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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
U+262E

Representin'

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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?