deputize investigators, making it illegal for them to publicly disclose any information they may have uncovered.
But what's more interesting is the anthrax letters sent to members of Congress and media outlets in the days following 9/11. I have always found it interesting that the recepiants of these letters in the Congress were all Democrats. At first, it was blamed on Iraq, until it was found out the anthrax was a weaponized variety made right here in the good old US of A.
The FBI investigated one man who worked at the lab and wrote a book using a similar scenario, but never turned up any evidence against him. There is evidence of one unauthorized person entering the lab after hours, however this person was never investigated. Will we ever find out who these people were, or is someone hoping that we forget that these incidents ever occurred?
The Finicky American
Today at lunch, while preparing some lime ginger chicken stir-fry, a woman asked if she could have hers with out mushrooms.
"I'm probably un-American for asking for it like that, "she joked.
"No, " I replied "Americans always want things their way." the man standing next to her agreed.
I then imagined a group of American tourists coming to an exotic restaurant in a foreign country, where monkey brains are served right from the skull, a la Indiana Jones. One of the finicky Americans raises their hand at the server and says, "Excuse me, but can I get mine with out any cerebral cortex, please?"

It Doesn't Take A Clairvoyant

It seems the rest of the world is finally catching up to Kunstler. An article in today's Guardian by Paul Harris discusses how rising gas prices may signal the end of the suburbam utopia. The housing bubble is dangerously close to popping. Housing sales have declined for the past nine months in a row. And those are new houses, older houses, refinanced at new housing prices are expected to take a hit if the bubble bursts. If the bubble does burst, it could plunge the economy into a recession.
Which is what the Federal Reserve is seeing in the future. The economy, which the Republicans have told us is booming, has created fewer jobs than expected. The official unemployment rate, that is, people still receiving benefits (as opposed to those whose benefits have run out while still being unsuccessful at finding employment)is at 4.8 percent (here in Michigan, it's at 6.3 percent).But what else has been happening is a widening of the gap between net worth and wage growth. In the period from 1991 to 1996, net worth grew 15.6 percent while wages gained 11.3 percent. From 2001 to 2005, net worth rose 16.6 percent, while wages grew only 2.7 percent.
As I have said here before (or was it at Lose The Noose?), the economy is only booming at the top. The people who are asking for the tax cut the Republicans want to give them aren't feeling the pinch that even Las Vegas is feeling. Trade deficits, budget deficits, just don't ask the upper classes to help their country at all.
I really don't see this country getting out of this. More jobs outsourced leads to more lay-offs, which leads to more outsourcing, which leads to more lay-offs, and until we stop the hemorrhaging of jobs the economy is going to continue to head to a recession. In the meantime, we can expect to see working people mocked by the likes of Paris Hilton on shows like The Simple Life because she knows she's going to get that estate tax cut someday, which the working people will keep working to pay for her (hey, it's not like she could hold down a job anyway)and those like her who feel their entitled to contribute nothing to the betterment of society.

Disturbed Singer Really Disturbed

David Draiman recently made a statement advoctaing ethnic cleansing that would make Mel Gibson's recent remarks seem like, well, the rantings of a drunk anti-semite.

"I think we should wipe them all out — every terrorist, every war-mongering piece of garbage. We should congregate them all on one island and nuke it. A line must be drawn."

Draiman made his staement following the recent crisis in Lebanon, which was provoked when Israel violated the border with Lebanon, something they have done almost daily in the last year, in an effort to start a plan that Israel had in place for the last year. You see, Mr. Draiman, a line was drawn, it was called the Lebanese border and Israel was the one who crossed it. Who's the war mongers here? A country that covets the Litani River water needed for the survival of Israel? Or the people of Lebanon, tired of watching Israel seize more of their land as "buffer zones" from acts of retaliation that Israel provoked?
Does Mr. Draiman include nuking the neocons in the White House? They've already mongered up two wars, and are looking to start even more, by themselves, or using Israel as their proxy. In fact, Bush knew in advance that Israel was planning to bomb southern Lebanon.
Mr. Draiman is angered because he has family members in Haifa, as well having a friend killed and another injured. But once again, it must be pointed out, that the propaganda has got it wrong.

Ultimately, [Hezbollah] committed an act of war: they crossed the border and kidnapped soldiers.

No, sadly this isn't the case.

It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel.

So, who are you going to believe, the singer for a really lame metal band or professional journalists?
No one should be amazed that this hate speech managed to get by the mainstream media, a). it was directed towards Arabs, which is perfectly acceptable, and b). it was from the singer of a second rate metal band.So I'm sure Mr. Draiman feels perfectly comfortable with the genocide being perpetrated by the powers that be in Washington, and Tel-Aviv. 900 people in three weeks, a third of them under twelve years old, well, that's acceptable. Or a good start. But only the truly brainwashed can't see who's the terrorists and war mongers here.

Is This Really What You Want?

In a speech yesterday in Los Angeles, Tony Blair issued a warning to Iran and Syria:"come into the international community and play by the same rules as us." And what rules would those be, Mr. Blair?
Pre-emptive strikes? The US and the UK have declared the right to use them, does this mean Syria has the right to strike Israel because it landed commandos near the Syrian border. It's obvious that the US and Israel are planning an action against Syria, by the US rules, that gives them the right to strike Israel and us.
Regime change? The US has declared it has the right to effect regime change in countries less friendly to US interests. Does this mean Iran should be trying to effect regime change in the US because of it's hostilities towards Iran as it develops it's peaceful nuclear power agenda?
Political assassinations? Isreal uses these all the time, most recently having attmepted the assassination of two members of the Hamas led government. Does this mean Syria is absolved for it's alleged role in the assassination of Lebanese foreign Minister Hariri?
You see, asshole, when you spout off about how high and fucking mighty you are, you had better make sure that you are all you claim. Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite.

This Is Front Page News?

On the front page of last Saturday's NYTimes there was an article dealing iwth a drinking contest between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. In Estonia. Two fucking years ago! What the article was about was how these two bonded and now are facing each other for their respective parties nomination.
But what struck me the most was the NY Times referring to Hillary as the front runner for the Democratic nomination. How did that happen? Online I see Russ Feingold leading in most polls, so how could Hillary be considered the front runner? Than I googled Democratic party front runner 2008 and found out that in Iowa, it's not even Hillary or Feingold in the lead-it's John Edwards!
How can Hillary be the front runner? I can't think of a single Democrat I know who supports the war in Iraq, Hell, half of America doesn't, yet Hillary does! And still she is the front runner. How can that be?
And more importantly, why would any body stick with a party that doesn't offer a real alternative to the war party? Might as well vote for the Republicans, at least they don't pretend to be progressive. Why vote for the Democrats in November? Pelosi has already stated they're not going to impeach Bush, what's the point of voting for the opposition if they're not really an opposition?
Our political system is so fucked. i can't hardly wait for the new season of American Idol so I can vote on some thing that really matters!