Friday, July 16, 2004
L.I.T.M. - JC Bar showing "Outfoxed" this sunday
Hip Hop Karaoke - Great time! Did it last week. Led off the show with NWA's Staight Outta Compton. Make sure it's on this week by calling ahead.
Control Room - Al Jazeera documentary. It's nothing short of ridiculous. It's at the Quad and the Sunshine in NYC.
of course, if you're in Vermont give me a buzz!
But Fischer's detention -- and a possible handover to U.S. authorities -- gives Japan a chance to show it is cooperating with the United States just days before Japanese officials plan to bring an accused U.S. Army deserter, Charles Robert Jenkins, to Tokyo for urgent medical treatment.
Look what you've done
When you find yourself in the thick of it
Help yourself to a bit of what is all around you, Silly Girl.
Just watched her brief press conference. She basically asked people to come back to Martha Stewart Living! She made a great point about the people who lost jobs, and the many people who were dragged through the mud. She promises a return, and I don't doubt it. I actually feel a bit bad for her. A personal matter, "blown out of proportion...with such venom..."
But it's nice to see on some level that Democrats, via 527s, have managed to get the upper hand in the financial race, and sorta close the soft money barrage Republicans have taken advantage of.
Now, the reason I believe Democrats are having an easier time raising funds for these issue ads is because of the message. Republican groups, like radical Christian groups, anti-abortion groups, or any other number of wing-nut freak shows, are way out of the mainstream, and sometimes even militant. Not to say liberal groups are mainstream, but they're not shooting abortion doctors, and rallying for some of these groups. When Republicans used to give money to lobbyists and candidates it was in a general sense. You could give to Congressman John Q. Kikehater based on the basis that your company resided in his district, and you wanted favorable laws for your business. But as a business you're not going to give to a racist/radical/dangerous issue group because then you have blood on your hands, so to speak.
Liberal leaning groups don't necessarily have the same problems. Sure, there are Enviro-terrorists who blow up Hummer dealerships, but by and large, the liberal groups are deemed peaceful "whacktivists." There's no real fear that the groups are going to comeback to haunt you later, so you can give money to these groups without real worry. That's not the same on the other side, and I think we're seeing that financially.
Lastly, another selfish perspective about soft money, and money in general, is the effect on Jewish people and groups. I favor publicly financed elections, but if that were the case, Jews could suffer. They give so much money to campaigns both individually and through business, that any public financing would limit their influence, and at the same time decrease a lawmakers care to help the state of Israel. Unless, of course, you believe many of these people really do care about the state. I don't think they do.
Yeah, dickface, lets ignore the truth because of the rules! I give it about a day before Fox News and Republicans start asking "Why she hates America?"
The House's presiding officer, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ruled that Brown's words violated a House rule.
"Members should not accuse other members of committing a crime such as, quote, stealing, end quote, an election," Thornberry said.
When Brown objected to his ruling, the Republican-run House voted 219-187 along party lines to strike her words.
Amazing that the media, and politicos, are pointing out that Kerry either doesn't talk about religion enough, or only when it's politically expedient. Well, I wish it was never discussed AT ALL. So if he's going to do it only when it's expedient, fine. But if it takes John Kerry bringing it up more in order to win, I guess I'll except that too. Then he can spend the next 4-8 years diminishing the role of religion in public, or so I hope.
Where's the article about how religion isn't supposed to be in the public sphere? I mean, it is a liberal media!
If past patterns are any guide, about one in three Americans will go without health insurance for some part of the next two years. They won't, for the most part, be the persistently poor, who are usually covered by Medicaid. They will be members of working families with breadwinners who have jobs without medical benefits or who have been laid off.
I'm not surprised that Kissinger feels this way, but would be surprised if Powell took this line of reasoning down the road. People like Kissinger don't believe in democracy, and think people like himself should make decisions for the people, above their heads. His history speaks to this.
So even though no weapons have been found, they're cool with it because they know what is better for you. You're just an idiot.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
And Josh Marshall has this scary shit:
Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters yesterday that he plans to use “jurisdiction stripping” measures to achieve other social policy goals as well.
For example, he will push legislation to stop federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The U.S. Constitution establishes only the Supreme Court but leaves it to Congress to “ordain and establish” the lower federal courts. Arguably, therefore, Congress has the right determine the federal courts’ jurisdiction.
“That [Supreme Court] building is the Taj Mahal. … Everybody should stay away from it,” he said about Congress’s past unwillingness to challenge Supreme Court decisions.
DeLay said the time is “not quite ripe” to apply the GOP’s new legislative tactics to the issue of abortion.
That's fucking scary.
Now we have another Patriot that's failing us on some level, the PATRIOT ACT!
The defenders of the Act will never admit to it's flaws because they don't want to deal with the political fallout that would accompany it. So rather than fix it, and make it acceptable (because there are necessary provisions and aspects), they'd rather violate rights and the constitution. So that's nice.
We transfer sovereignty, and claim Iraqis have control. So why do we need coalition troops there anyway? Of course, so it seems like we have support. Everything isn't what it seems. It'd be nice if there actually were enough troops to ease our burden, but there isn't.
Most people sorta don't think about the lack of a coalition as being a huge failure. Most just look at how "old europe" doesn't care for us (as well as new). But Bush's failure to really create a coalition has put our troops lives in danger, spread the military thin, and caused countless hardships to many American families. Kerry should discuss this daily.
The newest theory - advanced privately by prominent Democrats, including members of Congress - holds that Mr. Cheney recently dismissed his personal doctor so that he could see a new one, who will conveniently tell him in August that his heart problems make him unfit to run with Mr. Bush. The dismissed physician, Dr. Gary Malakoff, who four years ago declared that Mr. Cheney was "up to the task of the most sensitive public office" despite a history of heart disease, was dropped from Mr. Cheney's medical team because of an addiction to prescription drugs.Two weeks ago I said it was a sure thing. Maybe McCain, maybe Powell? But now I'm not so sure. If the Democrats make it an issue it becomes more difficult to do, which is a great political move. You want Dick Cheney, and only Dick Cheney on that ticket come November. The VP you hope can carry his/her home state, but the last thing you want is for the position to bring you down. Polls show, Cheney is a negative. Are Democrats pulling their heads from their collective asses?!?!?
"I couldn't let Whoopi Goldberg have all the fun," the comic told the crowd
Republicans are the best! They make fun of Hollywood types, who, as I mentioned in a previous post, are not trying to use their fame to win office, but rather become active the way anyone else would. But, as soon as a Republican can get support by one of these "types" they make that person front and center, like Dennis Miller. Great stuff!
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
What's not to like? The story notes that the daughters' post-graduation plans include Jenna's desire to work for a charter school and Barbara's interest in working with AIDS-afflicted children in Eastern Europe and Africa. Both girls have surrounded themselves with a group of good friends who say such nice things about them that readers might be led to believe these young women have never burped publicly, let alone had a grumpy day.
Just for the record I dated a girl for about a week, and her friend was nailing Jenna last summer in NYC. Hopefully he never got burped or farted on. And Barbara, well, she attended Naked Parties at Yale, but she may have never "burped publicly."
And I've been tipped off to this GREAT STORY about Chic NYC, the Bush girls, and some other characters.
Fifteen minutes later, I step outside to make sure the entrance is swept, and there I see Barbara bent over, hands on her knees, out on the sidewalk. "Are you all right?" I ask. Please, I think, don't let me see her throw up.
She spits on the pavement. "Yeah, I just needed some fresh air," she says. She stands and I see her forehead is damp with sweat. It must be 20 degrees out, and windy. I want to go back into the warm restaurant, but I stay with her.
That takes care of the burping, I guess.
If you read it, and I suggest you do, you'll get to this part:
John Kerry is claiming that George W. Bush has the wrong "values" because he went to war when "he didn't have to." Fair enough, for an election year. But it seems to me that Bush could turn that around on Kerry. I think President Bush can claim the right values precisely because he had the courage to do the right thing in the long run, even if it was the risky thing in the short run. Kerry values stability and alliances for their own sake, which is another way of saying he values popularity over principles. If Iraq becomes the engine of a prosperous and democratizing Middle East in 20 years, who in the next generation won't be grateful for the values of this generation?
It doesn't take a genius to realize that Al Gore wrote a book about Global Warming, and one can apply the same rationale, that Gore was more concerned with the "long run" and "the right thing" even when it is "the risky thing in the short run."
These people actually get hired to write.
"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"
Don't ever accuse that guy of politicizing the War on Terror!
So the Senate voted and 48 normal people voted against the Defense of Marriage Bill, while 50 Klan folk went the other way, and of course, I don't mean gay when I say the other way. But you never know...
Here's how you know many of these people, included Dumbya, are just against gay people being together:
A second sentence said that neither the federal nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.
They don't want unions either. But Finally, there's this:
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.
For or against gays, or their marriages, it seems a majority of people do not favor changing the Constitution. As the issue gets debated more and more, and people see same sex couples in love, that even makes it less likely they'll support changing the laws.
President Bush has more or less screwed people (not gay style) in his own party by putting this issue on the table. It's fascinating to me to watch and listen to conservatives wax about the divisiveness of the issue, and the effect it will have on Democrats when in truth it'll probably be the other way around!
Most people are not right-wing fundamentalists. In states like Ohio where you have Republicans like George Voinovich, and at the same time a lot of gays in cities like Columbus, there are people who see him voting against a specific group of people, in this case gays. I don't think that bodes well in states that are up for grabs. As much as certain voters may not like gay marriage, or gay people, it doesn't mean they want to take away their rights.
So Bush put this issue on the table and forced 50 Senators to vote to "defend marriage", but in truth, it makes these people look a bit scary to a lot of independents and undecided voters, especially those Reagan-like Dems who voted for Bush over Gore. President Dumbass is willing to sacrifice certain seats as long as he protects his because this issue is not going to bump up any of his congressional allies. He hopes it helps his campaign. And I think it will help...help him lose.
There's a billion ways to go with this, but I'm seeing a trend across the country that is scaring the shit out of parents. Children watch MTV, dress all scantily, think the people on Girls Gone Wild RULE, and do all kinds of provocative stuff at a younger age than I ever did. And I was pretty much a psycho when I was younger. I think the parents in this country, or at least the hardcore religious ones, are striking out against their own children who they see as pushing the sexuality limits. Gay marriage is just one of those things becoming more accepted by younger people, and frankly, the parents are frightened.
Parents can't be asked to raise thier kids! So of course, they want the BIG GOVERNMENT to do it for them, through laws!
Maybe I'm crazy, but I think there's something to be said for this. I mean, just look where I find the link to the story!
I'm still amazed that former Medicare Administrator and current drug company lobbyist Tom Scully was seen as doing nothing illegal by withholding the Medicare bill's true cost, and threatening to fire the analyst with the right numbers.
What planet do we live on?
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Enough with the "world is a better place because Saddam has been removed..." comment.
I'm not even sure that's accurate! Sure, in a vacuum, that's true. He's a bad dude, we know this. But honestly, not that I favor him being in control of a nation, but he did pretty much keep one Middle Eastern country under control, and without crazy religious radicals! So to say that the US "is a better place because..." is a supposition at best.
Btw, can i get some tallies:
Human Life (include Iraqis)?
However, a factor worth discussing which I think is largely ignored, is what I call the "Dog Eat Dog" factor.
If you noticed the heroes of 2002 in the business world were Colleen Rowley (FBI), Cynthia Cooper (WorldCom) and Sherron Watkins (Enron). These women were willing to buck the trend, blow the whistle, and announce to the world that there are serious problems goin' on down here.
Aside from Lea Fastow, wife of King Dipshit Andrew Fastow of Enron, no women have really been caught in the crosshairs of all these scandals and investigations. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I feel there is a certain type of Alpha Male that is willing to do anything, and eveyrthing to get to the top, and that same drive, while there in some women is not as prevalent as it is in men.
It may be simplistic, but so many more men play competitive sports, and then carry that "winning attitude" into the workplace. Plus, men are more likely to come across coaches who have that "Win at all costs" mentality, so it may be instilled in them at a young age. I am not talking about every guy, but it does not take many to take down a company, etc.
Point being, more men are willing to do whatever it takes to advance, while I believe women, generally, are more passive and honest. This hampers the ability of many women to get to the top, or make as much as men do in similar fields. There are exceptions, but by and large, I think this factor is ignored.
Most men who cheat will not get caught taking the shortcuts to get to the top. Yes, some women cheat too, I know. There can be a billion other reasons why more men probably do this, but overall, I think it's a male thing, and it may be a partial reason why women will never make as much as men even if all things are equal.
This is my main reason why more female politicians are needed in the world. New Jersey, the most democratic state in the nation, has zero in Congress.
I'd vote for Walter Payton in his current state over this idiot. Truth be told, if Barak Obama cannot beat Mike Ditka in a race over ideas, well, I'd say the Democratic Party has a few more problems than I was aware of. I mean, afterall, he ain't JORDAN!
But seriously, what is with the lowering of the bar in this country? Mike Ditka clearly shouldn't be making federal budget decisions, amongst other things (not that Bush should be, or even is). Then you take a look at the number of Republicans who have taken their fame and tried to make a political career out of it. Just off the top of my head I can count Arnie, Sonny Bono, Ron Reagan, George Murphy, Fred Thompson, Jack Kemp, Fred Grandy and I'm sure there are more. The Democrats, well, we have Ben Jones who played "Cooter" on the Dukes of Hazard.
Point being, it seems more Republicans are willing to take their fame and parlay it into a political career, which WREAKS of opportunism, but I expect no less. While on the other side, Democrats like Streisand, Baldwin, Springsteen, Vedder, Dixie Chicks, etc., well they become activists and have their name dragged through the press in a negative light for not waving the flag. Different types of people make different types of choices.
The GOP = Grand Opportunist Party.
After reading Matthew Yglesias I find it hard to believe this report isn't all encompassing.
It's really good to know that the Senate is going to investigate how the White House used/misued Intel about Iraq after November.
And to think, there are people like Michael Ledeen over at the National Review who are upset that Senator Rockefeller has even begun to call out people like Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith before any investigation has begun.
I'd say, considering Senator Rockefeller's career and current actions, there's a good chance he knows something, hence, the post-November investigation.
I bet a few people are worried that an investigation into Feith and the White House will put on display how many failures people like him were behhind, and this would be too negative before an election, of course.
Monday, July 12, 2004
This comment struck a chord:
Trust President Philip Clapp called the administration proposal the biggest giveaway to the timber industry in history, arguing that many western states would likely press for development to help struggling rural economies.
``The idea that many governors would want to jump head first into the political snake pit of managing the national forests in their states is laughable,'' he said. ``Besides, the timber industry has invested heavily for years in the campaigns of governors with the largest national and state forests, giving almost equally to Republicans and Democrats.''
Well, it's not close.
This comment is so wrong you'd think Dumbya said it himself. Remember, there's an old saying in D.C.: Lobbyists give to Republicans because their clients want them to. They give to Democrats because they have to.
In years when Dems are in control of SOMETHING, they got less money across the board. The years when they control nothing, well, it's not even close.
"We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman.
You'll be hearing alot of this as Dumbya tries to blame trial lawyers like John Edwards.
The president loves USATODAY, so you should too.
Bob Herbert in the Times points out how aware Bush is about the issue.
What's getting me excited is the news that Ahnold and McCain will be the face men at the Republican National Committee on night 1. I assumed Giuliani considering they are trying to take advantage of NY/NJ as much as possible, but the other two? Hmmm. Now it seems the Christian Taliban is getting equally disturbed about this very issue, as noted in the NYTIMES today
Some prominent conservatives say they are upset at the apparent exclusion of the champions of their favorite issues from the limelight of the Republican convention in favor of more moderate members of the party.
Conservatives said they were surprised to see former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Senator John McCain of Arizona - all moderate Republicans who oppose the proposed constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage - given high-profile roles at the convention, with few conservative Republicans on the list.
"I hate to say it, but the conservatives, for the most part, are not excited about re-electing the president," warned Paul Weyrich, the longtime Christian conservative organizer, in an e-mail newsletter on Friday. "If the president is embarrassed to be seen with conservatives at the convention, maybe conservatives will be embarrassed to be seen with the president on Election Day."
Of course he's embarrassed, you're a bunch of fucking psychos! As is he! Don't worry, I'm sure by the end they'll roll out Jesus and a few apostotles to wrap it up. But it says a lot when your party is embarrassed to admit who they are. In fact, it's quite evident that distortion of reality is EXACTLY what the party is about, and you can see that just by checking their major policies on taxes, Iraq, the environment, and even faith based initiatives!