Bush was positively buoyant in tonight's State of the Union speech, and why shouldn't he have been? He checkmated his opposition today, whatever else might happen. Bush's purpose was always, first and foremost, to get enough Supreme Court justices appointed to overturn Roe vs. Wade. This is what his, and the Republican party's, religious right supporters want from him; prayer in school and the like, that too, but all religious right issues pale in comparison to Roe vs. Wade. And with the appointment today of Sam Alito, who was among the justices who were in attendance tonight(there were four, including all the hard-right faction), that promise has been delivered upon. The filibuster was feckless, ill-planned, ill-timed and too little, too late.
So now that the war on choice has been won, I suppose we should turn our attention to other things. Certainly, Bush was trying his best tonight to stick mostly to the aspects of issues most can agree upon. The Democrats, in their turn, rather than sulk on their hands every time the Republicans clapped, or boo, chose to applaud certain aspects of what Bush mentioned-- applauding a general goal(the end of terror, for instance), but not necessarily the method he might propose to go about that.
With Cindy Sheehan--who had been the invited guest of a California congrsswoman--removed by capitol for fear she might unfurl a banner or do something else similarly disruptive (which would have been a lot of fun, and I haven't any doubt she intended some dramatic moment), there were only the Democrats as opposition, and the little protest that they were even able to symbolically serve up was downright comical. But then, the Democrats have become as resistant to Bush as lemmings are toward long jumps.
They smiled, and the president smirked back at them every time they sat on their hands. It was an interesting, almost threatening smirk, one that said either, "Well, do as you like, because you don't matter anyway," or, "That's right, don't applaud. I'll make you eat that later, bitch." He was confident, bold, almost friendly, and not at all nervous. Indeed, it may have been the best I've ever seen Dubya deliver a speech. Why, after all this time, he even mentioned Bin Laden!
He was unashamed in defending the NSA spying program, declaring he'll keep doing it pretty much as long as he feels like it. So it's very clear: Bush will act beyond the law if he feels like it, and judging by what he says on the subject, his reasoning does seem to be that if the president, it's not illegal. Cheney is smiling, and somewhere in Hell Richard Nixon is snickering. Tonight, Bush all but declared his absolute, unchecked power, and did this generate outrage? Hillary Clinton had a sort of disbelieving smile and a bit of an eye roll. Then again, this is a woman who knows from men with raw chutzpah.
He spoke as a man who has irrevocably won. And he is. So he can afford to be generous. He can, for instance, call for a bipartisan commission to find ways of saving Social Security, and seems truly, desperately open on the subject now, and no longer married to the privatization scheme. He spoke in favor of the lobbying reforms; hilariously, only John McCain applauded that(and very, um, exuberantly).
He can promise to reduce our dependence on foreign oil within six years, especially since he won't be there when the deadline arrives--at least, until he decides that staying in office is for the good of the country too, I guess--and I love how he slipped in, behind hydrogen and ethanol, the environmentally murderous projects Cheney's wanted all this time: a promise to heavily invest taxpayer money in "zero-emission" coal and "clean" nuclear power.
Yes, children, your money will be used to bring back a kind of power we long ago abandoned investment in: nukes. Betcha didn't see that coming.
I found it somewhat funny because I saw The China Syndrome for the first time on TCM the other night. Everything old is new again.
And on and on; not much substantiative on Iraq, except pretty much the same boilerplate delivered with the tone we've somehow already won that we usually hear.
Bold, though. Bold, confident, probably bullshit, but in the words of Walter, "At least it's an ethos." Mostly, I think, you could call it a dare. So what do the Democrats throw back in response?
I see a car salesman, but in a nice suit. Mostly forehead, beady eyes, weak little squeaky voice. But that is a nice roaring fire behind him, what you could see of it had he not been rocking so much from foot to foot. But shouldn't he have taken some of those holiday decorations down by now?
Man, that forehead is really distracting me...
Who is this tool that the Democrats gave these crucial ten minutes to? Why, it was a complete nonentity called Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia. Who gave a boilerplate response in no way related to the president's speech. His words evaporated into grey fog as they left his mouth, and all I could remember at the end was the stirring slogan, "We can do better."
We certainly can. Starting with admitting the Democratic party has gone the way of the Whigs and that there's no longer any reason to cling to it. The party has slowly killed itself, and is no longer any effective vehicle even of balance against Bush, who, thanks to their timid and poorly-planned filibuster, now controls the entire government. And they think they can afford to send their response through a tepid little twerp like this Kaine, rather than, oh, a future candidate or leader (like Barack Obama, say) that you might want to introduce to the public, something like that?
What have you bastards done with our votes, our contributions. I will never be a Republican, but I long since stopped being a Democrat. A new party, a real one, not a distraction or spoiler like the Greens, needs to be built, and the Democratic party needs to go to the junkyard, because it's long since lost any reason for being. It seems all they now stand for is that they're not Republicans. And even if they were inclined to actually fight him, they couldn't now.
I'm not saying not to back them in the coming election, because a viable alternative doesn't exist yet, and won't in time; but we need to take a hard look at what the party is for, and realize that this version of the party, at least, is dead and undeserving of our support. The Republicans betrayed the entire country. But the Democrats betrayed their own on top of that. If it no longer serves the people's interest, we need to move on.
A party that can't even pose an alternative to incompetence and corruption is worthless.
Labels: cheney, politics, state of the union
¶ January 31, 2006 0 Comments
Cindy Sheehan is supposed to be the guest of a congresswoman at the SOTU tonight.
Or would have been if, according to MSNBC, she hadn't been arrested by DC police just now.
Developing.
Labels: politics
¶ January 31, 2006 0 Comments
And at long last, Ken Lay(remember him?) goes to trial today.
One of the sons of bitches who wrecked California, and I hope they shove that indictment down his throat till he chokes.
Labels: politics
¶ January 30, 2006 0 Comments
So how long before it hits a soldier who brings it home? (Oh, wait, never mind...)
Labels: politics
¶ January 30, 2006 0 Comments
Remember all that stuff about how they were going to start bringing more troops home?
Gotcha!
Labels: politics
¶ January 29, 2006 0 Comments
It seems Ann Coulter's public proposal to kill SCOTUS Justice Stevens with rat poison isn't just in bad taste. It's a federal crime.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 115, anyone who "threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder . . . a United States judge . . . with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with" that judge's duties is guilty of a felony.Why is the Justice Department so lax on terrorists like Ann? That's what I want to know.
Labels: politics
¶ January 29, 2006 0 Comments
Perhaps it's true that all art is, to a greater or lesser degree, autobiography.
If you've ever seen Mephisto, which features an actor who begins as an idealist and goes on to become a shill for the Nazi party--using the same rhetoric and talent for them as he'd used as a leftist--then the news that its director, Istvan Szabo, turns out to have been a snitch for the Hungarian secret police, during its totalitarian-Communist period.
And this detail beggars the imagination.
Szabo was quoted as saying he reported on fellow students at Budapest's Academy of Theatre and Film as part of efforts to save the life of a classmate who took up arms against the communist regime in the 1956 revolution.
"I am grateful to fate and subsequently I can be proud of what happened," he told Nepszabadsag. "The work for the secret police was the bravest and most fearless of my life."
The collaboration of artists with evil, to me, is one of the most baffling and despicable kinds of political betrayal, but I keep forgetting that there is nothing special about artists, and if anything, artists are more prone to imbecilic and craven behavior in political matters than others. The history of artists is, sadly, far more full of artists sucking up to power than fighting it.
But let's boil down Szabo's admission. To save one, he sacrificed many, and he doesn't feel even conflicted about what can be considered, at the very least, such a morally ambiguous matter.
But it's not wrong of the offender to offend, unless they aren't honest about it once they've already committed, and profited by, the offense. What's considered wrong now is to withhold forgiveness. The burden of closure is upon the victim, and if they choose not to forgive, this is somehow taken as something they should feel guilty for, as though in some way they want this hurt that the other brought upon them.
Only the good suffer. The cruel, the hypocritical, and the incompetent--why punish them when we accept their crimes as their nature?
Labels: politics
¶ January 27, 2006 0 Comments
To tell people that a Supreme Court justice should be poisoned, that is. Like Ann Coulter did.
"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."Ha ha! Here's some more hilarious Ann Coulter gags that would get anyone else arrested and perhaps placed under involuntary psychiatric care!
Labels: politics
¶ January 27, 2006 0 Comments
I mean, at least we don't behead the people we kidnap. That counts for something, right?
Labels: politics
¶ January 27, 2006 0 Comments
Details here, and please donate here. These are the signs.
Labels: politics
¶ January 27, 2006 0 Comments
Read this article on why a confirmation of Alito puts the final nail in the coffin of democracy in this country.
Something the past five years have taught me is this: tyranny doesn't have to shed blood to get power. It simply has to stride brazenly towards its destiny and realize that no one will actually try to stop them, if they don't want to be stopped.
Bush has gotten where he is simply by realizing that bad poll ratings will not translate into crowds with torches beating his door down. It's not as though we have the guts of the people of Romania, East Timor, or Czechoslovakia. We're only Americans, after all.
And you can warn people it's coming till long after you're blue in the face. People don't absorb the weight of such things until the damage has long since been done. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many other examples in history of this happening.
I'd like to see your comments on whether it matters to you or not. At least we still have the ability to entertain each other by arguing about politics as though it affected anything.
Well, for now...
Make no mistake about what is at stake here. The Supreme Court is already dangerously deferential to executive power. Only days ago, the Court let stand the conviction of a protester who committed the crime of holding a "no war for oil" sign at a Bush event held on public property in South Carolina in 2002. The Department of Justice has begun demanding that Google and other internet search providers turn over search records. Conservatives are paying students to expose "radical" college professors. Safeguarding our rights under the First Amendment may be the most sacred of the traditional duties of the Supreme Court. If Samuel Alito joins his deferential brethren on the Court, that role will recede into history. In its place will likely come a new Sedition Act, and in a year or three the courts will cheerfully approve the banning of websites like this one for our protection.But hey, go back to sleep, America! What's on E!?
Labels: politics
¶ January 27, 2006 0 Comments
Gawker's liveblog of yesterday's Oprah barbecueing of lying liar James Frey. And a fuller transcript in this Amazon reader review below by one "Hoke." I'm not linking to the Amazon page it appears on, because I don't want to risk helping Frey or Doubleday's sales.
Oprah rips it to pieces, January 27, 2006
This is the transcript from the most recent interview between the author and Oprah. Bottom line is the guy fabricated his work. He is a fraud.
Reviewer: Hoke (Thailand)
"I made a mistake," he told Oprah Winfrey during Thursday's show (1-26-2006). "I made a lot of mistakes in writing the book and promoting the book."
Did you lie or did you make a mistake?
"I think probably both," he said.
Winfrey, whose endorsement of "A Million Little Pieces" turned into it into one of the top-selling books of 2005, retracted her support of the author, saying she felt "conned" by him. "It's embarrassing and disappointing for me," she said.
And even while Frey admitted altering information that he presented as facts, he maintained his book is a memoir.
"I don't think it's a novel. I still think it's a memoir," he said. "I don't feel like I conned you. I still think the book is about drug addiction and alcoholism and no one is disputing that I was a drug addict and an alcoholic, and it's about the battle to overcome that."
Among the facts he admitted to embellishing: he was jailed for only a few hours, not 87 days; and each character in the book wasn't wholly represented.
"Every one of the people in the book existed. I altered things about all of them," he said.
"And you altered things about yourself," Winfrey said.
She pressed: "Why would you lie about the time you spent in jail?"
"I think part of what happened with a number of the things in the book, is when you go through an experience like the one I went through you develop different coping mechanisms. I think one of the coping mechanisms I developed was this image of myself that was greater than what I was," he said.
"In order to get through the experience of an addiction, I thought of myself as being tougher than I was, badder than I was. It helped me cope. When I was writing the book, instead of being as introspective as I should have been, I clung to that image."
Winfrey said: "Did you cling to that image because that's how you wanted to see yourself or because that would make a better book?"
"Probably both," he responded.
Winfrey made the paperback version of the book a best-seller after picking it for her coveted book club last September. Frey was a guest on her Oct. 26 show, titled "The Man Who Kept Oprah Awake at Night."
However, according to The Smoking Gun, an investigative Web site, a six-week investigation showed Frey's life was far less exciting than he made it out to be in the memoir, which has sold more than 3.5 million copies and remains atop The New York Times' nonfiction paperback best-seller list.
According to the Smoking Gun account, "When we asked Frey if his reporting of the laundry list of juvenile crimes and arrests was accurate, he answered, 'Yeah, some of 'em are, some of 'em aren't. I mean I just sorta tried to play off memory for that stuff.'"
On Thursday's show, Frey acknowledged the Smoking Gun "was pretty accurate, absolutely."
"They did a good job detailing some of the discrepancies between some of the actual facts of the events," he said.
Winfrey also apologized to viewers for calling CNN's Larry King two weeks ago and lending her support to Frey.
"I regret that phone call," she said. "I made a mistake. I left the impression that the truth does not matter, and I am deeply sorry about that. That is not what I believe.
"I called in because I loved the message of his book. At the time, every day, I was reading e-mail after e-mail from people who were inspired by his story. And I have to say I allowed that to cloud my judgment. To everyone who has challenged my position, you are absolutely right."
Nan Talese of Doubleday, the book's publisher, said she learned of the fabrications at the same time everyone else did -- when The Smoking Gun published its report.
"I was dismayed to know that," she said, adding that she never approached the author on whether Smoking Gun's report was true.
"As an editor, do you ask someone, 'Are you really as bad as you are?'" Talese said.
"Yes, yes, yes! Yes, you do," Winfrey said to loud applause.
Talese said Frey has written an author's note, describing to the reader "parts of the book that have been changed."
As for Frey, he's hoping to learn from the whole ordeal.
"I feel like I came here and (have) been honest with you, and essentially admitted to lying. It's not an easy thing to do in front of an audience full of people and a lot of others watching on TV," he told Winfrey.
"If I come out of this with anything, it's being a better person and learning from my mistakes and making sure I don't repeat them."
Labels: politics
¶ January 27, 2006 0 Comments
Bad translation makes Revenge of the Sith much more entertaining!
Labels: politics
¶ January 27, 2006 0 Comments
Good heavens, what a gloriously mean video Pink has done about our current regrettable crop of female celebrities.
Look at these "Stupid Girls."
Labels: politics
¶ January 27, 2006 0 Comments
Aaron Brown on how truth and decency no longer matter.
Labels: politics
¶ January 26, 2006 0 Comments
It seems the guy in possession of those five photos of Jack Abramoff and George Bush, and is shopping them around to the media, is in fact JackOff himself.
Wonder what sort of blackmail he's attempting by delaying their release. These might be very good indeed.
Labels: politics
¶ January 25, 2006 0 Comments
Why would Karl Rove be posting on Craigslist? (thanks for the link to "anonymous," whomever you are)
Labels: politics
¶ January 24, 2006 0 Comments
Saw this ad on Salon. (click to enlarge)
Thought you guys were pro-choice. What the hell is this doing there?
I'm very happy I let my subscription lapse.
"I mean, people make deals with the devil all the time." --Star Jones.
Labels: politics
¶ January 24, 2006 0 Comments
Because she already knew James Frey's A Million Little Pieces was bullshit. (But continues to defend him)
Labels: politics
¶ January 24, 2006 0 Comments
When is the Democratic party simply going to admit they no longer represent anyone, and dissolve?
Labels: politics
¶ January 24, 2006 0 Comments
What a hilarously earnest essay over at the Huffington Post about the demise of the West Wing, added to which, in the comments, the knee-jerk hilarity of righties applauding its demise and lefties screaming conspiracy.
Reading the Huffpost is usually more like reading a transcript of a Hollywood liberal mutual masturbation than it is like reading news or blogs. I'm on the left but I still get itchy when I hear any wealthy person parroting what their cocktail party chums are saying between bites of crispy crab cakes, and I have no use for the Hollywood Left, who have no stake at all in the problems they claim to care about and flit from fashion to fashion and ribbon to ribbon while injustices remain unsolved. And who, every time they open their mouths, make the entire, real left look like idiots by overstating, oversimplifying, or misrepresenting our views.
But here we have something symbolic, something they care about: a TV show.
Look, idiots. The show ran out of steam pretty much exactly the time Aaron Sorkin left it. No show lasts forever, and this one needed to be given death with something like dignity. And it has been a sad reminder of Democratic denial about the Bush presidency for some time now.
And it's just another TV show whose ultimate purpose is to sell you things. I mean, get real.
It's just a TV show. Get worked up about real injustices and be thankful you've been given one less reason to watch network television, you pinot-noir-swilling overprivileged crybabies.
Symbols are not real. Real things are real. And much scarier.
Labels: politics
¶ January 23, 2006 0 Comments
While we anxiously await the five Bush/Abramoff pics Time claims to have uncovered, here's one of Bush with a noted Abramoff tool.
Labels: politics
¶ January 23, 2006 0 Comments
From the Guardian. Thanks to the great R. Fiore of the Comics Journal for the heads-up.(and to Eli Bishop & Tom Spurgeon for the link to the PDF)
Labels: politics
¶ January 23, 2006 0 Comments
But when do we get to see these photos of them together?
Labels: politics
¶ January 23, 2006 0 Comments
Today I am 37. Hear me whine.
And by the way, what a lovely piece of news to adorn the day. Thanks, guys!
It seemed unfair, but it had to happen in somebody's lifetime.--Alan Moore, 1985
Labels: alan moore
¶ January 22, 2006 2 Comments
Traditionally considered bad form, bad taste and bad luck. But the GOP is fond of them.
Labels: politics
¶ January 21, 2006 0 Comments
So the Washington Post's ombudsman, one Deborah Howell, tried to claim that Jack Abramoff gave money to both political parties. Which he didn't, and it would be insane to think he would given that the purpose of the K Street Project was to gradually marginalize the Democrats and drive them from Washington. And people objected and said, hey, you're full of shit. So you know what the cowardly Post did? Froze the comments and removed them.
But here's a screenshot. Don't you love the web? Even more, don't you just love the number of commenters who own stock in the Post company who are dumping it because of this kind of thing?
And why is the Post employing such a clumsy and obvious GOP operative in this position?
Labels: politics
¶ January 20, 2006 0 Comments
Not only can you not read any New York Times columnists without subscribing to Times Select, but if you read them in syndication in your local paper and want to fire off an e-mail to tell John Tierney or Thomas Friedman what ninnies they are, or to tell Frank Rich to keep up the good work, or for Maureen Dowd to perhaps try a different perfume if she's having such trouble attracting men(well, I mean, she didn't recently publish a bestselling book going on and on about Iraq, folks)--well, too bad, because the Times has decided that only Times Select readers may have this privilege.
The Times is really doing everything it can to reduce any influence it still holds in people's minds. This may be a good thing, though, given that they're a bunch of Bush-fellating liars in journalists' garb.
Labels: politics
¶ January 19, 2006 0 Comments
"These guys are nothing but WEAK SPINELESS COWARDS hiding behind microphones while soldiers come home and are losing everything they have."--the late Douglas Barber
Like my own father, for one, who killed himself because of the demons Vietnam left him with.
Barber's words are just as true of him as they are of himself or the present vets. But then, reneging on promises to our soldiers and completely mistreating them is a government tradition, particularly when it comes to Republicans. Barber also has some choice words in this piece for the chickenhawk con pundits that are more than willing to beat the drums for war, but heaven forbid they should sacrifice anything, or even go.
PTSD - Every Soldier's Personal WAR!
By Spc. Doug Barber
1/10/05
Published By Coalition For Free Thought In MediaIn the last month I have been working with Jay Shaft, the editor of Coalition For Free Thought in media regarding my experiences in Iraq and since coming home from the war. We have only touched on some of the struggles of being a soldier, however we have not dug deeply into the personal war that Operation Iraqi Freedom has caused for returning soldiers.
Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush do not want to reveal to the American people that this war is a personal war. They want to run the war like a business, and thus they refuse to show the personal sacrifices the soldiers and their families have made for this country.
My thought today is to help you the reader understand what happens to a soldier when they come home and the sacrifice we continue to make. This may be lengthy, it may be short; but no matter how long it is, just close your eyes and imagine a flag draped coffin.
Inside that coffin is the body of a man or woman who will never get to live their life to the fullest, yet they bore the total cost so that we could live free. Their soul is somewhere else and all we have is their memory which over time will be forgotten by other events of greater importance. The families of these soldiers have a hole in their hearts that will never be replaced, even though they have pictures and happy memories.
Some families will refuse to believe they are gone, but still their sons and daughters are the hero's of a country that sent them to war. This war on terror has become a personal war for so many, yet the Bush Administration does not want journalists or families to photograph the only thing that is left of our soldiers who have died. They do not want the people to remember that image of a flag draped coffin as the last memory this country will ever have of our fallen men and woman.
They say that America will raise their voices and demand a stop to the war, but my question is why should we not show the results of war? For us as a country, we send these soldiers to war and we see their faces while they are alive. I say let their memories live on in every photo, even when they do come home in a flag draped coffin. Let their sacrifice be forever etched in the memory of America. We owe their families this at the very least.
All is not okay or right for those of us who return home alive and supposedly well. What looks like normalcy and readjustment is only an illusion to be revealed by time and torment. Some soldiers come home missing limbs and other parts of their bodies. Still others will live with permanent scars from horrific events that no one other than those who served will ever understand.
We come home from war trying to put our lives back together but some cannot stand the memories and decide that death is better. They kill themselves because they are so haunted by seeing children killed and whole families wiped out.
They ask themselves how you put a price tag on someone else's life? The question goes unanswered as they become another casualty of the war. Hero's become another statistic to America and they are another little article relegated to the back of a newspaper.
Still others come home to nothing, families have abandoned them: husbands and wives have left these soldiers, and so have parents as well. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has become the norm amongst these soldiers because they don't know how to cope with returning to a society that will never understand what they have had to endure to liberate another country.
PTSD comes in many forms not understood by many: but yet if a soldier has it, America thinks the soldiers are crazy. PTSD comes in the form of depression, anger, regret, being confrontational, anxiety, chronic pain, compulsion, delusions, grief, guilt, dependence, loneliness, sleep disorders, suspiciousness/paranoia, low self-esteem and so many other things.
We are easily startled with a loud bang or noise and can be found ducking for cover when we get panicked. This is a result of artillery rounds going off in a combat zone, or an IED blowing up.
I myself have trouble coping with an everyday routine that deals with other people that often causes me to have a short fuse. A lot of soldiers lose multiple jobs just because they are trained to be killers and they have lived in an environment that is conducive to that. We are always on guard for our safety and that of our comrades. When you go to bed at night you wonder will you be sent home in a flag draped coffin because a mortar round went off on your sleeping area.
Soldiers live in deplorable conditions where burning your own feces is the order of the day. Where going days on end with no shower and the uniform you wear gets so crusty it sometimes sticks to your body becomes a common occurrence. We also deal with rationing water or even food for that matter. So when a soldier comes home to what they left they are unsure of what to do being in a civilized world again.
This is what PTSD comes in the shape of--soldiers can not often handle coming back to the same world they left behind. It is something that drives soldiers over the edge and causes them to withdraw from society. As Americans we turn our nose down at them wondering why they act the way they do. Who cares about them, why should we help them?
Talk show hosts like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and so many others act like they know all about war; then they refuse to give any credence to soldiers like me who have been to war and seen the brutality of war. These guys are nothing but WEAK SPINELESS COWARDS hiding behind microphones while soldiers come home and are losing everything they have.
I ask every American who reads this e-mail to stand up for the soldier who has given their everything for this country to stand up to these guys in the media; ask them why they don't pick up a weapon and follow in the steps of a soldier. Send this e-mail to as many people on your e-mail lists and ask them to do the same.
There needs to be a National awareness for every Veteran who has ever served in any war. Send e-mails to the Big Mouths on TV and ask them to have soldiers like me on their programs. I am asking you as Americans to BOYCOTT every TV show or host/journalist that refuses to tell the real truth.
THIS IS A PERSONAL CHALLENGE TO BILL,SEAN AND RUSH TO HAVE ME ON YOUR PROGRAM TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. Otherwise you are nothing but dirt under every soldier's boots!
SPC. Douglas Barber
To all crooked government officials that is reading my e-mail, I hope you are enjoying yourself and maybe one day your eyes will be opened to the master who enslaves you. I know how to fight warfare and am prepared to fight it as well. LET THIS BE A WARNING!! I am watching and I know you are watching me but I don't care. LET FREEDOM BE HEARD.
[FREELY PROVIDED FOR LINKING, POSTING, FORWARDING TO MAIL LISTS OR ANY OTHER NON-PROFIT USE]
Labels: fatboy mcfascist, politics
¶ January 19, 2006 0 Comments
Here's a handy link to the ACLU's site so that you can send a message to the Bush regime that you want a special counsel, not one of Bush's own people, to investigate the NSA spying matter.
Take what little action a citizen can in this disgusting matter in only a couple of minutes. And pass the link on to anyone and everyone you know.
Oh, and specifically to my conservative readers: it's your problem too, or at least other cons think so.
Labels: politics
¶ January 18, 2006 0 Comments
A few words on that from Elizabeth Holtzman.
Labels: politics
¶ January 12, 2006 0 Comments
"The last five years, during which the number of registered lobbyists more than doubled, have proved that, for some Republicans, conservative virtue was merely the absence of opportunity for vice."
Labels: politics
¶ January 10, 2006 0 Comments
DeLay is really, really out now.
Labels: politics
¶ January 07, 2006 0 Comments
I know the 22nd is my birthday, but really, all this is just too much. ¶ January 06, 2006 0 Comments
Oh. And fuck.
One reason I'm not blogging as much lately, besides that I'm actually getting some work done, is that I may have reached a point of absolute numbness. Ever since Katrina, those two words pretty much sum up my reaction to just about every news story I see.
I'm not sure what use comment on any of it is anymore, except to provide entertainment for information addicts.
Which may be unfashionable and nihilistic to say, but that's never stopped me before. Nor has public disapproval stopped this administration from doing anything it likes, even retaining office. Sticks and stones may break their bones, but words will never hurt them.
Labels: politics
¶ January 05, 2006 0 Comments
Can't wait to see how this turns out.
Labels: politics
¶ January 04, 2006 0 Comments
Abramoff Pleads Guilty To Fraud
Keep smiling, Tom.
Here's a helpful list at Slate of just who could be in trouble here. Warning: lengthy.
Labels: politics
¶ January 03, 2006 0 Comments
