Thursday, November 27, 2003
I hope everyone stops thinking about the troubles for just a little while and gets to be truly thankful for something great in their lives. I am thankful on a daily basis that I had the exceptional fortune to find and marry the greatest woman in the world. Everything else I have is gravy...
Sneaky Bush...ruining Thanksgiving for our soldiers in Iraq with his weird dark-ops visit. But notice he isn't out in the streets issuing his "Bring it on" challenge. And then, of course, there is the blantant propaganda from star struck officers who may, or may not, be Bush operatives. Why can the soldiers in Iraq talk to the press when Bush is around and not the ones in the U.S.? I'm sure we'll hear about this almost as much as the secret Michael Jackson tapes...Actually, probably not.
Monday, November 24, 2003
So the Democrats are rightfully complaining about Bushco's immoral dishonest ad in Iowa claiming that the Dems are somehow unpatriotic for having a differing view on his sham of a war. I don't necessarily agree with Tom "Corn Subsidy" Daschle asking the RNC to pull the ad. He should have saved his breath for trying to filibuster the Medicare bill. The RNC does not play fair. This is known. But their response was interesting:
"We have no doubt that Sen. Daschle and others in his party who oppose the president's policy of pre-emptive self-defense believe that their national security approach is in the best interests of the country," RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson said. "But we also have no doubt that they are wrong about that, and we will continue to highlight this critical policy difference as well as others."
The president has a policy of pre-emptive self-defense? To quote John Stewart, "WHA!!?!?!?" What does that mean? To what ends will he go to defeat his Democrat enemies? We know how he pre-emptively attacked Iraq, the environment and school children (damn those kids, always making Bush look bad with their ability to speak and do math...and the trees! don't get Bush started about all the nasty things trees might have done to him had he not set in motion the means to rid himself of them). So what's in store for the Democrats and their presidential hopefuls? As we well know, if you don't support Bushco's doctrines and beliefs, you may very well be judged an enemy combatant and be tossed off to Gitmo (where NTodd thinks I'm likely to go for writing an article like this one). Is Howard Dean in danger of disappearing without being able to contact his loved ones or a lawyer or Joe Trippi? How bold is Bushco likely to be with their pre-emptive doctrine? These folks love their power. They will not part with it easily.
Friday, November 21, 2003
Apparently the GOP would like us to contiune to think so because in their latest ad they say:
"Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."
Who? Who is doing such a thing? People attack Bushco for attacking Iraq without provocation. Who mentioned anything about his attacks on terrorists" (oh, and which terrorists has he attacked again? I don't seem to remember Osama doing the frog walk...) Once again, the GOP is putting forth the Osama-Saddam lie. They will, of course, deny that this is the intention of their rhetoric, but their denials are as false as their accusations and the Democrats need to immediately air factual counter-propaganda to derail this GOP mischief.
So now for my edition of Liberal Eye on the Conservative Guy...
From NewsMax, General Franks describes his case scenario for the collapse of our cherished freedoms (which the terrorists hate so much):
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
So basically if the terrorists attack us effectively enough, they will win the war on terror which is conceptually based on the premise that we will not allow them to change our great nation's standard of freedom. Check out the article's tone. There is this strange lip-licking excited quality to the reporting that seems to be looking forward to a military government:
Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.
This would seem to make one think that reporter John O. Edwards does not doubt that such an event might take place. He is only unaware of the timeline.
I, unlike General Franks, am willing to speculate that such an event would possibly take place in a period of time when our freedom to elect Bush is put into danger by polling numbers suggesting that he may lose to his Democratic rival (either Dean or whoever).
I know I'm just pointing you all in the direction of other folks, but they have more to say at the moment...I am currently gathering a heaping helping of bile to spew and very soon I will go vesuvius on the butts...In the meantime, check out the cowboy and let him know I'm in California.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Another fine blog to wander over to and say "what's happenin'?"
The dumb jock is on office now. At least I'll save a few bucks on my vehicle license fees. Of course, I may not have a university to graduate from next fall and, if I do, I'll have to look out of state or to private schools for Grad school because it's a forgone conclusion that the UC is going to suffer mightily under the new schmuckinator. On top of which, if I had just finished my degree in 1992, I could have avoided having the Arnis' name on my diploma...I never thought I'd miss Pete Wilson (wait a second! I don't miss him at all! He's still in charge...he'll build that Mexican wall yet)
Fun Pete Wilson fact: He wanted a law that legalized hitting illegal aliens with your car.
(UPDATE) Just in case you were wondering if the ball was rolling towards the inevitable continuation of the Californai political circus, here is the Hub of the Recall Arnold Campaign. Good times...good times.
Is the extra 43 minutes worthwhile? Definitely! While I thought that the extras for FoTR were use ful and interesting, I never thought the original theatrical lacked something that the extended feature gave us. It was a nice addendum. TTT, however, always had one major flaw for me and that was Faromir. You never dislike him in the books but in the theatrical TTT, he just doesn't make any sense and you just knew the better part of him was missing. In this version they have restored him and, in some ways, redeemed Baromir as well. As for the other additional footage, there are some nice touches, but nothing that the film desperately needed. And watching it on our friends' 51" TV? I couldn't ask for anything more than seeing it in the theatre. I highly recommend coming by one if you have the means (I don't, sadly...but my neighbors are happy to share their bounty...although I don't think I can get the to watch Phantom of the Paradise...maybe Fight Club, though)
Tomorrow, when you can, go rent or buy TTT (again?)
Saturday, November 15, 2003
So my wife and I were expecting to go and purchase our copy of the Two Towers Extended version on Tuesday with the rest of the public, but our local video store always seems to disregard release dates and, as we walked in last night to rent our video for the evening, we discovered that they were selling our precious a bit earlier than anticipated. Of course, we bought it and, as we were heading home to watch it, serendipity struck (as it does) and we discovered our friends and neighbors had, the very same day, purchased a 51" hi def TV and begged us to wait to watch TTT on their new TV when they received the delivery of it today. They really didn't have to beg. So we will see if these extra 43 minutes are all we're hoping them to be and, of course, we'll be in line on Thursday morning at the CineramaDome in Hollywood to purchase our RoTK tickets.
Friday, November 14, 2003
Thursday, November 13, 2003
From The Hill:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) added that Democrats are treating Bush "in a ridiculous and unconstitutional" fashion. He noted that "hardly anything [on the Senate agenda] is more important" than the president's right to nominate judges.
Unless that president was named Bill Clinton, right Orrin? 168 out of 172 and the Republicans have the nerve to complain when they shot down 60! of Clinton's nominees. Every last news story about this sham should call these FACTS to the attention of the less than captive population of interested voters.
The Republicans are accusing the Democrats, who let them pretty much have their way with everything, of being obstructionist by not allowing the vote on four extreme judges which, if they do, will amount to those judges being voted in due to a lack of a dissenting voice in the Republican party.
You know what? If they want the Democrats to play obstructionists, then the Democrats should do so. Much like the put upon workers that they claim to represent, the Dems need to stand up to big business and big Republicans and go on strike. From now on, nothing happens. The Dems can't pass legislation they want, so no legislation passes. The Dems can't have judges they want, so no judges. Nothing happens until the Repugs understand what real obstructionism is. Be upfront about it and let the people of America know what is going on. Let them understand that our carefully devised system of checks and balances has been torn asunder and all the Dems can do to hold our democracy intact is dissent. People in this country profess to love the underdog. The Dems have to wear that identity at all times and loudly. I'd like to see Senators and Representatives on the steps of the capital with picket signs loudly decrying the infamies of this government.
Let the repugs cross the picket line...America hates scabs.
This isn't just about judges. It is about the Republicans controlling all aspects of our lives. At least 50% of this country that voted did not vote for this. Democrats should actively filibuster ALL legislation that the Republicans introduce and put a stop to ALL judicial nominees. Let the Republicans know that their thug tactics will no longer be accepted.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
We actually had hail here in temperate Atwater Village nestled between Silverlake and Glendale. Hail. The wife was talking about packing up and getting out if the sky turns green...she's deathly afraid of tornados (a reasonable fear). Now we have local weather TV on...nothing better than local weather TV. It's the best reason not to leave the house in L.A. when we get bad weather. The cats are mostly afraid of the thunder with the exception of Shramsberg, who is deaf. He's sleeping peacefully on the lazy boy...
cat sleeps through thunder
hail taps against the window
cat wakes up to eat
Monday, November 10, 2003
This election is more important than John Kerry's ego. We all know he thinks he should be president but we also all know he's not the right man for the job. People aren't jumping on board the Kerry train and he needs to stop attacking his Democratic opponents. Hell. all the Democrats need to stp attacking their opponents. You can make a good point about yourself without tearing the other guy down. Tear Bushco down. Brick by brick. Stop tearing each other down. Otherwise, it'll be four more years of Bushco and then we may not have elections anymore because the Government will decide that programs like free elections are less important than tax cuts for the wealthy...
Hey, isn't John Kerry a fairly wealthy guy? (I didn't say I couldn't attack the dour faced, Frankenstein-looking, ketchup eating son-of-a-bitch)
Monday, November 03, 2003
Okay, now I know I may be somewhat alone in the liberal end of the blogosphere, but I can't help but to be a little excited about this:
As of late October, sources indicate that a central recommendation is likely, but not certainly to be resumption of manned lunar flights to develop advanced technologies that can support U.S. astronauts working beyond Earth orbit to not only the Moon, but eventually on near-Earth asteroids and Mars.
In an early phase of the meetings, manned Mars expeditions were considered too expensive and risky to adopt as a central goal for the civil space program. But Bush is being urged to factor in future interplanetary manned flight capabilities as part of the justification for a return to the moon. The last U.S. manned lunar mission was conducted by the Apollo 17 crew in December, 1972.
I believe that the future of humanity lies in space and if we ignore the potential because, while it may not pay dividends in our lifetime, it is important to the future. I have a hard time, however, believing the Bushco will do anything which pays dividends in future generations as they haven't shown the slightest inclination towards caring about anything beyond 2008, but we'll see if anything comes of this. I, for one, would love to see us back on the moon and, eventually, Mars. My lifespan will hopefully go on for at least 50-60 more years and I would really like to see humankind reach Mars in that time. I don't know why, I just would.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan(Anti-Christ, R), There they go again. Josh Marshall catches Bushco revising history yet again!
A few days ago (10/23), you quoted Bush as speaking to the Australian Parliament and saying that he "sees" a China that is free, etc. At the time, I didn't go back to the White House press release, but if you look at it now you will see that it says he "seeks" a free China. Did you misread it, or have they been massaging the record after the fact? I don't know how to go about looking for a cached version of the page, but maybe it's worth pursuing.
But the forethinking Marshall catches Bushco with their hands on the insert button...
Well, I'm not sure I'd know how to go about getting the cached version either. But luckily that's not necessary, since I made a PDF version of the original White House transcript as it appeared on the day in question. (Call me suspicious.) You can see it right here. If you scroll down to the big, clumsily-drawn red circle you'll see that the word was 'see' not 'seek'. Then compare it to the current version now at the White House website
What's a little K between friends, eh? See or seek...hmmm. I don't see the big deal, do you?
Sunday, November 02, 2003
First spotted for me by NTodd and copied over from Kos...
In other news, Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz spoke at Georgetown University on Friday and and took questions.
Q: Hi, Mr. Wolfowitz. My name is Ruthy Coffman. I think I speak for many of us here when I say that your policies are deplorable. They're responsible for the deaths of innocents and the disintegration of American civil liberties. [Applause]
We are tired, Secretary Wolfowitz, of being feared and hated by the world. We are tired of watching Americans and Iraqis die, and international institutions cry out in anger against us. We are simply tired of your policies. We hate them, and we will never stop opposing them. We will never tire or falter in our search for justice. And in the name of this ideal and the ideal of freedom, we assembled a message for you that was taken away from us and that message says that the killing of innocents is not the solution, but rather the problem. Thank you. [Applause and jeers]
Wolfowitz: I have to infer from that that you would be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power. [Applause]
Q: I'd just like to say that people like Ruthy and myself have always opposed Saddam Hussein, especially when Saddam Hussein was being funded by the United States throughout the '80s. And -- [Applause] And after the killings of the Kurds when the United States increased aid to Iraq. We were there opposing him as well. People like us were there. We are for democracy. And I have a question.
What do you plan to do when Bush is defeated in 2004 and you will no longer have the power to push forward the project for New American Century's policy of American military and economic dominance over the people of the world? [Applause]
Wolfowitz: I don't know if it was just Freudian or you intended to say it that way, but you said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him.
It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies. [Applause]
And it seems to me a time to have supported the United States and to push the United States harder was in 1991 when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering those innocents so viciously.
I just don't know how these fuckers can speak with a straight face. Their evil quotient is running so high they're going to burn up should Bushco retain selection in 2004.
Save the assclowns from choking on their own shit and dying face down in a pool of vomitous filth. Vote Democrat!
Saturday, November 01, 2003
When housewives attack presidents...
So I was taking a break from stalking Paul Krugman because I appreciate the man needs a little time of from naked beard adulation (no, I wasn't naked...okay, maybe not in front of PK...) when I came across Luskin again. He was hanging out with this chick, Felicia, who I knew from the days when I used to stalk Dan Quayle. She was the queen of the Quayle stalkers and I had heard she was planning to go Squeaky Fromme on his ass but it turns out she lost her need to go after him when she discovered that he wasn't the most ignorant man ever to be a step away from the presidency. Felicia had given up stalking politicians directly and was now into the commentator scene, much as Luskin and I. It's much more fun and there are far fewer secret service agents giving you strip searches (although there's nothing like a good strip search...they have this one agent, Dane, who has the softest hands...). So over coffee and crullers, Felicia tells me that Luskin had tried to get her to stalk PK and while it seemed like a good idea, she thought the field was too crowded and that Luskin had called too much attention to our scene. I agreed with her that throwing a pie in PK's most excellent beard was both juvenile and intensely stupid and would only come from a massively deranged mind. Luskin, at this point, orders a pie and throws it in my face. Then he starts laughing and screaming, "Who's Krugman now, bitch?!?!" It was a ke lime pie, my favorite. But my Krugamnesque beard had caught a bit too much of it which annoyed me to no end. His shrill screeching began to send me into a berserker rage that heretofore only Ann Coulter (punch in the face!) had sent me. But my better sense took over as I knew Luskin had a litigious nature and punching him in the face would only put me in the same boat as Atrios, patron saint of the abused hit counter. So instead, I passed Felicia a note telling her of a Joe Conason meet-up that a few of us had planned, licked the last of the key lime goodness from my face and made my way to the nearest pay phone where I phoned in a tip to the DHS that one Donald Luskin had been enquiring about enriched uranium, marijuana smoking devices and may, in fact, be related to Saddam.
As I drove away, some black helecopters landed in the parking lot behind me...