A place to rant about politics, the media, and especially the electorate. Much like alcohol, the electorate is both the cause of, and the solution to, all of America's problems.

Location: Seattle, Washington

Sunday, October 31, 2004

Let it rain, let it rain, let it rain...

Don't know if you guys have heard it, but there's a little meme running around these parts that goes as follows: rain on election day is good for gdub because Democrats won't wait to vote in the rain.

I only have two things to say about that:

(1) The republicans are basing their hopes on the weather.

(2) Bye gdub. All the lying, cheating, rain squalls, and everything else will have been for naught. Even Kos agrees with me, for fuck's sake...

Friday, October 29, 2004

The fools won't realize what's happening until it's too late...

How believers in individual rights can vote republican is beyond me...

"Set aside what the mass of people think. Some things are so bad for them that you cannot allow them to have them. One of them is war in the context of terrorism in the United States," Hughes said, according to a transcript obtained by CQ Homeland Security... "Therefore, we have to abridge individual rights, change the societal conditions, and act in ways that heretofore were not in accordance with our values and traditions, like giving a police officer or security official the right to search you without a judicial finding of probable cause," said Hughes.

Patrick Hughes is now the top intelligence official at Homeland Security. The above is part of what he said publicly last year.

Oh - that's right, republican voters don't really care about individual rights - they just like to talk like they do... Liars, bigots, cheats, and power-mongers, the whole lot of 'em...

"What the hell do you care?'' - Newest republican talking point!

Remember all of those republicans bent on challenging every Democratic voter, in an attempt to intimidate and prevent them from voting? Well here are the most recent results of their attempts to destroy representative democracy:

When Catherine Herold received mail from the Ohio Republican Party earlier this year, she refused it.

The longtime Barberton Democrat wanted no part of the mailing and figured that by refusing it, the GOP would have to pay the return postage.

What she didn't count on was the returned mail being used to challenge the validity of her voter registration.
In addition to [unanimously] dismissing the challenges, the elections board ordered that none of those voters whose registrations were called into question could be challenged again at the polls.
Democratic board member Russ Pry suggested that the four could be subject to criminal prosecution for essentially making false claims on the challenge forms. The form states that making a false claim is subject to prosecution as a fifth-degree felony.
"Why'd you do it?" one challenged voter shouted out at Calhoun. "Who the hell are you?" the man asked.

"What the hell do you care?" replied Calhoun, an attorney.

Prosecute them! And please also note that conspiracy charges, or some similar thing, should be included, as they've apparently had their intimidation plans in place for about a year...

To the masses: This is but one example, out of a sea of jillions, showing what republicans are really about.

Jeez Krugman's good....

I can only dream.....

But worst of all from the right's point of view, Al Qaqaa has disrupted the campaign's media strategy. Karl Rove clearly planned to turn the final days of the campaign into a series of "global test" moments - taking something Mr. Kerry said and distorting its meaning, then generating pseudo-controversies that dominate the airwaves. Instead, the news media have spent the last few days discussing substance. And that's very bad news for Mr. Bush.

The rest.

Punditician's endorsement...

Well it's for Kerry, of course, the the real issue was to decide exactly what manner in which to give it. I certainly wasn't going to do anything whine-bitch-and-moan-y like Slate did, after all.

But then I found Rude Pundit's endorsement, which offered all I was looking for. Go Kerry! Strong, courageous, intelligent, curious, engaged, competent, well-intentioned. He's just what we need in a President right now.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

bush liberates 100,000+....

100,000+ Iraqi women and children of their lives, that is...

What a punkass bitch he is. Killing women and children to cover up a lie.

republicans - equal opportunity thieves!

If I were a gop-er, it would bring a tear to my eye - the next generation of republicans is a smashing success at cheating old people out of their money. If nothing else, it helps illuminate the close affinity between republicans and fundamentalists....

I don't have any more money," said Cecilia Barbier, a 90-year-old retired church council worker in New York City. "I'm stopping giving to everybody. That was all my savings that they got.

Way to go, college republicans, way to go!

Wow... I like Gen. Clark's statement better than mine...

The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job.

Atrios has the rest...

Giuliani supports our troops!

That the republican party has, in the presence of bush, become the party of "it's not our fault, it's their fault" is perfectly well-known. Their latest contribution is in regard to the republicans' unwavering support of our troops - unless it involves republicans taking responsibility of course.


The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?

C'mon you "patriotic" bush voters - support your fucking troops you hypocritical motherfuckers. Your troops need you - they're under direct attack from the bush campaign. Support the troops - I dare you.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

(Some) People are finally starting to catch on....

Amy Sullivan, over at Political Animal:

Is the Bushification of public discourse so complete that people actually believe it's somehow polarizing or wrong to express a judgment about two candidates for the highest office in the country?

Um, duh.

The only problem, by my lights, is that Sullivan blames this all on the bushies. I think we - the good guys, the liberals - are the ones to blame for creating an environment that allowed the bushies to grow and thrive, and, currently at least, dominate.

I don't blame snakes for biting - that's what snakes do. I blame the no-truth-good-for-me-good-for-you people for allowing snakes into our midst.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

The republican-zation of CNN is complete....

They're running a Dennis Miller booster-segment on Lou Dobbs right now....

I'll get some choice quotes later when the transcript is posted - there were a few good ones.

The bush administration shows what it means to stand up for freedom and democracy...

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) has angered Taiwanese officials and lawmakers by making unusually strong comments denying that the island is an independent nation and suggesting Taiwan should unify with China.

Nice bait-and-switch guys.

Of course, an administration can only get away with such hypocrisy in the context of an electorate that permits it...

I'm with her....

First, let me say that I'm eternally grateful to blogsforbush.com for being the number 1 hit on my google search for "bush incompetent"...

Some republican blogger points out:

House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, believes America's problems stem from the incompetent leadership of President Bush, and anyone who doesn't believe it is either stupid, or blind.

I didn't check the Pelosi quote for accuracy, but I'm in almost complete agreement with the sentiment. The residual? I don't think I'm inclined to blame America's problems on the blind - that's just going too far. But if you substitute "evil" for "blind" in the sentiment attributed to Pelosi, I'm with it 100%.

It's beautiful, actually - in a Clockwork Orange kind of a way. The American people are like an abused wife who has her best friend on one hand saying "cmon! leave the asshole, he cheats on you, he hits you, he disrespects you, he doesn't love you!". And then on the other hand is the husband, saying "aww baby, you know I love you, you know I think you're beautiful, don't listen to that bitch over there, she don't care for you like I do, she's jealous of you. Now make me some dinner, bitch."

We'll see if the American acts in the stereotypically predictable manner of the battered wife or not. I'm an optimist.

Another genius....

On MSNBC a few minutes ago, they did a little report about polls being skewed because of the lack of participation by people who use cell phones exclusively. The "journalist" said:

"Cell phone voters tend to be urban, because that's where the reception is best."

Yeah. And humans tend to be on the ground because that's where the air is best. Fucking idiots.

Look up the phrase "common cause". Ok, fine - I've done it for you.

Except that it needs to be clarified that "common cause", "joint cause", and "overdetermined" are mutually distinct. And all three of these notions are generally applicable, and not relevant only to theological topics.

For fuck's sake - make them stop.... please...

Great - now Kos is infected....

Apparently bush claimed on Good Morning America that he disagreed with the republican party platform, and that the permissibility of gay civil unions should be left up to the states.

To which Kos says:

While this appears to be a calculated, late attempt to move to the middle, it still is a significant milestone in the battle for equality under the law.

Calculated, yes. Significant milestone? Not.

It's exactly as significant as bush saying he would have signed the assault weapons ban renewal, had it crossed his desk - which is to say not-at-fucking-all.

For no good reason, bush is the President. He is the HEAD of the republican party. If he wanted the platform to allow for gay civil unions, it would. Sheesh. If he wanted the assault weapons ban, the republican congress would have eventually given it to him. Sheesh. He wants neither, it's obvious, and yet Kos (whom, like Drum I have always respected) sees a "significant milestone.

Gay people should be allowed to get married. I'll change my mind as soon as it's explained to me exactly how a straight marriage (over *there*, as it were) is in any way "attacked" by two gay folks' marriage (over *here*). Then I'll believe all of this "defense of marriage" crap. As if gay people could do worse with marriage than straight people already have... Alternatively, I'm open to a good argument linking married gay people to bestiality, pedophilia, and/or rape, which serpents like Santorum are wont to do... Go to town - I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be).

In reality, of course, even DoM proponents don't believe their own marketing. It's just part of the bigotry underground mentioned in my previous post. DoM is nothing more than a way to put a public face on bigotry, which is good enough in today's dumbed-down true-false-less nation.

It's contagious!

Treating these issues as if they're serious intellectual questions is as bad as the "false equivalence" media...

Drum is apparently confused about the following glaring difference between republicans and Democrats: the former claims to believe that the election will be fair, while the latter believes the opposite.

I'm not sure what to think of this. Maybe it doesn't mean a thing, and if Bush had lost the Florida recount in 2000 the roles would be reversed.

Sheesh. What to think of this? Easy. One party thinks the other party is either run by, or composed almost wholly of cheaters and criminals. Recent events - LIKE OVER THE LAST FOUR FUCKING YEARS - back up this line of thought. Does Drum either not read the reports of republican election tampering - now up to about 10 states or so, or does he just not believe such reports? (I'll compile a link-list, if anyone wants it.)

Maybe it doesn't mean a thing? Almost 1/2 the electorate has no faith in the elections, and "[m]aybe it doesn't mean a thing"? There goes my idiot electorate again...

If Bush had lost Florida, the shoe would be on the other foot? There's that idiotic false equivalence media for you. Gore didn't *lose* Florida - it was stolen. The true equivalence would be if bush had Florida *stolen*, then the shoe would truly be on the other foot. But Drum trades on an ambiguity in his word "lost", in order to gin up a vapid equivalence between republicans and Democrats. Consider, for example, the following question to Drum: if Gore *simply* *lost* Florida, then why on earth would Democrats be skeptical of the fairness of elections?

What I can't figure out is *why* Drum would be so misleading - it looks far too blatant to be accidental. I generally greatly enjoy Drum's thoughts and analyses on issues (only one exception comes to mind, in fact).

Folks, don't treat stupid questions as though they're intelligent. Contrary to what your poitically correct teachers have told you, there really IS are such things as stupid questions, stupid issues, and stupid people. Also, don't treat cheaters as though they play by the rules.

[Enter historical soap-boxing]
This is the unfortunate part of the hippie-no-right-no-wrong-good-for-me-good-for-you legacy America has inheirited. And republicans have exploited it masterfully over the last 40 years, accelerating America's sliding into imbecility. In short, the hippie legacy has taken away from the normal American's vocabulary concepts like *truth*, *falsity*, and the like, and replaced them by weak, relativized doppelgangers.

Enter the southern christian right. While their initial beef with the hippies was niggers, fags, gooks, commies, and women (at least women got to keep a dignified name though), two things soon became clear to the brighter among our serpentine brethren. First, they weren't getting anywhere on the NFGCM tack. Second, they saw that the seeds of republican success were sown by the hippies themselves - in the very act of eschewing true-false-right-wrong distinctions. Americans, and rational people generally, don't put much stock in notions like "relativized truth", "your feelings are always valid", and so forth. And since the christian bigots never let go of the absolute notions, all they had to do was go underground with the bigotry, and watch America dumb itself down to the point where republicans could just spout the very words the hippies had thrown away.

Lo and behold, it worked like a charm. And now we're trying to fight back, but we've got a hand tied behind our backs - even the best and brightest of us (See Drum, above) have a world of trouble with concepts like truth, lie, evil, cheat, steal, etc. And it is precisely such concepts that are required in order to talk meaningfully about republicans.

At least Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann have caught on... Still waiting for the rest, in particular Krugman...

Hm. I'm probably going to need to delve into this in a great deal more detail to get anywhere on this... But that's at least a (disjointed) bird's-eye view of things...

Monday, October 25, 2004

I'll get back to business tomorrow....

... where said business is, apparently pissing off everyone who has the misfortune of reading this blog...

For now though, does anyone happen to know what the eigenfunctions of the Laplace transform are? (Over L2, unless another space is more appropriate.)


Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Best receiver in the history of the game is now a Seahawk...


That's step 1.

Step 2: Make Rice the wide receiver coach in the next year or so.

Monday, October 18, 2004

It's a Michigan point...

Because who cares what a lifelong republican and 14-year governor thinks?

You would, you apatriotic bush-voting assholes, if you gave a damn about this country and its future, instead of being hell-bent on re-enshrining bigotry into our Constitution and making rich people richer at the expense of the poor.

After reminding us (at least those of us willing to listen) of the good qualities that republicans used to fight for, former Governor of Michigan William Milliken closes his statement of intent to vote for Kerry with:
Women's rights, civil liberties, the separation of church and state, the funding of family planning efforts world-wide - all have suffered grievously under this president and his administration.
The truth is that President George W. Bush does not speak for me or for many other moderate Republicans on a very broad cross section of issues.
Sen. John Kerry, on the other hand, has put forth a coherent, responsible platform of progressive initiatives that I believe would serve this country well. He wants to balance the budget, step up environmental protection efforts, rebuild our international relationships, support stem-cell research, protect choice and pursue a number of other progressive initiatives that moderates from both parties can support.
As a result, despite my long record of active involvement in the Republican Party, and my intention still to stay in the Republican Party, when I cast my ballot November 2, I will be voting for John Kerry for President.

But alas, to you bush voters, the only thing the long-and-growing-longer line of republican refugees means is "traitor". The simple fact, which hurt our country in 2000, and threatens it again this year, is that for bush voters, party affiliation is more important than the welfare of our country. It's just not possible to genuinely care about this country and still vote for bush. Would that more of you bush voters genuinely cared about America.

Well if THAT paragon of democratic ideals said it, it MUST be true...

Best guess - who said the following:

I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush.

Ok - go look...

That's not cheating... now THAT'S cheating!

(Speak the title in your best Aussie accent)

Good job republicans! This is surely the most certain way to guarantee Ohio for the republicans - just eliminate Kerry's name from the damn ballot! lol

I'll forgo quoting the article - it's too wonderful as an unbroken whole. Suffice it to say that you have to be incredibly imaginative to interpret this as an accident. (Anyone remember Nixon's secretary accidentally erasing hours of tape?)

At this point, with about a jillion republican cheating episodes in hand, I'm curious about what would happen if gdub ended up winning - or better, "winning". In 2000, I don't recall hearing much about republican cheating until after election day. This time, we've got a whole bunch of cases already reported - and it's still 3 weeks until election day!

I wonder: what would a republican would have to do to be considered a criminal by other republicans? Becoming a Democrat is about the only thing I can think of...

And yet still, about 1/2 the country will happily vote for a party of cheaters and bigots. Only in America!

I'll be damned - they're actually falling for it again...

I didn't want to believe Atrios. That'll learn me...

MSNBC just said that they're going live to bush's major policy (sic) speech...

Christ. What a buncha fucking idiots... Or republican stooges... take your pick...

OTOH - Al Gore is live on CSPAN, if you want something that's actually edifying...

Update: Ok, MSNBC at least followed gdub up with a Kerry speech. I can live with the Fairness Doctrine - so long as it's properly interpreted, as MSNBC did in this case. I didn't check the other networks though...

Friday, October 15, 2004

What you mean "we", white man?

If correct as stated, this is one of worst things that could possibly happen to America.

At 5:12 a.m. Wednesday, Patricia McCook, also of Jackson, Miss., was awakened by a "very frantic" phone call from her husband, Sgt. Larry McCook. "He was saying, 'Wake up! Please listen to me! I sneaked out of the back [mess] hall to tell you something. Something's going on. The military wants to sweep it under the rug, but it needs to be out. Get a paper and pen and write this down."
Beverly Dobbs of Vandiver, Ala., also received an anguished phone call Wednesday from her son, Spc. Joseph Dobbs. "Momma, we're in a lot of trouble," he said, according to Dobbs. "We had some contaminated fuel. We went out on this mission, and they turned us back, and our captain got mad and was gonna send us out on another mission. We refused to go because our vehicles were in awful shape. The place they wanted to send us was dangerous. We had to go without guns. All of us refused to go. We're not risking our lives like that."

Orders of magnitude less importantly, this is one of the worst things that could possibly have happened to republican neocon bigots. They've run the tables for years with the catch phrase "support the troops". They've used it by trading on an ambiguity - the phrase specifically mentions the troops, but republicans use it in the sense of "support the civilian administration". Troops refusing to carry out orders, for acceptable reasons, strongly separates those two threads, and holds them as far apart from one another as they could possibly be.

So what is it now, you republican neocon bigots? C'mon - support the troops - I dare you. Support the troops you stupid, evil, mean bigoted motherfuckers. Support the troops - by getting rid of bush and his band of mean, incompetent cronies that the troops refuse to follow.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

When The Saints Come Marchin' In.....

Cmon all you stalwart republicans! Hold fast to your guns! You know you're right! It's everyone else that's wrong! Hell, it's everyone else that's treasonous! You don't care how many of you are left! You don't care how many republicans can't in good conscience vote for bush!

To hell with everyone else! To hell with the goddamn country - all run by faggots and niggers and kikes! You'll show us, my strong manly republican brothers! One day, you'll show us what a true American is like!

Keep the faith, my wrongheaded countrymen. Don't ever change. Don't ever learn. Revel in your juvenile righteousness. Everyone else's life is much easier that way. Stay exactly the way you are.

(oh yeah, The New Republic is a registered-only site. Try www.bugmenot.com for a login, if you like)

I knew it all along...

It's just too easy. Too. Easy. You're welcome to come up with your own captions, though... Posted by Hello

If you don't build it, they won't come....

Way to go Powell - lying your ass off to the UN wasn't enough... pussying out of being a rational influence for the last 3 years wasn't enough... Now you don't want to keep track of anti-Semetic crime? Wonderful.

The State Department on Wednesday opposed legislation approved by Congress to document annually attacks on Jews around the world.

It's all good though - your days are numbered (and thereby your career, you lying pussy no-integrity fucker). Well-meaning rational people are on the way - get your stupid shit in while you can.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

"I have explained that it's not an issue in the foreseeable future..."

"...But it is possible in the long term, in years perhaps, that Germany would become engaged"

To gdub and all the gdubyamaniacs: that's the German defense minister talking to CNN about the prospects for getting militarily involved in Iraq. What do you think that means?

No wait - I'll tell you.

The foreseeable future ends upon the election. The window they're specifically holding open is that upon a Kerry presidency, that is, a competent presidency, Germany can imagine situations in which they would provide troops for the Iraqi reconstruction. That is, upon the ascendence of a competent administration, a true, substantial coalition is possible.

Moral: Just because gdub can't do it, doesn't mean nobody can. To believe otherwise is to be pessimistic about American capabilities. You don't want to be pessimistic, do you?

The choice in November is between competence, and "buggy and horse". More than criticizing the anti-American fools who will still vote for gdub, I want to take this moment to call out the jackasses (Nader voters, as often as not) who claim to not be able to tell any difference between the candidates. Morans.

LOL - cmon my alethically challenged republican brothers - he's frothing at the mouth for God's sakes...

(a) Community college? Community college? That's what's been holding me back! All that time spent earning graduate degrees? pshaw! If that doesn't beet awl - who woulda thunk I'da been called stupid by gdub? In any case, this is what gdub's America is about: community college, along with community college wages, are the new American dream. Brought to you by WalMart, in fact.

(b) What's more important to you: (1) gdub flatly lying about never having said he wasn't concerned about OBL or (2) Kerry getting the never-met-CBC wrong?

(c) Was gdubs smirk supposed to make him likeable? How about the spittle on his mouth?

(d) If gdub really meant all the stuff he talked about working on in his not-gonna-happen 2nd term, he could've done it in his first. He didn't. He's a liar.

(e) Bill Frist is on Hardball right now. He's frothing worse than gdub was - lol.

(f) gdub got a cap put in his ass on the assault weapons issue.

So much to talk about, so little time...

I've been having trouble blogging for the last few days. Not for the lack of things to talk about - quite to the contrary in fact. As the election draws near, it seems that the republicans are trying to cheat in every way known to man - and have invented a few ways on their own (quite an inventive bunch they are!).

What's amazing is that, with incredibly few exceptions, the jackasses are all republicans (the Oregon dem jackass is the only exception I can think of offhand).

Most of my comments thus far have been - as best as I can tell - from republicans. One of the more recent ones prety much characterizes the lot, and may be summarized as follows: Because it's incorrect to blame bush for *everything*, it's therefore appropriate to blame him for *nothing* - anything to the contrary is whining.

I don't have much to say about this "heads in the sand" argument, because I suspect even its proponents realize how silly it is. However, I am continually amazed at republicans' stout constitution - many big-time elected republicans and pundits have realized the bush silliness, as have previous bush-endorsing newspapers. It's getting close to the time where the only people left supporting bush will be the heads-in-the-sanders (HITS). And because just about nothing has gone well for America in the last four years, about the only thing they'll be able to put forth on their side is the ridiculous strawman argument given above.

In any case, as the republican lie machine leaps into overdrive for these last few weeks, the Democratic truth machine has done a remarkably effective job in countering the lies, and in mobilizing the newly-awoken electorate. So while it's fun to blog with little jabs at this or that republican jackass - there's a new one pretty much every day - I'm going to start looking for something qualitatively different to go into. I've got a few ideas, but if you the reader (all 4 of you :) have any thoughts about what you'd like to see me talk about, your input is welcome.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Why do republicans hate America?

First it was just black folks they wouldn't let vote. Now it's every Democrat in Las Vegas. Sheesh.

"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assisatnt to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.

To connect the dots, Voters Outreach is the same republican hack group that's helping Nader out...

Monday, October 11, 2004

More bush supporters finally catching on...

From the mouths of babes...

The entire article is great - here's a fun snippet:

Fellow citizens: we have a serious problem. President Bush is misleading the American people and we must reassess our course.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

CNN keeps on cheating with their online polls....

Sheesh. Is it really that hard to play by the rules and not cheat?

I didn't save any screenshots, but on the who-won poll, bush has gained several hundred thousand votes over the last, say, 3 hours. That's cheating.

I'll attempt a preemptive strike against a silly criticism of the previous sentence - consider the analogy: if you flip a coin 100,000 times, and get 100,000 tails, what have you learned about that coin?

Update: Ok, dammit, I knew I should've started taking screenshots earlier... In the last 1/2 hour, bush got another hundred thousand votes, and it's dead even. I'll take periodic screenshots, and we'll see what the approximate rate at which he's gaining is. Of course, it may already be too late - the cheaters may have turned off the spicket, since it's already tied. We'll see how "trigger-happy" they are...

Friday, October 08, 2004

Let me be the first to welcome President Kerry...

Sheesh. What a tool gdub was. Yelling and screaming? "Internets"? Christ.

My debate prediction....

No matter what happens, Charles Gibson will get new ones torn for him, from both sides.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Republicans could learn some things about democray from Tajikistan!

Same story, different melody. The republican agenda, which includes cheating-to-win, has been exposed. First there was a move to have the UN watch over the election. Of course the republicans would never go for it - it was just a way for the Democrats to (a) raise consciousness levels, and (b) stick it to the republicans. Now CNN tells us that a number of other countries have been kind enough to offer their advice on how to run a clean election.

While I appreciate the advice, its utility rests almost entirely on the misguided assumption that the republicans actually want a clean election. They don't. They can no longer win in the presence of a clean election. It's been demonstrated.

Republican voters: When a few people tell you that you're being a jackass, it's fine to chalk it up to traitorous Democrats (sure, why not?). But for fuck's sake - the entire fucking world is telling you that you're being a jackass. Prominent members of your own party are telling you. Crawford, TX newspapers are telling you. MBA professors are telling you. Your own damn eyes are telling you. It's pretty much unanimous. Grow up, bite the bullet, eat some crow, and get away from bush, the neocons, and the christian right.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

John Rawls Goes To Afghanistan

On the NBC evening news, they ran a segment on the Afghan elections, which focussed a fair bit on the first woman to run for president in Afghan history. She noted to NBC that her schtick wasn't so much women's issues, but rather the fact that "her hands were empty". That is to say that she had no financial interests, no military interests, and was beholden neither to the warlords nor to the United States. Her description of her location with in Afghan "political space" reminded me of John Rawls.

Rawls was (I'm pretty sure he's dead) a bigwig political philosopher/ethicist during the middle 2/3 or so of the 20th century; his magnum opus was "A Theory of Justice". In that work (and probably earlier, in essays), his most popularly known idea was described: the veil of ignorance.

The problem Rawls sets for himself is to describe how we are going to determine a fair/just political/economic system. Rawls puts forth the veil of ignorance as a constraint on how that determination takes place. Ignoring the jillion-and-a-half details, the basic idea is that we all go into a room to hash out amongst ourselves how "the system" should be. But there are two wrinkles: (1) we have to ourselves live under the system that gets designed, and (2) we have no idea who we will be or what role we will play within that system. Presumably the point of the veil of ignorance is clear: it's not helpful, for serious dicussion, to get suggestions of the form "Let's have a monarchy, where I'm the king!".

The veil of ignorance is a powerful idea, and many trees have lost their lives in the course of attempts to explain, defend, criticize, and elaborate it. There are many fascinating interconnections between the veil of ignorance and Kantian ideas, cake-cutting problems, and a variety of other topics.

At the moment though, my only concern is to note the applicability of the concept to the first female Afghan candidate. She is operating very much behind a veil of ignorance in the sense that her society is, like most websites, currently under construction. She doesn't know where she'll end up in the new order (although it probably couldn't be much worse than under the old/current order). Lacking essentially all the biases that color the other candidates, she goes into the race with empty hands.

That's too good to be schtick - that's just fucking awesome.

Rock on lady. I only wish that more of our military were around to help ensure your safety.

WalMart - the great provider of the American dream!

I know not to watch Faux News! I know not to watch Faux News! I know not to watch Faux News! The power of Christ compels me! The power of Christ compels me! The power of Christ compels me!

Phew - that was close. Anyhoo, just saw a Walmart commercial on Faux News. The stars were an hispanic family - 1st generation from the looks of it - with a teenage son (of typical doofus overweight American looks). The parents both work at WalMart, and are ecstatic about it. Their son just started working there, and apparently "wants to be a pharmacist. Of course, not a damn thing is said that links working at WalMart with being a pharmacist, but whatever. The commercial closed with:

We are truly living the American dream, and it's at WalMart.

Welcome to george bush's America folks. Working at WalMart is now the American dream.

Peace out - I found a place with all-you-can-eat crab legs (hot, not cold either)!

De beginning of De end of Delay...

Thank fucking god - let's get the censure going, followed by loss of seat, followed by indictments. That would make for the best birthday in the world!

Who redirected FactCheck.com to Soros' website?

I don't know, but doing a WHOIS on that domain turns up that it's owned by a company called Domain Name Sales, Corp - presumably a domain squatter.

I was under the impression that corporations had to list executive-level management, but I couldn't find that information anywhere on their website.

Of course, that might very well apply only to American corporations. Looking through the Terms and Conditions page, I found this address:

Domain Name Sales Corp.
10318 APO Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands BWI,

and this for legal jurisdiction:


So my current best conjecture is that DNS Corp. is a Canadian company that has offshored it's main office to the Caymans for tax purposes.

I couldn't find anything on the factcheck.com page - say in the meta tags - that had any useful information.

Forgot to get on the record early....

My prediction is that, unless there are any dramatic changes in the next month, Kerry will win by a landslide. I've had that opinion for at least the last six months, but I just wanted to get it in writing, for that future "nyah-nyah!" moment.

I'm eternally optimistic with regards to my countrymen.

Hah! I beat Josh Marshall by hours!


His and mine

Bigwigs watch out! I'm'a comin'!! lol

Media REFUSES to say the words "Edwards won"

I've heard exactly the same words from different talking-head-bots on MSNBC (mebbe I should switch channels, eh?)

Their online poll puts Cheney at 41%, Edwards at 59%. Decisive Edwards win, no? No.

They say instead:

"41% of you say that Cheney won the debate, while 59% think that Edwards made a stronger showing."

"Cheney won the debate"
"Edwards made a stronger showing"

Assholes. They just can't bring themselves to say, say, "By a 59/41 margin, poll responders say Edwards won the debate". Jackasses.

Even business schools hate bush...

In a letter to bush, they write:

As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.

There you go.

But I especially love this part:

We also urge you to consider the distributional consequences of your policies.

LOL - (a) bush is not able to parse such sentences, and (b) bush knows and embraces the consequences of his policies - that's the problem.

At some point, people have to get their heads out of their asses, and come face-to-face with the fact that bush isn't even trying to do good. Quite the opposite, in fact.

CNN poll disenfranchisement question...

Anyone know if it's possible to find out, when CNN.com had the VP winner poll down, whether or not CNN gave a heads up to freepers and other republicans about when the who-won poll would be back up?

I know it's conspiratorial, but it's only a conjecture. I'd be happy with an answer in either direction.

Call the police! Edwards assaulted Halliburton!

lol - those idiot members of the bush campaign...

Matthew Dowd was just on the tube, and was asked why the VP debate had gotten so personal. He repsonded:

I think there were some personal attacks on Halliburton.

Sheesh. I know there are a lot of ways in which corporations have legal standing similar to people, but surely - surely - people can't launch personal attacks on corporations? Were they ad hominem? Was Halliburton's feelings hurt (notice the singular "was", rather than the plural "were")? Did Edwards "out" Halliburton's son?

C'mon guys.

I like to think I'm as sexist as the next guy, but....

... this is just going too far:

The Center for Reproductive Rights said some states have old laws on the books that would be triggered by the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) decision. Others have language in their state constitutions or strongly anti-abortion legislatures that would act quickly if the federal protection for abortion was ended and the issue reverted to the states.

Folks, our freedoms are under attack. In some cases our health is under attack. They are serious about this shit guys.

Women: You really have to, um, fight for this shit.

I'm no big fan of abortion - to put it mildly. The way to deal with it, though, is not to ban it, but rather to create a surrounding environment within which it is unnecessary in all but the most extreme cases. Such an environment would include things like: practical sex education, including both abstinence and birth control, an economy within which it is possible to have a child without destroying one's financial future, a sense of shared responsibility among couples, and so on. In such an enviroment, abortions would be minimized, typically only taking place when there are no other options. This is an environment that we should strive for.

Another immediate VP debate winner would have been...

"Mr. Cheney talks a lot about supporting freedom. Then why did he actively do everything in his power to support the racist apartheid government of South Africa? To America I ask: who is the real flip-flopper?"

Bam. Debate over.

Bam. Election over.

Our wonderful electorate.... a new weakest link!

"I'm very supportive of Bush. He likes our sport. He's always been supportive of my sport."

Tony Stewart, NASCAR driver, on MSNBC just a few moments ago. Jackass.

"We're racecar drivers. We don't worry about politics."

That's the problem with America folks. Right there. We the people are not doing our job. Lazy stupid mean bastards.

It takes a village to raise a child, and it also takes a village to raise a jackass.

(This is largely a follow-up to a previous rant of mine

The Great American Experiment.... coming to a close...

Almost 4 years ago, some bright fellow (yes, it was most definitely a man) conjectured that a mean, lying, incompetent fool could run this country as well as an educated, hard-working, and well-meaning hick who liked blowjobs.

So they tried it. Over the objections of everyone that had a brain, Don Quixote was elected POTUS. Well, more-or-less.

Lo and behold, it didn't turn out so well. (I'm shocked! Shocked!)

This may well be the final nail:

The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.

The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West.

This is the guy who went in after David Kay (the first guy Bush sent in, who told us there wasn't crap to be found), to finish Kay's job.

The verdict is in: there weren't even Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities. Final answer? Final answer.

To my swelling republican readership: You've been hoodwinked. You'd been had. You've been took. You've been led astray, led amok. You've been bamboozled.

So what are you gonna do about it? Or do you just not care?

Careful here: your collective answer to this will, in large part, determine the future - such as it is - of this country. The other half is working hard, but there's only so long we can carry dead weight.

CNN is a bunch of lying cheating jackasses!

Yeah, yeah, tell you something you didn't know...

Ok, here we go. Last night, CNN had a who-won poll. Edwards was winning it massively - 78% to something less. CNN takes the poll down, replacing it with something idiotic like "Did the debate help to shape your vote?". Now they've put the original poll back up, after cleaning the numbers. Edwards is still winning, but not by nearly so much.

Full-ish story, along with cached evidence, is here.

Talk about voter disenfranchisement. Fuckers.

Why the hell do so many Americans insist on a mean, incompetent government. Any conclusion other than "because that truly represents Americans" would be much appreciated - my creativity on the matter is lacking...

(My only) thought on the Scott Peterson case...

Apparently the prosecution is trying to get a conviction on the "it's not reasonable to think anyone else did it" train.

I don't like that train.

In the child's game, the rebuttal is to say "au contraire - it is reasonable to think someone else did it". Then the prosecution says "oh yah? PROVE IT! Show me who did it, if not Peterson!".

And that's where it all goes to hell. The point of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is to define where the burden of proof lies. In particular, it is never required, for a successful defense, that defense counsel determine the actual perpetrator.

But that seems to be precisely what the Peterson prosecution's case is built on. If Peterson can't produce the actual killer, then we'll take him.

If my understanding of the strategy is anything close to correct, I can't see anything but a quick and unanimous acquittal in Peterson's near future. The cheating bastard mighta done it, but I'll be damned if I convict based on that argument.

Ok - enough tv soap opera blogging.

Kos nails it again...

Asshole ;)


bush-cheney representative on MSNC (cute-ish blonde chick) said the following:

"John Edwards never showed up in the United States Senate doing his job as a senator."

She said it. Flat out. And she meant it - the MSNBC talking-head-bot tried to get her to take it back - she wasn't hearin it.

bush-cheney: Escalating the war against reality.

They're baaa-aaack!

Just saw a new Swiftboat Liars commercial. It ends with the question "If we couldn't trust him then, how can we trust him now?".

Indeed. That's right guys, just keep bringing up Vietnam. While you're at it, you wanna do me a favor and lash bush to the timbers, spread the gasoline, and light the match too? Thanks!

Wow -- this talking-point business is awesome!

Can I get a job doing it?

Try this one on for size:

Instead of prosecuting a war against terrorism, Bush has prosecuted a war against reality. Against reality by lying to the American people about "progress" in Iraq. Against reality by ignoring science and quashing scientific inquiry. Against reality by losing millions of jobs, and then talking about how strong our economy is. Against reality by saying "A President's job is to protect America", while doing nothing that actually protects America.

The public's choice in November is clear: Bush, or the truth. You can't have both.

republican talking points... (if by "losing" you mean "winning"...)

Their message people on the news today are repeatedly getting ask questions of the form: Are you glad Cheney did so well, given the ground you had to make up after Bush's first debate?

Their answer is uniform: "I disagree with the premise of your question; the president performed magnificently....." (I just heard this specific one on MSNBC.)

At some point, the Kerry campaign needs to pick this up and show it off as an example of how divorced from reality the bushies are.

Here's a headline:

Bush, living in a fantasy-world, tries to use the Jedi-mind-trick on electorate.

Now that's mockery, folks! lol

I've been watching CNN for over 45 minutes now...

... and I've yet to hear word one from their pundits regarding who won the debate.

Are they "Mt. St. Helens-ing" the issue? (I.e. sick of trying to fight against the tide of popular outcry for Edwards, so they just refuse to talk about it. Most recently implemented via 6 hours of Mt. St. Helens non-story.)

I'll try MSNBC for awhile... see if they wuss out on the matter...

(II) This is why I would have succeeded where Edwards failed...

"Are there fewer terrorists now than there were four years ago?"

Bam. Debate's over.

Bam. Election's over.

Hoo-aah! Kerry 2008!

After a night to sleep on the VP debate....

... I still feel basically the same way. I have realized, however, that there is a useful and different perspective one might have on the matter.

I feel that Edwards lost basically because he didn't achieve a smashing victory. Chalk such an attitude up to a rich history in sports on my part.

The mirror-image opinion is that Edwards won, because Cheney didn't achieve a smashing victory (and he's supposed to be the voice of experience, yadayadayada). Or, to put it another way, Edwards exhibited just as much "gravitas" as Cheney did. Therefore Cheney lost.

Fair enough. I personally prefer my original assessment, but that's probably just because I count anything as a loss where you don't beat your opponent into a bloody, whiny pulp. But I can appreciate the validity of the opposing view given above.

At any rate, it appears that the online-poll-world has settled on Edwards being crowned the winner, and the bigwig pundits seem to be torn on the issue.

If you feel like poll-stacking, there's a wonderfully complete list of available polls at the Democratic Underground. It's a wonderful site in general, even though they've banned me (enter violins).

Update: Oh yeah. There's one more excellent reason to judge Edwards the winner, and not Cheney. Edwards wasn't a liar last night; Cheney was: 1, 2, 3. More coming.

(I) This is why I would have succeeded where Edwards failed...

"The source of the single greatest terrorist attack in the history of the world is telling you that you're safer with them than you are with us."

Bam. Debate's over.

Bam. Election's over.

Hello. Re-elect Kerry in 2008!

That's really all there is to it, folks. Now I'm going to bed for reals. Peace out.

Second drunken thought on the VP debate...

Put it this way.....

Against Cheney? I - personally - would have won the debate. Flat out. Hands down. That's what I mean when I say Edwards lost. I was more ready with comebacks and offensive points than Edwards was. And that disappoints me - and moreover, it pisses me off; I thought the Democrats had gotten past that kind of crap a few months ago...

So I have to hope that the Kerry campaign has something larger in mind...

But again, Edwards' loss doesn't even remotely compare to Bush's previous loss. The race is still Kerry's to lose.

The VP debate....

I'm a little drunk right now, so I've only got 4 things to say about it:

(1) Cheney won - but nowhere near to the degree that Kerry beat Bush a week ago.

(2) In light of (1), it's a damn good thing for Democrats that Cheney isn't running for POTUS.

(3) The follow-up spin will drive trucks through damn near every statement/lie Cheney uttered.

(4) Edwards should've been the one driving the aforementioned truck. He wasn't, and that's why he's the loser of this one.

More when I've sobered up - but all in all, it's just about the mildest loss for the Kerry campaign possible. In fact, it could, all told, end up being a victory for Kerry, because of the examination the media will give it, thus giving examination to Cheney's lies. We'll see.

However - and this is almost certainly overanalyzing - it would be a move of brilliance for Kerry to put a let-down in front of the best the opposition campaign has to offer, and then come back with two smack-down bitch-slap debates. But that is overanalyzing, no doubt about it.

I think a lot rides on how much the idiot/republican media delves into the lies Cheney told. Again, we'll see.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

The biggest threat facing America is....

... the stupidity of its citizens...

According to Atrios, Gallup polling says that 62% of republicans still believe that Saddam was involved with 9/11.

(a) He didn't provide a link, and I couldn't find it within 30 seconds of searching. Lil help?

(b) I'd be curious to know what the number is for Democrats. I'd be surprised if it was more than 1/2 that of republicans.

(c) 62% of republicans is approximately 30% of the total population. Let those jackasses vote for bush. To the other 38% of the republicans: how do you feel about an administration that lies to you at every turn, and starts a war that had nothing to do with terrorism? (Except possibly in the racist sense in which every brown-skinned person is likely to be a terrorist...)

(d) This reason and similar ones, there's a long line forming of prominent republicans coming out of the not-voting-for-bush closet. Prediction: McCain will, in the end, admit to not being able to, in good conscience, vote for bush. He just needs a pre-existing line of republicans to come out first, so as not to be "the disloyal one", and hence kill his future chances at becoming POTUS.

(e) My guess is that a lot of those 62% don't actually still think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. I think some of them are simply acting juvenile, refusing let go of a thoroughly discredited claim for fear of "looking stupid". That's juvenile precisely because they now look stupider than they ever would have in the first place. I think there are also some others who are of the opinion that it doesn't matter if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 specifically, in one way or another, he was up to no good. This is of course reminiscent of white America's treatment of black defendants in kangaroo courts: "It don't matter if the nigger actually committed this crime or not, he either did somethin else, or was about to". Minority Report indeed. And then of course there are the just-plain-dumb ones who actually believe administration lies.

So which kind of republican are you, republican reader?

Supporting the troops - republican style...

Typical of bush-cheney - talk about supporting the troops, then kick 'em when they're out of the "troopy" spotlight... Especially kick 'em if they have the audacity to be of a different party. And give 'em an extra kick if they're ballsy enough to actually run for office.

Does anyone not see the difference between Democrats and republicans here? Democrats, to my knowledge, never put down our service-people for simply being republican. If only vice-versa were true.

And yet large swaths of the American public think that republicans are the stalwart supporters of our troops, while Democrats are not? Sheesh.

Monday, October 04, 2004

From the you-heard-it-here-first file...

Finally, tonight on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, I hear a discussion of my post below (no permalinks, sorry) on the hypocrisy of Rather's excoriation for an honest mistake vs no consequences for 2 Fox News flat-out lies and fabrications.

Sheesh. Where's Matt Bivens when you need him: Where's the Fucking Outrage? (The new guy The Nation has isn't awful, and I'm sure he's well-meaning, but he wouldn't have an edge if he screwed every member of U2.)

Why is everyone so scared to report Fox News lies and fabrications? I just don't understand the general wussiness of the media.

OMG! Military brass prefers bush!

Of course, that's not how the lying, jackass media describes the situation. Instead, their headline is "Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry". Troops. Not brass. Only in the bowels of the article do we find the truth:

The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll. Its readers are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole.

LOL! So they cherry-pick from the officer ranks, and then call the conclusion what the "troops" think. Christ.

I guess it's not unprecedented though. I can recall a scene in the movie G.I. Jane, where the evil CO told Jane "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you"....

There's plenty of stuff floating around that leads one to the exact opposite conclusion - for the grunts. And it's pretty much always been that way. Priveleged kids get to be officers, and also republican, while po' folks get to do the dying, and are democrats. I'll dig up some recent stuff on this, if anyone's interested.

For fuck's sake - am I the only one who remembers:

(a) Cheny bitching about how Clinton had destroyed the military, and his clarion call "Help is on the way",

(b) how bush has cut military pay several times, has just cut the VA dept staff, so that our 1000s of Iraq-injured ocming home with claims never get served,

(c) has put stop-loss orders in effect for an indefinite amount of time,

(d) how recruiters call families incessantly filling poor kids' ears with bald-faced lies,

(e) how the military has been threatening reservists with Iraq deployments if they don't re-enlist?

And a bunch of other crap - feel free to add your own... Bottom line is, for the military personnel who actually do the killing and dying, republicans have been the worst thing ever.

Contrary to what republicans and sympathizers say, I fail to see how the real troops could feel anything but contempt for republicans. Except, of course, for the fact that republicans lie to the military 24-7 (e.g., force feeding them Rush Limbaugh).

And yet the media is still willing to use the phrase "the troops" rather than "the brass" or "the leadership", or "career officers", or any of a host of more accurate variants.


Update: In fairness, the entire media doesn't deserve the credit - one Dave Moniz does. I don't know anything about him or his proclivities for bias, but this article certainly deserves to compete for the Fox News Dustbin of Journalism award.

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Ok, this is just too cool not to share...

I was about to be done for the night, but if anyone out there is reading this (why is beyond me), check out this site - I came across it on slashdot...

That's some freaky shit... lol...

That cheatin' son of a bitch...

Ask for a little more research, and ye shall receive... Posted by Hello

Update - Ok, my bad, I shouldn't post stuff without any hint of context. From time to time, I get the idea in my head that everyone out there reads all the same stuff that I do. It's a really stupid idea when you realize that if that were so, there'd be little reason for me to blog in the first place... Anyhoo, for the backstory on this pic, click here. Sorry for any confusion...

Another prominent republican is sick of staying the course!

Lincoln Chafee - a republican senator from Rhode Island (an oddity in itself) can't in good conscience vote for gdub next month.

What a good guy. Party loyalty is one thing, and embedded within a larger context of hunky-doriness, has its place. But not when the whole damn country is in the process of being destroyed for god's sake.

The problems I've described in previous posts with the American electorate - viz. the juvenile sticking-to-republican-guns-no-matter-how-stupid-the-position-is business - also infects the bulk of the office-holding republicans. Chafee, to the contrary, has finally demonstrated that he has a conscience, and has now shown himself to have entered adulthood. I welcome him.

He even has trouble sleeping at night because he hasn't left the republican party altogether. What a wonderful person.

By the way - if you're voting for republicans, and you're either black, non-white in general, female, gay, or less than affluent, then you're a fool. If someone without any of those characteristics can find some conscience, can't you?

If you, poor, black, gay, or female person, are one of those republican voters, you never have to ask whether or not you look like a bitch - we can all see you getting fucked like one.

gdub's debate earpiece?

There's a fair bit of speculation going around the blogosphere concerning whether or not gdub had an earpiece on during the debate, through which he was receiving his lines.

The first piece of "evidence" for this notion is that all cell phones and electronic devices were reported as suddenly not functioning at the debate hall about an hour before the debate. This is taken by believers in the theory that the SS was setting up for gdub.

The second piece of "evidence" is taken from the debate itself - about 40min 30sec in fact, where he demands of "someone" to be allowed to finish his answer. Thing is, neither Kerry nor Lehrer had said anything to gdub. You can check out the video yourself here (Real format).

Several things struck me while seeing that piece of the video.

(1) gdub did have a heavy stop, before asking to be allowed to continue. The heaviness of the stop might have been noticable to gdub, who might then have requested as he did.

(2) I would need to see Lehrer at that moment, to see if he had any "questioning expression" on his face, as though he were, through body language, asking gdub if he was done.

(3) I would need to verify whether or not gdub was actually looking at Lehrer when he made his request to be allowed to continue.

(4) If gdub was receiving lines through a earpiece, it's the most wildly unsuccessful attempt at cheating in the world. It just goes to show you - an idiot receiving lines is nothing more than, well, an idiot.

(5) While the video is odd, it doesn't seem clear enough for me to jump on the earpiece bandwagon. It does however merit further and serious investigation. If those fuckers are cheating, I'd love to know about it, and I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

C-SPAN Interview with media bigwigs.....

This was done on Saturday, apparently, with Brokaw, Rather, and Jennings talking about the direction of the media, blahblahblah. Good stuff - quite interesting.

The rerun I'm watching isn't over yet, but as far as overall impressions go, all three are very good, but only Rather takes seriously the concept that the media failed in the runup to war. Moreover, Rather is the only one with any serious idea about what should be the "nobility" of the media.

But all three were pretty good.

Damn democracy weak points......

Was just watching one of the Sunday talkshows - was about to go to commercial - had an undecided voter on....

... The Daily Show had the right of it as far as the concept "undecided voter" is concerned. You've gotta be a fucking idiot to be undecided at this point. Blind, deaf, and illiterate, too. And probably mean, uncaring, and selfish.

... But the cut-to-commercial clip was an old lady talking about how she hopes she doesn't have to play tic-tac-toe on election day, as a method of figuring out who to vote for.

Christ. There's an retarded electorate for you.

Gotta love the media.....

Just a quick note...

Since the initial Kerry-clearly-won-the-debate claims that could be seen clearly in the polls, the media has actively done its damnedest to change the fact - rather than simply reporting the fact.

I just don't understand why the media fights so hard for bush. They skew commentary panels to be pro-bush. They skew focus groups to be pro-bush. They give more time to the republicans that to the democrats. They ask idiotically easy questions of republicans. They allow obvious lies and distortions to drop from republican interviewee's mouths without challenge.

republicans have controlled the American government for about a decade, and the only things that have gone right have been in spite of them. Why is the media so easy on republicans?

The only answer I can come up with: People in the media are just as stupid as the general American electorate.

And that's the root weakness of a democracy. If the general public doesn't live up to its constitutional responsibilities (yes, Clyde, there are 4 branches of constitutional government, not 3), this "electorate rot" will infect and destroy the other branches of government. No other branch of government has such inimical power - albeit it gets expressed over a long period of time.

Got the McGruder transcript!

CNN finally put it up..... here it is in all its glory.... I'll have a few comments to make later today, when I'm actually awake....

BROWN: We'll talk with Aaron McGruder, the cartoonist with an edge, to say the least. We'll take a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT, on the road in Los Angeles.


BROWN: During the conventions, we used this space to explore a different point of view, a contrarian point of view, if you will. It's safe to say there's frequently no more contrarian view than a cartoonist.

We're joined by Aaron McGruder. His cartoon, "The Boondocks," is syndicated most days in over 300 newspapers, but sometimes a few less, depending on the material.

Good to see you.


BROWN: All right. Two sentences: who won the debate? You're going to say this.

MCGRUDER: Kerry. He got his ass whooped.

BROWN: Who did?

MCGRUDER: Kerry. I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. George Bush.

BROWN: You set that whole line up, and then you blew it.

MCGRUDER: I did. No, it was -- it was a very clear victory.

You know, what bothers me about shows like this, and all the news shows, after Bush talks I hear all these smart people completely ignoring the elephant in the room. And the elephant in the room, which nobody wants to say, is that Bush is not a smart man. He can't articulate well. He doesn't speak in complete sentences.

BROWN: Well...

MCGRUDER: And everyone just ignores it, like that's OK.

BROWN: OK. So...

MCGRUDER: But he's really dumb.

BROWN: OK. That's a different thing. Let's say he is not articulate. And I think they would concede he's not the most articulate guy on the planet. It doesn't mean he doesn't have convictions. It doesn't mean he believes in some things. It doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. It just means he can't express himself.

MCGRUDER: But beliefs don't mean anything if you're stupid. And not only that, but he -- it's almost as though he's talking to the dumbest segment of society, whereas Kerry...

BROWN: Aaron, don't you think that's an incredibly arrogant way to look at the world?

MCGRUDER: It's -- you know, it's real, you know? It's just that nobody is saying the obvious, which is the man is not smart and he's the president.

BROWN: I wouldn't say that...

MCGRUDER: Everybody knows it, but nobody is saying it.

BROWN: What does that say, then, about the 52 or three or one, or maybe it's 49.5 tonight, percent of the country that not only believes he is smart enough to run the country now but should be the guy to run the country for the next four years?

MCGRUDER: I think they have been woefully misled. I think -- I think Americans have a natural inclination, like all people around the world, to believe that their government is not corrupt, that the people are fair and smart and they're not lying to them.

And history doesn't prove that out. And current events doesn't prove that out. The American people have been lied to, and it's at the point now where I think that that percentage of people simply are not interested in the truth. They don't want to go down the road the thought that the president, one, is not intelligent; and two, the people behind the president who are intelligent are deliberately lying and misleading the American people constantly.

BROWN: Let me see -- let me see how cynical you are.


BROWN: Do you believe that a Kerry presidency would be there -- would be more honest, or is this a corruption, in your view, of the entire establishment?

MCGRUDER: I -- I don't blame it -- I mean, to say the establishment is oversimplified. I think that the institution of journalism has failed in its responsibility to hold the government accountable. The government's doing what it's supposed to do when left unchecked.

I do think Kerry would be better than Bush. I think he would be more honest. I think he would be more intelligent. But that's -- everybody knows that already. That's not really in anyone's debate. It's just people have picked a side.

It's -- you know, it's like, you know -- it's the kind of weird God people in the middle of America, the people that live on the coasts fly over. We don't talk to those people. We don't understand those people, and they don't understand us.

But nobody just says the obvious, that their president can't articulate himself and is dumb. And it drives me nuts. BROWN: I got all that.

MCGRUDER: There you go.

BROWN: Nice to meet you.

MCGRUDER: It is a pleasure. Thank you for having me on.

BROWN: Come back, too.

MCGRUDER: If you let me.

BROWN: I will. We're equal opportunity around here.

MCGRUDER: There you go.

BROWN: In every respect. Thank you.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Why are republicans always so hypocritical?

Sheesh. A reporter for CBS, possibly the most respected in the business, screws up a story that reflects bad on bush, apologizes for it, gets lambasted on tv for an entire week, and the calls for his darwing and quartering have yet to subside.

A reporter for Fox literally makes up a story that reflects bad on Kerry, apologizes for it, and...... well.... nothing.... not a peep....

Liberal media indeed.... jackasses...

New republican slogan: Bin Laden or Bust!

Short of an Osama-sized October surprise, I can't imagine the American public being stupid enough to elect bush on Nov 2.

I'm not going to bother with post-debate analysis. There's a bunch of good stuff all over the internet - Kos, Atrios, Drum, Josh Marshall, and the rest. Have fun.

However - ENOUGH OF MT ST HELENS COVERAGE!!! It's a complete non-event - a little bit of steam - sheesh. It seems pretty clear that the only reason to cover it so obsessively was because of the news networks' failed morning attempts to spin the Kerry victory as something else. Because that failed, they went to Plan B - show something else, no matter how trivial, and make it out to be the most important thing in the world.

I really don't know why the media has been SO anti-Democrat for the last decade. I really don't.

Anyone out there see Aaron McGruder with Aaron Brown on CNN last night?

(Sigh. For any who don't know, McGruder is the author of Boondocks - a contemporary cartoon series - sort of like an urban Doonesbury.)

Best post-debate interview ever. That mofo tells the truth.

I've been looking for a transcript - or even a quote - for about the last hour, and have come up with absolutely nothing. Here's the only quote I can be sure I recall exactly:

"Bush got his ass whupped by Kerry."


McGruder then went off about the elephant in the room - i.e., everyone knows gdub is an idiot, but no body talks about it.

Brown tried to reel him in, but McGruder wasn't having any of it. In the end, McGruder got the best of Brown by far - by insisting on discussing the truth of his claims, rather than their politeness.

Dammit - I want that transcript. Lil help out there? I can't find anyone anywhere on the internet who references the interview.

Damn anti-Kerry media spin......

Ok, I'm back..... I'll have a few up today, mostly about the debates.

Kerry won. Flat out. Big time.

All the stuff they say about Bush looking like a whiny bitch is correct.

All the polls agree, by landslides, that Kerry won.

Conservatives agree that Kerry won.

So why can't the fucking media accept it?

All I hear this morning is commentary aimed directly at minimizing or denying the victory.

I'll give some concrete examples after I finish waking up. I'll probably add to that list over the say.