Saturday, April 1, 2006


So you've all heard this:

Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had an altercation with a Capitol Police officer, said yesterday that the officer started the incident by "inappropriately touching and stopping" her after she walked past a security checkpoint.

McKinney, speaking at a news conference where she was joined by singer Harry Belafonte and actor Danny Glover, said she understands that a case against her may be referred for prosecution but declared that she will be exonerated.


And I read Aravosis:


I'm sorry, but what a pitiful excuse for a Democrat. Yes, let's cry racism and sexism and Democratism, I guess you'd call it, because a cop didn't recognize you and you decided to not even wear your member of Congress pin, or turn around when the cop called out to you while we're at war. Next time, it'll be better if the cop lets strangers without their pins just barge into the halls of Congress, bypass security, and oh blow the hell out of the entire building because they're afraid the person they stop might be - what? - a Democrat?


And also John Emerson:


John Aravosis of Americablog, normally one of my favorite blogs, just posted an intemperate and unjustified slam at Rep. Cynthia McKinney, NOW, and the NAACP. The issue was McKinney's recent altercation with the capitol police. Aravosis and several commenters went completely out of control, as did Neil Boortz. I don't know enough about the specifics of the case to be sure what I think, but neither did Aravosis.


And Pam has Neal Boortz:


BOORTZ: No, it's not braided. It just flies away from her head in every conceivable direction. It looks like an explosion in a Brillo pad factory. It's just hideous. To me, that hairstyle just shows contempt for -- no, it's not an Afro. I mean, no, it just shows contempt for the position that she holds and the body that she serves in. And, I'm sorry, there's just no other way to -- it's just a hideous and horrible looking --


Number one, Boortz is a simple-minded, racist idiot. That said, I'm going with Aravosis on this. McKinney provoked the confrontation, knowingly or not. She should have worn proper identification and there would have been no problem. There are 435 members of Congress and the police can't be expected to know them all on sight. If wearing a pin was all that was needed or, in lieu of that, her being asked for ID (which I believe the cop was trying to do), this situation never would have arisen. Ask Al Sharpton about a young woman named Tawana Brawley and how playing the race card when it's unjustified affects your credibility. I also think Emerson, much as I like him, went a bit overboard putting Aravosis in the same league as Boortz.

Uh...never mind...

Condi must have read Gord's post last night:

BLACKBURN, England (CNN) -- One day after Condoleezza Rice said the United States made possibly "thousands" of tactical mistakes in the war against Iraq, the secretary of state says she was speaking "figuratively, not literally."


How, please tell me how, this woman got a doctorate? She has got to be one of the dumbest things on two legs.

A good Saturday morning rant

...from BuzzFlash:

Dick Cheney loves to go on the Sunday talk shows and grumble about how Democrats are blind to the hard realities of the "post 9/11 world." Dare to question The World According to Cheney, and you're branded a traitor, an enemy and - worst of all, you get slapped with the mother of all zingers: "you're stuck in pre-9/11 reality." Just what we need: lectures on reality from the criminally insane.

The impact of 9/11, profound as it may be, is dwarfed by the impact of the Bush-Cheney regime. If anything has altered reality, it is the ascendancy of these sickos to the highest positions of human power in our universe. Every aspect of geopolitical reality has been transformed by this mad cabal in a mere five horrific years. The world is indeed a different place since 9/11, due not to straw dog villains like Osama but to methodical perpetrators of raw all-encompassing evil like the Bush-Cheney gang. They have delivered to the earth and its dwellers a regime of toxicity and death. They have turned the clock back and resuscitated old and nearly-conquered demons and threats to our collective well-being and our very survival. They have breathed new life and vitality into the most dread scourges of our planet: disease, overpopulation, nuclear proliferation, environmental holocaust, torture, war crimes, genocide.

A quick, enjoyable read.

We're a trick and Bush is the ho

Gary Hart

A few weeks ago, I published an opinion piece entitled "And Now for Their Next Trick." The piece predicted that a new Iraqi government, more or less picked by the U.S., would invite the U.S. to stay in Iraq as a stabilizing force and that we were constructing permanent military bases for this purpose, all in accordance with the original neoconservative/imperial agenda in the Middle East.

I have been pleading with the American press corps for months to ask the Bush administration one simple question, a question designed to expose our true agenda: "Are we, or are we not, constructing permanent military bases in Iraq?" Full stop.

As we learned nothing from the French experience in Indochina, we have learned nothing from the 28-year British occupation of Iraq. Presumably, our remaining forces, say 50,000 to 75,000, will be garrisoned outside the chaotic urban areas where they will be used to keep Syria at bay, intimidate the Iranians, and protect the Saudis (and their/our oil). Problem is, garrisoned U.S. forces will be safe within their fortresses from suicide bombers but sitting targets for mortars and IEDs launched by primitive artillery.

Anyone thinking we are entering the end-game better wake up. Our neoconservative policy makers are still willing to risk the U.S. Army in a mad Middle East imperial scheme that composed the real reason for the Iraq war in the first place.

This whole Iraq deal has to come to a screechin' halt. Somehow. Soon.

Navel gazing

I'm not prone to write about blogging. It is what it is for each individually. Some want to make a living at it, others just to vent. We all do it for different reasons. Me? Hopefully to lend a little of my experience to the whole in order to move this nation, and in turn the world, onto a better path in order to assure a bright future for our progeny. It's good anger management too. After blogging regularly for almost 2 years now, I've been looking back to see how far we've come toward that goal. I ask this question now to get a feel for what we think of ourselves.

Were there no such thing as blogging and the 'alternative media' of the Internets, do you think the Chimp/Repukes/Neocons would have gotten away with their master plan? In other words, do you think the 'MSM' has been so corrupted, co-opted, and compromised that without us lookng over their shoulders the Chimp would not have 37% approval ratings and the public would still believe the lies told to get us into Iraq?


So when are we gonna hear the 'MSM' come around to realizing the Republican Party is a criminal enterprise?

Tony C. Rudy, a former deputy chief of staff to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), pleaded guilty yesterday to charges that he conspired with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff to corrupt public officials and defraud his clients, as a burgeoning corruption probe took one step closer to members of Congress.


I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but if this many folks connected to one entity get indicted in New York, the Organized Crime Task Force is on the case. We've had a lot of experience with this. It's called the Mafia. Rupert Murdoch's folks at the New York Post can tell ya all about them during respites from progressive-bashing. How many more Repukes will have to be indicted before the American people will be shown the truth? How many more Repuke seats in Congress will be traded for an 8x8 cell before the press will finally grow the testicles to tell the truth about the elephant in the room they continue to ignore. It's not about politics anymore, it's about organized crime.

Link via memeorandum

Friday, March 31, 2006

Friday Cattle Dog Blogging

Princess Shayna wakes up from her early afternoon nap.

Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq


Events in Iraq are giving the lie to administration claims that all it wants to do is create a stable, democratic Iraq, and then leave.

The U.S. assault on the Mustafa Mosque, and the deaths of, variously, 16 insurgents or 37 unarmed worshippers (depending upon whether you believe the Pentagon or Iraqi police), has prompted calls from the Iraqi government for the U.S. to hand over control of security in Iraq to the local government.

But they're not doing it.


Because the Bush administration has no intention of leaving Iraq, particularly in the hands of its elected Shi'ia-led leadership.

The truth is that the U.S. is running Iraq from the giant U.S. Embassy compound in the Green Zone, and the Iraqi "government" remains a puppet regime. The truth is also that the U.S. has been spending billions of dollars not on Iraq reconstruction, which in any case is not being phased out if it ever was being attempted, but on building several large, permanent military bases inside Iraq, from which the U.S. has no intention of budging in the foreseeable future. (Want to guess where some of that "missing" $9 billion in U.S. reconstruction money has really gone?).

The Mosque attack also shows the terrible morass that American troops have been dumped into. They're getting shot at from all over the place--probably from mosques as much as anywhere--but if they shoot back, they end up killing innocents. And even when they kill people who were actually shooting at them, those people have families and friends who consider their deaths to be heroic and patriotic. So a blood feud against the American occupiers is made all the more bitter.

The U.S. has no interest in a successful Iraq government, since it is now clear that such a government will be Shi'ia led, and close to Iran politically. Therefore, my guess is that the fallback strategy is to rev up the Shi'ia militants, stir up civil strife, and perhaps even to get the Sunni minority, long the heart of opposition to the U.S., to turn to the U.S. for help, as the Kurds did years back.

U.S. troops have had a bit of a respite as Iraqi fighters were focused on other Iraqis in recent months, but the mosque attack, and word of several other massacres of innocents by U.S. forces, is sure to bring a renewed focus by Iraqi fighters on American soldiers. We can expect the body count, already past the 2300 mark, to start soaring.

I hate Bush and his handlers more with each passing day. Five years ago, I didn't think I was capable of this much hate. Thanks, assholes.

Fool me twice...

Foreign Policy

I used to think that the Bush administration wasn't seriously considering a military strike on Iran, because it would only accelerate Iran's nuclear program. But what we're seeing and hearing on Iran today seems awfully familiar. That may be because some U.S. officials have already decided they want to hit Iran hard.

Does this story line sound familiar? The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops. The intelligence agencies say the nuclear threat from this nation is 10 years away, but the director of intelligence paints a more ominous picture. A new U.S. national security strategy trumpets preemptive attacks and highlights the country as a major threat. And neoconservatives beat the war drums, as the cable media banner their stories with words like "countdown" and "showdown."

The nation making headlines today, of course, is Iran, not Iraq. But the parallels are striking. Three years after senior administration officials systematically misled the nation into a disastrous war, they could well be trying to do it again.

Fortunately, we know more about Iran's nuclear program now than we ever knew about Iraq's (or, for that matter, those of India, Israel, and Pakistan). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have been in Iran for more than 3 years investigating all claims of weapons-related work. The United States has satellite reconnaissance, covert programs, and Iranian dissidents providing further information. The key now is to get all this information on the table for an open debate.

An accurate and fully understood assessment of the status and potential of Iran's nuclear program is the essential basis for any policy. We cannot let the political or ideological agenda of a small group determine a national security decision that could create havoc in a critical area of the globe. Not again.

"Not Again" indeed. This administration doesn't give a rat's ass for facts, truth, or reality, but keeping 'em from fuckin' us over this time might at least be possible because we're onto their game, but Congress and the Media have to grow some balls.

Attacking Iran will be a disaster that might just sink this country what with Bush and His Rats chewing at the hull from the bilges. Time to throw 'em all overboard.

How many chances do ya get, anyway?


BLACKBURN, England (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accepted on Friday the United States had probably made thousands of errors in Iraq but defended the overall strategy of removing Saddam Hussein.

Fuckin' great. The strategy was to fix the motorcycle even though it didn't need fixin', and you screwed up the tactics as well by leaving all the fasteners loose that were tight when you started. We won't go into the bullshit you pulled on the customer to con him into lettin' you do unnecessary work against his better judgment, let alone the overcharges and ripoffs on your way to figuring out you didn't know what you were doing, which you won't admit. Now you've ended up with a really broken bike that doesn't even run. Lucky thing, too. It'd be unsafe to ride if it did.

I've lost jobs for a Hell of a lot less than these assholes pulled in Iraq. What's it gonna take to get rid of 'em?

I guess the customer can figure out what to do with the self-styled-but-lying expert mechanics in November, if not sooner. Bush&Co are lucky: if this administration was in the bike biz, they'da been shot by now.

Iraqis are catching on...

Apparently, the Iraqis have their own immigration problems:

Defying the naysayers, who claimed that political consensus in Iraq could never be reached, Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions found common ground today, and tentatively approved a sweeping immigration reform bill specifically aimed at deporting all Americans.

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari explained that the Americans had not been invited into Iraq, were here illegally, and were using Iraqi services without paying taxes.

However, not all in Iraq were supportive of this proposal. The President of the Iraqi Chamber of Commerce, a goat herder by trade, defended the Americans, claiming that they were merely performing the menial, dirty jobs that native Iraqis wouldn't do, such as defending the Country.

There is also a move underway to soften the harsh provisions of the bill though a guest worker program, by allowing Americans to become citizens of Iraq after six years in the Country. However, there is concern that under this program, the 135,000 American troops presently in Iraq will never leave.

They're learning American-style politics, seems like. Allah help them.

Try this Superman suit...

Are they fucking kidding me?

WASHINGTON - Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday, the latest twist in a running battle over the equipment the Pentagon gives its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Murray Neal, chief executive officer of Pinnacle, said he hadn't seen the directive and wants to review it.

"We know of no reason the Army may have to justify this action," Neal said. "On the surface this looks to be another of many attempts by the Army to cover up the billions of dollars spent on ineffective body armor systems which they continue to try quick fixes on to no avail."


I don't have much experience with body armor. The few times (2) I wore it (the heavy Vietnam-era flak jacket), I'd have rather done without, it reduced my speed and mobility that much. A couple of Iraq vets I've talked to said the Army-issue stuff, when upgraded to its highest level, hindered mobility to the point it was dangerous, which is the reason guys still wear the civilian stuff their friends and relatives sent over.

There's no point in having super-duper body armor if the troops can't function in it; if it leaves you a sitting duck. Why is it, in the quarter century since I went in, they haven't developed something good that the troops want to wear? I know body armor isn't as glamorous as new planes and ships, but by golly, we owe the grunts on the ground the best too. We have fighter aircraft that can take off vertically and ships that float on a cushion of air, yet we can't make body armor allowing the troops to be mobile and keep them safe at the same time? Until then, let them wear whatever the fuck they want to.

Hat tip to Kevin Hayden

Thursday, March 30, 2006

This joke did strike me as funny...

Old White Lady had me goin' to the very end on this one. Ha!


Somehow, I don't equate Neocons with with "Superfly" or "Shaft", but I guess it's all how you see yourself...

Fuck this

Fuck that, and fuck you.

I just started the war...


Our pal Creature directs us to our other pal RJ Eskow:


This particular buzzword's going to bring him down. It's "bring it on," squared. Here's a man who's spent a lifetime losing his nerve, who blinks in thinly disguised panic when he's asked a question that's not in the script.

Suddenly his character is crystallizing for the American people, and so -- by inference -- is that of the party that chose him to lead it;

- "Nerve" is playing the game on the field, not wearing cheerleader whites and waving your arms from the sidelines;
- "Nerve" is serving in combat when you support a war, not hiding behind beer kegs and sorority girls' dresses while others die in your place;
- "Nerve" is making your own way in the world, not spending a lifetime financially dependent on your family and its friends;
- "Nerve" is letting all the votes be counted and standing or falling on the results, not sending John Bolton into the vote counting rooms in Florida to say "I'm from the Bush/Cheney campaign and I'm here to stop the voting."
-'Nerve" is not sending other people's kids to die or be maimed to prop up your failing image as a strong leader.

I could go on, but the zeitgeist is doing my work for me. Like they say down South: "Son, I just got one nerve left in my body, and you just got on it."


Spot on, especially the last line.

Immigration 101 for Beginners and Non-Texans

Texan (the good kind) Molly Ivins weighs in on immigration.

Anyway, it was '83 or some year right around there when we held The Fence climbing contest. See, people talked about building The Fence back then, too. The Fence along the Mexican border. To keep Them out.

At the time, the proposal was quite specific - a 17-foot cyclone fence with bob wire at the top. So a test fence was built at Terlingua, and the First-Ever Terlingua Memorial Over, Under or Through Mexican Fence Climbing Contest took place. Prize: a case of Lone Star beer. Winning time: 30 seconds.

I tell this story to make the one single point about the border and immigration we know to be true: The Fence will not work. No fence will work. The Great darn Wall of China will not work. Do not build a fence. It will not work. They will come anyway. Over, under or through.

Some of you think a fence will work because Israel has one. Israel is a very small country. Anyone who says a fence can fix this problem is a demagogue and an ass.

Numero Two-o, should you actually want to stop Mexicans and OTMs (other than Mexicans) from coming to the United States, here is how to do it: Find an illegal worker at a large corporation. This is not difficult - brooms and mops are big tipoffs. Then put the CEO of that corporation in prison for two or more years for violating the law against hiring illegal workers.

Of course, this has been proposed before, because there is nothing new in the immigration debate. As the current issue of Texas Monthly reminds us, the old bracero program dating from World War II was actually amended in 1952 to pass the "Texas proviso," shielding employers of illegal workers from criminal penalties. They got the exemption because Texas growers flat refused to pay the required bracero wage of 30 cents an hour. Instead of punishing Texas growers for breaking the law, Congress rewarded them.

Racists seem obsessed by the idea that illegal workers - the hardest-working, poorest people in America - are somehow getting away with something, sneaking goodies that should be for Americans. You can always avoid this problem by having no social services. This is the refreshing Texas model, and it works a treat.

Aren't y'all grateful that we're down here doing exactly nothing for the people of our state, legal or illegal? Think what a terrible message it would send if you swapped Texas with Vermont, and they all got healthcare. In Texas, we never worry about illegals taking advantage of social benefits provided by our taxpayers. Incredibly clever, no?

One nice thing about the benefit of long experience with la frontera is that we in Texas don't have to run around getting all hysterical about immigrants. The border is porous. When you want cheap labor, you open it up; when you don't, you shut it down. It works to our benefit - it always has.

Believe it or not, I didn't quote all she had to say. Agree with her or not, go read the rest.

What it's like

Reader Mel turns me on to this Guardian article.

At a press conference in a cavernous Alabama warehouse, banners and posters are rolled out: "Abandon Iraq, not the Gulf coast!" A tall, white soldier steps forward in desert fatigues. "I was in Iraq when Katrina happened and I watched US citizens being washed ashore in New Orleans," he says. "War is oppression: we could be setting up hospitals right here. America is war-addicted. America is neglecting its poor."

A black reporter from a Fox TV news affiliate, visibly stunned, whispers: "Wow! That guy's pretty opinionated." Clearly such talk, even three years after the Iraq invasion, is still rare. This, after all, is the Deep South and this soldier less than a year ago was proudly serving his nation in Iraq.


But with the Chimp's approval rating in the low 30's, even the 'thoroughly red' are opening their eyes. The troops are coming home and telling their stories of what's really going on over there. Even the Fox News crowd is beginning to see it.


Becoming a peace activist, he says, has been a "cleansing" experience. "I'll never be normal again. I'll always have a sense of guilt." He tells us that he witnessed civilian Iraqis being killed indiscriminately. It would not be the most startling admission by the soldiers on the march.

"When IEDs [Improvised Explosive Devices] would go off by the side of the road, the instructions were - or the practice was - to basically shoot up the landscape, anything that moved. And that kind of thing would happen a lot." So innocent people were killed? "It happened, yes." (He says he did not carry out any such killings himself.)

Blake, an activist with IVAW for the past 12 months, is angry that American people seem so untouched by the war, by the grim abuses committed by American soldiers. "The American media doesn't cover it and they don't care. The American people aren't seeing the real war - what's really happening there."


You put a bunch of scared, bewildered kids in a place where they can't tell friend from foe and can't speak the language, and then tell them it's a free fire zone, you're gonna get a lot of dead innocents. What does that remind you of? Begins with a 'V'.


A number of Vietnam veterans also on the march are a welcome presence. For all the attempts to deny a link between the two conflicts, for both sets of veterans the parallels are persuasive. Thomas Brinson survived the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968. "Iraq is just Arabic for Vietnam, like the poster says - the same horror, the same tears," he says. [my em]


I'm really fucking tired of people who speak of going to war so casually when they have zero clue of what it's all about. Just shut the fuck up. You certainly wouldn't be so cavalier if there was a draft now; would ya?

Bush's Top 10 'Vietnam' Mistakes

Nothing new, but all in one pile. Ivan Eland at Consortium News:

George W. Bush likes to toss around the words "democracy," "liberty" and "freedom" as justifications for almost everything he does -- much as Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon did during the Vietnam War.

But Bush has taken the abuse of language to new Orwellian depths by declaring his commitment to these hallowed concepts even as he asserts that he is the one who decides whether American citizens have any of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In many ways, America's "unalienable" rights have ceased to exist under Bush's theory of his own authority. They have been trumped by Bush's claim of "plenary" -- or unlimited -- powers as Commander in Chief during the War on Terror, a vague conflict likely to last forever.

Like some modern-day monarch, Bush says he is the one who decides if someone is imprisoned without trial, spied on without a court warrant, tortured, even murdered -- all in the name of defending American freedoms against enemies who "hate our freedoms."

Because the Bush administration, almost from the start, has eschewed any comparison of Iraq with Vietnam, officials apparently never read the history of the nation's heretofore worst war and have made the same 10 major mistakes:

Go get 'em.

Scapegoat Immigrants

This is a two-part post. First, Robert Scheer:

THERE IS no immigration crisis -- other than the one created by a small but vocal stripe of opportunist politicians, media demagogues and freelance xenophobes. So it has always been throughout the history of this country when anti-immigrant hysteria periodically reigns during low ebbs in our national sense of security and vision.

The script is as old as the Mayflower: A false alarm is sounded that the values, wages and safety of the roster of credentialed Americans are jeopardized by the "flood" or "tidal wave" or "river" sneaking across our porous borders -- be they Irish, Chinese, Jewish, Russian, Mexican or even the freed slaves seeking to earn an honest living in Northern cities after the Civil War. Any and all manner of societal problems are to be laid on these scapegoats, and the same simplistic solution offered: Find and deport them, and don't let any more in.

Having intermittently covered this issue for the Los Angeles Times over 30 years, I can well recall the peaks of panic in which we reporters were dispatched to the border and out into the fields to witness the arrest of people desperate to find work -- only to be embarrassed by the hunted eyes and clutched crosses of the enemy discovered.

Such frenzied attention was inevitably followed by a lull in which most Americans were quite happy to eat the food harvested by those same harassed and abused workers as well as entrusting the "illegals" with the care of American homes and children. On no other issue is there such an extreme disconnect between attitudes and actions.

This current xenophobia is no more warranted than it has been in the past. The number of claimed "illegal aliens" as a percentage of the population is clearly absorbable by the job market as our low unemployment rate demonstrates. Yet, the Republican Party and the Congress it dominates are teetering between driving undocumented workers further underground or taking a saner compromise approach.

This is a moment of truth for America. It is time we acknowledged that we need the immigrant workers as much as they need us and began to treat them with the respect they deserve.

Do we want them or don't we? Either way, we have to do what we have to do, but we have to make up our minds. The line between "legals" and "illegals" is becoming blurred, moreso in regard to low-skilled brown people from South of the Border than to highly-skilled brown-skinned software engineers from India, just for example.

Scheer makes some good points you should go read. I think he did well hooking up with the EssEffChron after leaving the LATimes. The Chron isn't quite as liberal as it used to be, due to a merger a coupla years ago, but it's a lot better than what the Times is getting to be.

The second part is about what this country is capable of doing when whichever "Yellow Horde" of the moment gets to be too hot for the pols to deal with it rationally. Not only am I interested in the history of my country, and my state in particular, but I just drove past Manzanar the other day on my way home from L.A. so it's fresh in my mind. Mrs. G grew up in farm country on our Central Coast with kids that were born in this joint. Her Grandpa not only sold most of their folks all their electrical appliances, but stored them while they were interned. Those folks were lucky. Many others had all their land and possessions simply stolen and had to start over upon their release.

Please go to the site with a few minutes to spare. There are a lot of links in the right-hand sidebar, including History & Culture and In Depth. I recommend the "In Depth". There is a "Virtual Tour" on the left that has a map and 360 degree photos. Click around a little, you'll find lots of stuff.

I think the camp they'll send us lefties to will at least be more modern. I'm holding out for WiFi. If I get to be in charge of who goes, the wingnuts will be lucky to get inside plumbing.

This immigration bullshit has gone on before as Mr. Scheer writes. All kinds of Europeans have been its victims back east, and Mexicans and Asians out west. Most of 'em, particularly whites, have been assimilated over time. Hey, with white people you have to know their last name cuz they speak English. Much easier to discriminate against "culluds" cuz they're easier to spot. Even if they speak English.

Which brings up a point: I think part of this whole deal has to do with language. Most of the Europeans that I've met can speak several languages due to proximity. It's not far to where a different language is spoken, they're right there, and it's fairly easy for them because they're exposed at a young age.

A good portion of the U.S. is so fuckin' insular and hidebound that I think a lot of people are insulted that furriners fresh out of the trunk of a car dare to speak their own language. I think we'd do a lot better if we started teaching practical languages in school, like Spanish and Chinese, if for no other reason than communicate a little bit when you go to town.

Communication fosters understanding, and we need a lot more of that. There was a sign on the wall of One-Eight's comm shack at Camp Lejeune: "Communications lends dignity to what would otherwise be considered a brawl." I think it fits here in general, in a country with 200 languages being used.

I took Russian in the 7th Grade. That was in the fifties when we thought we might need it. I haven't much vocabulary because I've never used it, but I can read the words and sometimes know what they mean. I speak enough Spanish to call 'bullshit' in the supermarket check-out line when Latinos are cussin' or otherwise talking about folks. They shut right up when they know you're onto them!

Ah, fuck it - if English was good enough fer Jesus, it's plenty good enough fer them Messicans.

I better not get started on football v. soccer.

Pardon the rambling, please. The pup's asleep on my feet again.

Maybe we should...

I'm pretty ambivalent about religion. As long as you're not trying to shove your beliefs up my ass, I'm okay with generally whatever you want to believe. Hey, I'm a live and let live guy. In fact, I'm all for just anything you want to do with consenting adults - kinky sex, worshipping a fire hydrant, whatever - if it blows your skirt up and it doesn't hurt anybody, have a nut.

Now, I'm not a religious man. Never once said a prayer to affect the outcome of a certain situation, but I don't consider myself an athiest. I just have to see shit before I believe it. If a big hand comes down from the heavens and shwacks me in the back of the head, I'll get behind it. Until then, I take the story of Jesus and all that spiritual shit like a fable. An interesting story of a good man who sacrificed to right some wrongs and help get society on the right path. I was baptized a Roman Catholic, and learned some good lessons while my religious education continued. How it ended is a story all by itself. However, the Ten Commandments, regardless of their origin, is a pretty good set of rules to live by, and I try to. That said, I've got a problem with the trend happening over the past decade.

I have a big problem with 'God' infiltrating our daily lives whether we want it or not. I have a big problem with religious nonsense taking the place of science. I've also got a problem with the rise of 'acceptable mysticism' over the past decade as well.

Come with me, Sherman, as we fire up the Way-Back Machine. We take you back to a time known as the Dark Ages, a pall that lingered for centuries over Europe and the Holy Land, where science and education once triumphed. A place where, before the Dark Ages, the great civilizations of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Persia, were curious about how their world worked and struggled to determined the natural processes once ascribed to Gods. We are still using scientific principles discovered thousands of years ago. All that was nearly lost in the interregnum which followed the fall of these great societies.

It was how I realized the 'American Century' was over. It was obvious in the final days of the Roman Empire, as it rotted from the inside under its own weight and corruption. As empire eroded, eaten away by 'barbarian' tribes from outside and corruption from within, as the lives of the poor became more hopeless, many turned to those who promised better, maybe even an afterlife that resembled Paradise. They turned to the Church, spurning science for the promises of a better, blissful future if they only followed 'God's rules'. Are you seeing the parallels (fundie preachers, islamist imams)? I'm not gonna spell it out because I'll be late for work if I do. These parallels got me thinking along these lines.

Religion is bad for society. It is bad for a progressive society. Religion is regressive, just as corruption is, clinging to a belief system antithetical to human evolution. And we have to evolve. We just can't help it. Societies which die do so because of stagnation, whether it be corrupt rulers or a strong religious bent, just as a body of water cut off from the flow of the stream becomes scummy and eventually toxic, a civilization that does not progress will eventually die from its own toxicity. Nature will move on, leaving those who do not move with her to wither and die. The historical timeline is littered with examples.

The rise of 'Christianity' in this nation (I noticed it about the time I left the Republican Party over a dozen years ago) signals several things to me. Namely, the average person has little hope for a better future. They are looking to the supernatural to give them the assurance their daily toil will not be in vain when their end comes. It also points up the corrupt nature of our leadership, preferring to preserve their power than to allow our society to move forward along with the natural order of things.

A prime example is the space program. Over thirty five years ago we were able to reach the Moon and put men there. Now it is impossible. By now, had we progressed normally (taking into account the progress we made over the 20th Century), we should have colonized the Moon and been in the planning stages to take Mars, at least. We should be looking outward instead of arguing over abortion and the separation of church and state. The second is the internal combustion engine. Come on, should we really be using petroleum more than halfway through the first decade of the 21st Century?

We have been restrained, our drive to explore and conquer the unknown stifled as our resources have been squandered in order to keep a very small few in 'the style to which they are accustomed'. 'Christianity' is filling the void for true governance. Why else, at this point in our evolution, would we be reconsidering the principles laid down in our Constitution that have served us so well for 230 years?

Call it whatever you want - a self-protection protocol of Planet Earth, human nature, or God's will - a society which stagnates or clings to the past will surely go the way of the dinosaur. We have a chance to stop the regression now, but religion has to be put in its place and so do those who feel it politically advantageous to wrap themselves in the cloak of religiosity. We need to progress, and that means a more liberal way of thinking. Conservatism, in whatever form, is poison, a cancer on the body politic, fanatical conservatism even more malignant, and it must not be allowed to govern our future. Those who don't meet change head on are certain to be run over by it.

Now go see PZ Myers.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Andy Card

I haven't blogged about this for one reason. It doesn't make any difference.


The Angry Old Broad is back to regular blogging and that's a very good thing:


So what we have seen take over instead is a lack of social responsibility,a tendency to nurture greed,hate,fear,destructive forms of competition,humiliation,(all of which are now even a part of our entertainment via "reality TV"), sexism, racism, compassionless religion, lying,cheating, and stealing. It's ok,as long as you don't get caught, and even then,if you're on the "right" side,you can get away with it AND be rewarded for it. So much for citizenship, civics, and a sense of community.

This is NOT Patriotic. In fact, it's downright UN American, if we're to believe our own mythology. Being the biggest bully and most selfish doesn't make you the Best, and it certainly does not make you Good. Whatever happened to the satisfaction that comes from operating with integrity? From doing a good job through hard work and being as fair as possible? [my em]


Right on, sister.

Immigration and Economics

Paul Krugman with some good thoughts on immigration:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," wrote Emma Lazarus, in a poem that still puts a lump in my throat. I'm proud of America's immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.

First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.

Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -- especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays -- and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came." (my em) Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.

Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.

We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a "modest role" in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.

Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests -- legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care -- is simply immoral.

We need to do something about immigration, and soon. But I'd rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays our moral and democratic principles.

Too late, Mr. Krugman: Our "moral and democratic principles" have already been sold rather than betrayed. Oh, they're still there - it's just that if you invoke them you'll be accused of being a radical and asked why you hate America.

Go read Mr. Krugman's complete post. I had to exert what little will power I have to not post the whole thing, it's that good.

Baghdad? Bul!

Go see the picture of "Baghdad" that the cat that's running for the Dukester's congressional seat in San Diego County claims to have taken on a recent trip. What a fuckin' idiot. Just for fun, from Attytood.

Voter Demo: More o' Dem's Dems

Editor & Publisher

In a (perhaps) historic shift, more Americans now consider themselves Democrats than Republicans, the Gallup organization revealed today.

Republicans had gained the upper hand in recent years, but 33% of Americans, in the latest Gallup poll, now call themselves Democrats, with those favoring the GOP one point behind. But Gallup says this widens a bit more "once the leanings of Independents are taken into account."

Independents now make up 34% of the population. When asked if they lean in a certain direction, their answers pushed the Democrat numbers to 49% with Republicans at 42%. One year ago, the parties were dead even at 46% each.

This shift indicates, Gallup says, why its polls show Democrats leading in this year's congressional races.


Got Irony?

Ironic Times

Discount prompted by drop in demand.

Report: Cheney Gets All His Information From Fox News
Which gets all its information from Cheney.

Thousands Take to Streets to Protest New Immigration Law Proposals
Nobody available to clean up after protests.

Bush's Popularity Drops to New Low of 33
Only 33 people like job he's doing.

Plenty more where those came from. Go have some fun.

The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll

Make sure your tinfoil hat is planted firmly on your head and go read this article in New York Magazine:

A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York's most terrible day.

For Tarpley and others, this was a slam dunk: September 11 was a holocaust-as-ordered by the neocon cabal Project for the New American Century, which, like its Svengali, Leo Strauss, recognized the U.S. masses to be meth-addled, postliterate, post-logical lard-asses, a race of "sheeple" that would never rise to inherit the mantle of post-Cold War world-dominators without "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." In other words, a new Pearl Harbor like the old Pearl Harbor, which Roosevelt was supposed to have known about and used as an excuse to get us into World War II.

Pearl Harbor, the Reichstag fire, take your pick. What mattered was that 3,000 human beings were dead, freeing Manchurian Candidate Bush to decree his fraudulent War on Terror, a Social Darwinian/Hobbesian/with-us-or-against-us struggle to corner the planet's dwindling bounty - a global conflict without end in which only the strong, the white, and the Republican would survive.

The article is quite long and quite disturbing. There will probably always be more questions than answers about 9/11, but it's good to know what they are.

'Splain it

Okay. We've been going back and forth on this immigration debate this week. Needless to say, on such a complicated issue, there is a great difference of opinion about what the outcome should be. One thing I'd like to know is, and Gord touched on it a bit last night, can folks tell the difference between legal and illegal?

Ladies and germs, 'illegal' means you have broken the law of the land. I realize we have become desenitized to 'illegality' after dealing with the Chimp and his entourage for the past 5 years but the definition is the same. So, in dealing with illegal immigration, let's first get that fact straight. The illegals' first act of setting foot in this country is to break the law. An auspicious beginning.

Next, it is these same people who are making demands of the United States. I doubt, because I've researched it in anticipation of retirement outside the U.S., many other nations would even consider the wishes of folks who are not citizens, let alone in the country illegaly. A jail term at worst, deportation at best, are the current reactions by others toward illegal entrants. So when these folks march down the streets in U.S. cities waving flags of their own nations, making demands of our government, it naturally chaps my ass. Not because I'm a white boy and they're all brown, but because they don't vote and don't pay taxes (don't wave the sales tax at me, not when I pay close to $40,000 a year in state and federal income taxes). I give a damn if they're British, German, Indian, Asian, or Canadian.

Next, this is the only time in the past 5 years I have agreed with the Chimp. Read my lips: It is a slap in the face to my parents and all the other immigrants who came here to make a better life and achieve the American Dream in a legal manner, and you can't tell me otherwise. Maybe those folks who think we should just hand out amnesty should read the history of Ellis Island before running off at the mouth. Amnesty for illegals is an insult to immigrants who arrive here in a law-abiding manner. Besides, it was tried 20 years ago and the problem was exacerbated five-fold.

Next, the jobs illegals take are not 'jobs Americans don't want to do'. They are jobs corporations don't want to pay competitive wages for. Not when they have a ready and willing pool of cheap labor just across the border. Illegals are being exploited, period. If corporations would feel some pain for hiring illegals, enough pain for them to feel it in the bottom line, they would change their tune, quickly.

Next, I don't want to see millions of illegals rounded up and deported. As I've said in the past, the U.S. has taken a peculiar pleasure in dicking over the part of this hemisphere where most of them come from. We are a major reason their economies and societies (maybe an economic package of the type we give to say...Israel or Egypt, instead of propping up tinhorn dictators, might make more of them stay at home too) are in the desperate state they are and we do owe them something. Those here should be allowed to stay, but they should feel some pain too. They did break the law, after all, and while we scream for accountability from our leaders, we should also expect it from regular folks. Maybe a tax surcharge for a number of years, or some sort of probationary period. I don't know but that's for better minds than mine.

And finally, secure borders. Not this joke-and-a-half we call Homeland Security. Can somebody honestly tell me with a straight face we shouldn't know who and what comes across our borders? I want to know that the people coming across the borders (and that means our northern one too) have at least as much hassle as I do coming into JFK from Europe.

Now, I don't flatter myself to think I know what the answers are, but I know this nation, first and foremost, is a nation of laws. It's time we started enforcing them for everyone, from the war criminal in the White House to the poor bastids putting their lives on the line to get across the border.

Leopards and spots

In November, and throughout this upcoming campaign season, you'll see a lot of Republicans saying "Bush? Who?". When you do, keep this quote in your mind:

...You've got to be kidding me. They've gleefully hitched themselves to his bandwagon for the past five bloody years! It's not as though they'e been futilely resisting his utter decimation of traditional conservative principles - they are the majority party who has been aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise every step of the way. And now that whatever stupor enthralled American voters, and made voting for Captain Incompetence seem like a good idea, is wearing off, the MeToos want to moan about how they don't want to be "W Brand Republicans" anymore? Tough titties!


They own Bush, they own the disaster this nation has become, and this November they're gonna pay for it.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Caspar Weinberger Dies at Age 88

Caspar Weinberger Dies at Age 88

"The wind doth smell so bittersweet
Like jasper wine and sugar
It must have blown through someone's feet
Like those of Caspar Weinberger"

Border blues...

I took the pup next door to introduce Tami to my neighbor dogs. They got along really swell.

My neighbor, Bill, told me that while I was gone there was a "Thousand Mexican March" here locally. He said they flipped him off for bein' an Anglo, and held up signs saying "Without US, you are nothing".

His idea for a counter-sign was to put periods after the 'U' and 'S'.

I went a little further: "Without the U.S., who & where the fuck d'ya think you'd be?" I'm not politically correct at the best of times, let alone at less than the best.

I think there's a lot of confusion over the difference between 'legal' and illegal'. Sure, there are racists who don't want anybody but whites to come here, but that ain't the way it's gonna be. Get over it.

I think when legal immigrants take the side of the illegal immigrants, perhaps out of pride in their heritage, or maybe fear, then we have a problem that goes beyond the difficulty of immigrating legally. It may be that Mexican culture exists pretty much unchanged on both sides of the border and ours doesn't. They feel this is their home.

It's nobody's right to be here unless they were born here. Others have to work for it by jumping through a bunch of hoops. Hey, if it was easy, what good would it be? What to do with family members who are here illegally is a huge part of the problem, seems to me. Blood is thicker than the Rio Grande.

The Koreans jumped on the bandwagon right along with the Latinos. I had no idea there were enough illegal Koreans that it would be an issue. Maybe they just need employees.

When one of ya figures out what to do, lemme know, willya?

By the way, if ya wanta know why 500,000 people showed up in L.A. on a rainy day when they only expected 20,000, read this.

Time to Talk War Crimes

Robert Parry

In a world where might did not make right, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and their key enablers would be in shackles before a war crimes tribunal at the Hague, rather than sitting in the White House, 10 Downing Street or some other comfortable environs in Washington and London.

While many Americans think of the Nuremberg trials after World War II as just holding Nazi leaders accountable for genocide, a major charge against Adolf Hitler's henchmen was the crime of aggressive war. Later, that principle was embodied in the United Nations Charter, forbidding armed aggression by one state against another

The British memos, combined with public statements by Bush and his senior aides, represent a prima-facie case that Bush, Blair and others violated the Nuremberg Principles and the U.N. Charter, to which the United States was a founding signatory.

While Bush has insisted that his invasion of Iraq was "preemptive" - defined as an act of self-defense to thwart an impending attack - his argument is not only laughable in the case of Iraq, but has been contradicted by his own advisers, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

In a March 26 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Rice offered a different rationale for invading Iraq. She agreed that Hussein was not implicated in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks nor did she assert that he was conspiring with al-Qaeda on another assault.

Instead, Rice justified invading Iraq and ousting Hussein because he was part of the "old Middle East," which she said had engendered hatreds that led indirectly to 9/11.

"If you really believe that the only thing that happened on 9/11 was people flew airplanes into buildings (Gee, who could have predicted that? - G), I think you have a very narrow view of what we faced on 9/11," Rice said. "We faced the outcome of an ideology of hatred throughout the Middle East that had to be dealt with. Saddam Hussein was a part of that old Middle East. The new Iraq will be a part of the new Middle East, and we will all be safer." Rice's argument - that Bush has the right to invade any country that he feels is part of a culture that might show hostility toward the United States - represents the most expansive justification to date for launching the Iraq War.

Yet Rice's new war rationale, combined with the British memo on Bush's determination to invade Iraq regardless of the facts, should be more than enough evidence to put Bush, Rice, Blair and other U.S. and British officials before a war crimes tribunal.

In a perfect world, they'd behind bars as we speak. However, late, and pretty late at that, has to be better than never. I'm sure glad that some of the people who have the info we need - it ain't what you know, it's what you can prove - are telling us what they know. It'll be way too late for a lot of people, but Bush&Co. may get their just due yet.

I'm glad folks are talkin' Impeachment and I'm glad folks are talkin' War Crimes. When they start talkin' Necktie Parties, I'm liable to get aroused!

I'm ba-ack

I'm home with the new puppy. We found out that her previous owners put her in a crate every day when they went to work, and then were too tired or otherwise preoccupied at the end of the day to play with a puppy that had all day to charge its batteries. She wants to play, play, play and will chew anything in sight. She has already improved, thanks to a rolled-up newspaper and my Drill Instructor voice. This is gonna take some work (did I mention that she's smarter and a lot faster than me? Heh.), but she's just adorable and very affectionate and sweet in between times of trying to chew her way to freedom. I think it will be well worth the effort.

The drive to L.A. was in inclement weather the whole way, which is a little less than 500 miles. It was snowing when we left, and we got on I-80 under chain control over Donner Summit. Chain control was only up for about twenty miles. It's a pain in the ass to chain up and 'sling iron' for short distances, so that's why everybody around here has 4WD with snow tires. Also to get to work or the store, unless somebody important lives on your street so they keep it plowed.

A few words about chain control: There are three conditions, R-1 - chains or snow tires; R-2 - chains or 4WD with snow tires; and R-3 - 4WD with chains on all four wheels, aka stay home. There is a Caltrans check point at the place where the chain control starts and on freeway on-ramps. This is a guy or gal with an orange van and a bunch of flashing lights who may check your tires for an "M + S" (Mud + Snow) or to see if you have chains installed. Sometimes there's a CHP there to chase down idiots who run the chain control. They're serious about this shit, because a spin-out or accident can close the Interstate for hours. Jackknifed big rigs are the worst, because a lot of times they'll tip over and are hard to remove to get traffic going again. I've seen traffic backed up, stopped stock still, for twenty miles. There's usually no place to turn around, although CHP tries to close the road at ramps when they can so folks can go back the way they came. It's a mess. In a snowstorm, people run out of gas trying to keep warm, get asphyxiated in their cars for the same reason, freeze to death, get out of their cars to play in the snow and get run over, all kinds of shit. I'm fairly sure there have been whiny kids stuffed head-first into the snowbank during a three-hour road closure. A lot of 'em are on their way to play in Reno or Tahoe and don't even bring a jacket. I got stopped for over an hour once because folks who got by the chain control who should have chained up and thought they could "make it", or were just lazy, couldn't climb a hill on the freeway and were using three lanes to slide and spin backwards to the bottom. Finally they got a bunch of tow trucks in there to tow 'em to the CHP scales at the top of the hill, located precisely where the trucks they want to weigh and safety-inspect are going their slowest, where the drivers were charged for the tow and then ticketed for no chains.

I could go on for hours about that stuff, but I'm leading up to something. The speed limit under chain control is 25mph, 30 on the Interstate. Chains, particularly the four or eight sets on a big rig, are hard on the taxpayer-funded road surface and higher speeds are unsafe for folks who hardly ever drive in ice and snow, not to mention what can happen when - not 'if' - the chains break at high speeds. A lot of folks will get past the snow and not want to stop and take 'em off. They do, however, try to keep up with traffic, but not for long. I've seen chains put themselves back in the trunk of a car, through the wheel well. If you're idiotic enough to be following too close under those conditions, they can come right in through your windshield. They can wrap themselves around axles, brakes, etc., break fluid lines, in general just fuck shit up. This stuff all happens anyway, but 60 mph just exacerbates it. I think you get the picture: Do what the nice chain control person tells you to do, and obey the law for the well-being of yourself and those around you. Take the chains off when they're no longer required.

Sometimes, when folks just don't use common sense, the worst result is a little entertainment. It was R-1 condition and you couldn't see the road, but the snow wasn't deep, mostly a little wet, heavy snow on top of packed. It was snowing pretty good. Mrs. G and me were just pluggin' along in 3rd gear at 32mph (we've done this before and feel we can fudge a little since we're locals) when a gal (sorry, ladies) in a bright yellow VW, one of the new Beetles, sailed past us at about 50. She must have had snow tires 'cuz she wasn't runnin' chains. She gave us a rare, exquisite moment about five miles later when we got to watch her, at the end of a really 'modern art' lookin' set of tire tracks, back out of the snowbank in the median. Priceless! No damage done, but no doubt embarrassing. Naturally, I tooted the horn as we chugged past, just so she'd know she didn't get away with it unseen. She had her windows rolled up so I have no idea what the inside of her car smelled like. I can only hope!

The rest of the trip was pretty uneventful, just 500 miles of varying degrees of rain. I would like to compliment Toyota for the best 5-position windshield wiper stalk I've ever seen, and you barely have to move your hand from the steering wheel to operate it. Settings for every kind of rain we encountered. The stalk is broke in now, trust me.

Please pardon the length of this nonsense, but my pup is asleep on my feet so I just kept typing. I'll end now because my feet fell asleep and I need a fresh cuppa.


I am not a big fan of Alec Baldwin, however, credit where credit is due:

Alec Baldwin to Sean Hannity: "You're a no-talent, ignorant fool"


If you're making demands

And you're not in a position to demand anything, you might want to kiss a little ass...maybe? You know Jack:


JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Wolf. You've got to love it. For years and years, this country has failed to enforce the existing laws on immigration, which is why we have 12 million illegal immigrants running around this country.

The problem is completely out of control, and it's getting worse every day. What do the politicians want to do about it? Why they want to pass more laws, of course. You see, it's an election year so they want us to think that they're actually doing something about illegal immigrants.

One wants a guest worker program. Somebody else wants to close the borders. Another one wants to make illegal immigration a felony. Meanwhile, the streets of many of our cities are clogged with people protesting immigration reform. These folks march around our streets carrying Mexican flags and complaining the United States may actually want to have some control over who comes here. Imagine that.

And at the end of the day, it's very much an open question whether anything meaningful will get done. If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath...

I'm not favored of Draconian policies toward illegal immigrants, but good God, can't you fly an American flag? I mean, do you want to become American citizens or do you want to turn the southwestern Unted States into Little Mexico. If it's the latter, you won't get many supporters. Making the streets of L.A. resemble Mexico City isn't winning you any friends, idiots.

Monday, March 27, 2006


So, Mrs. F is feeling better...much...and now she's absolutely batshit insane from sitting around taking it easy. For those who haven't had the pleasure, she's one of those type-A, corporate Manhattan crazies who goes at a hundred miles an hour every waking minute. Personally, I'm surprised it took her so long.

So, I get home from work today and she's standing at the top of the stairs with a look on her face I know well. "I'm tired of this shit," she says. "I'm tired of lying in bed, feeling like an invalid. I want to go downstairs and sleep in my own bed. I want to use my own shower and shave...finally."

Me: "You know what the doctor..."

Her: "Fuck him, it's been three weeks since the surgery."

Me: "Three weeks tomorrow..."

Her: "Shut up."

Me: "Maybe you should wait until you see the doctor next week?"

Her: "Fuck you too."

Me: "I'm going to empty the dog."

So now it's forty five minutes later. She's been downstairs, showered and shaved (I stood by while she did that), and in and out of the waterbed with no problem. So I guess we're moving back downstairs...sigh...

Shayna: "Yay!"

You know I ain't the CO in this barracks.

Fuck them

Seems bloggers aren't worthy of attribution:

...We contacted an AP senior editor and ombudsmen both and both admitted to having had the article passed on to them, and both stated that they viewed us as a blog and because we were a blog, they did not need to credit us...

Look, you elitist dickheads, I'll 'splain it real simple. Publishing original content by anyone requires you giving them credit, period. Personally, I think a lot of these news outlets would have to credit Republican talking points memos for most of their content if it really came down to it.

Thanks to Shakes for the link

Let's see...

What did he say last week? "No President wants to go to war." Lying sack of shit. Our esteemed colleague and pal Sizemore points me here:


But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.


The war in Iraq was destined to happen before the 2000 elections. 9/11 was a gift from Allah, allowing them to pull off their subterfuge. And you know something, the more we learn about this administration's dishonesty, it wouldn't surprise me if it were found they actually allowed 9/11 to happen after that 6 Aug 2001 brief warned Condi of the possibility. Tinfoil hat or no, I wouldn't put it past 'em.


The lovely Jillian says what I've been thinking for years:


now if we could get awol to go sleep with someone other than laura so that politicians and the american public will pay attention.


An unbiased, calling-it-like-it-is, report (or rather a series of reports) at ABC News. Yesterday evening, they actually called bullshit on the oil company and White House propaganda about Global Warming. Even exposed 4 WH and oil company scientists shills who still try and shovel the crap to the general public. Kudos to them for getting off the pot. The series will be going all week on World News Tonight.

Sunday, March 26, 2006


So, I got this wireless router see...And it works really good except you can't connect to the Internet now...And I'll be back when I get it figgered out.


Well, I got the connection back on the laptop and the wireless works fine now...But the desktop PC can't connect to its own ass...job for