God as a Bonus

It's bad enough talk radio is filled with Rush-wannabes, and most GMs and Program Directors have neither balls, nor intelligence, but it's funny to read the Job Opps seeking "flame-throwing" God speakers.

Makes me wonder if the Christian Right is worried about losing the slight grip they've established in Bushland, or if they just want more.

This ad has been posted every day for the last two weeks, and of course, I had to apply:

NATIONAL CHRISTIAN RADIO NETWORK

CEN TALK RADIO: Tick-tock,tick-tock the last spot is almost locked... this is you're last chance. Send you're Mp3 files to info@centalkradio.com or programming@centalkradio.com
We don't care if you are in the Los Angeles or New York markets or as small as Barstow Ca we are looking for the best FLAME-THROWERS out there. Don't send your pictures of yourselves in less you want us to know how ugly you really are... So, if you listen to or sound like any Salem station, save your Mp3's for someone who is looking for Limp-Wristed Girly Men as air-personalities. "Though it does'nt take much personality to be that type of jock".



Moses Zeke, centalkradio, 7/1/2005 10:29:36 AM, info@centalkradio.com
Message#164700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE 1ST AND ONLY CHRISTIAN RADIO NETWORK FOR MEN

CEN TALK RADIO HAS ONLY ONE FULL-TIME AIR SHIFT LEFT TO BE FILLED. SO YOU BETTER HURRY AND SEND YOU'RE Mp3 FILE RIGHT AWAY... WE ARE LOOKING FOR BIG GUNS FOR ON-AIR NOT "POP GUNS". CEN TALK RADIO ONLY WILL HIRE THE BEST OUT THERE IN RADIO AND WE PAY GREAT NOT LIKE THE OTHER SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS THAT PAY LOW AND BONUS WITH GOD. OUR TALENT WON'T NEED TO BE ON FOOD STAMPS BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING GODS WORK. FLAME-THROWERS NEED ONLY APPLY!
SO IF YOU CAN "WAKE AND SHAKE" THE 25-54 CHRISTIAN MEN OUT THERE SEND YOU'RE STUFF NOW TO info@centalkradio.com or programming@centalkradio.com



centalkradio, 7/1/2005 10:08:18 AM, info@centalkradio.com
Message#164695

I've got this weird feeling I'm not getting the gig.

They don't want limp-wristers. They want a Jesus lover who will call a spade a spade, or a fag a fag...

This'll Be Fun

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

I think Alberto Gonzales has enough experience at the Justice Department to assume the bench.

I'm hearing if it's not Al, it could be Lynn Swann or Mean Joe Greene!

Ooooooooooh!

Nice groom job:

Lynn Swann, the Hall of Fame former wide receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers, stood before a nearly all-white Republican crowd at the Holiday Inn here recently and denounced Pennsylvania's Democratic governor, Edward G. Rendell, for failing to reduce property taxes. Then, without prompting, Mr. Swann suddenly turned the subject to race - his own.

"I'm not here to be the poster child for the Republican Party, to say they're being inclusive by running an African-American," said Mr. Swann, 54. "That's not why I'm here. I'm here to win."

Still, to many prominent Republicans, Mr. Swann, a commentator for ABC Sports, is much more than a potentially strong contender for governor in 2006. He is, they hope, part of a new crop of prominent black candidates who could help the Republicans crack, if not break, Democratic domination among black voters in several important states.

In Maryland, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, black Republicans - all of whom have been groomed by the national party - are expected to run for governor or the United States Senate next year. Several other up-and-coming black Republicans are expected to run for lower statewide offices in Missouri, Ohio, Texas and Vermont in 2006.

In response, the Democrats plan to run some white, racist, chauvinist, bigots who ironically, don't care about the majority of Republicans.

I Think John Madden Says It Best

Rumbling, bumbling, fumbling:

CIA agents charged with kidnapping a Muslim cleric in Milan appear to have bungled their way into an international incident by ignoring the most basic rules of the spy trade, experts say.

Far from the suave discretion of James Bond, experts say the operatives who snatched radical Muslim cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr on Feb. 17, 2003, sound more like the bumbling secret agent Austin Powers of movie fame.

"Instead of super-sleuths, they were like elephants stampeding through Milan. They left huge footprints," said former CIA clandestine officer Melissa Boyle Mahle.

Media reports say the agents placed phone calls to CIA headquarters on unsecured lines, ran up $145,000 in bills at luxury hotels and operated far enough in the open for Italian authorities to learn their operational identities.

"Everybody knows that telephones can be traced. It's not exactly an emerging technology," said one former spy.

In fact, current and former intelligence officials, who had no actual knowledge of Nasr's abduction, said Italian accounts depict an amateur operation.

Several other intelligence sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the case involves a covert U.S. operation.

"The tradecraft was beyond appalling," said an intelligence official with long experience in clandestine affairs. "I'd have to wonder if these were CIA officers trained in the clandestine arts."

Some suggested the operation could have been carried out by intelligence officials from the FBI or the U.S. military.

I remember when I got emails about the US/Italy relationship, and how the Italians had it all wrong.

Do they still have it all wrong, or do we?

More Richard Cohen

Nailing it again.

I Can Hear It Now

"I sponsored a bill to increase aid to our veterans!!!"

Virtually all veterans groups -- including the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- have complained bitterly that the administration and the Republican leadership have abandoned a commitment to treat VA health care as an integral "cost of war." John Furgess, commander in chief of the VFW, denounced Bush's spending proposals for the department as "especially shameful during a time of war."

The Senate vote yesterday was on a bill sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who had opposed a past Democratic amendment to raise VA spending. He was given the honor of becoming lead sponsor because he faces one of the toughest reelection fights next year among incumbent Republicans.

Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), who is orchestrating the party's campaign efforts, refused to give Santorum a free ride, noting that on three previous occasions, "Senate Republicans, including the lead sponsor [Santorum] . . . voted no. No to additional funding for our veterans. No to giving them the quality health care they have earned. No to keeping our nation's commitments to those who have served."

Reid's comments infuriated Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and Santorum, who denounced Reid for saying that Nicholson's "only qualification" as VA secretary was his tenure as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Santorum cited Nicholson's extensive military experience and his awards and medals.

Reid said he was "sorry" he had not acknowledged Nicholson's military service, but "I will not be lectured about civility by the junior senator from Pennsylvania who has repeatedly disrespected veterans. . . . Talk about crass politics, the junior senator from Pennsylvania can't run from his record."

Still Doesn't Follow Polls

He's a man with "steely resolve."

When President Bush confidently predicts victory in Iraq and admits no mistakes, admirers see steely resolve and critics see exasperating stubbornness. But the president's full-speed-ahead message articulated in this week's prime-time address also reflects a purposeful strategy based on extensive study of public opinion about how to maintain support for a costly and problem-plagued military mission.

The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation's top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helpingBush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight. Behind the president's speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won.

It must be really hard to have such resolve when you're sending other peoples' children off to die. Oops! Did I say "die?" I meant "defend freedom."

Blowger

Posting light for a few days.

I'm sure a whole lot's gonna change...

Still Waiting

For the White House apology and retraction:

A Russian citizen released last year from Guantanamo Bay prison said on Tuesday U.S. guards at the camp regularly threw copies of the Koran into toilets.

Earlier this month, the U.S. military described cases of "mishandling" of a Koran by U.S. personnel at the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including splashing it with urine and kicking it.

"In Cuba, they used to take them (the Koran) and throw them, take them and throw them, into lavatories or elsewhere. It happened regularly and this was to provoke protests," Airat Vakhitov, told reporters.

"In the summer of 2003, there was a big hunger strike, which 300 people took part in, over the abuse of the Koran."

Muslims consider the Koran the literal word of God and treat each book with deep reverence.

Face turning red as breath is held...

This man is innocent. He was abducted, and tortured. That's what we do, but it's okay by Republicans because what they don't hear or see, they don't care about.

Just give me some Jack Daniels, a line a coke, maybe a Hail Mary, and we're good to go.

It's The New

And Improved Iraq!

Bet you didn't know US Troops were dying for this:

Physicians have been beaten for treating female patients. Liquor salesmen have been killed. Even barbers have faced threats for giving haircuts judged too short or too fashionable.

Religion rules the streets of this once cosmopolitan city, where women no longer dare go out uncovered.

"We can't sing in public anymore," said Hussin Nimma, a popular singer from the south. "It's ironic. We thought that with the change of the regime, people would be more open to singing, art and poetry."

Unmarked cars cruise the streets, carrying armed, plain-clothed enforcers of Islamic law. Who they are or answer to is unclear, but residents believe they are part of a battle for Basra's soul.

In the spring, Shiite and Sunni Muslim officials were killed in a series of assassinations here, and residents feared their city would fall prey to the kind of sectarian violence ailing the rest of the country.

Instead, conservative Shiite Islamic parties have solidified their grip, fully institutionalizing their power in a city where the Shiite majority had long been persecuted by the Sunni-dominated rule of Saddam Hussein.

This is just one part of the "freedom" and "democracy" that we're supporting in Iraq. Ahh, but it gets better for no wanted Saddam Hussein there:

His own bait overlooked, Abdul Kareem watched his son pull fish from the river.

The river, green like jade, is unchanged but the city is different, Kareem said.

Lovers used to be drawn here at night, he remembered. "Girlfriends, wives — nobody asked," he said. "Now, no one dares."

He sighed at the memory of nightclubs now closed, and girls without veils.

"Freedom," he said.

Who has the balls to say that under Saddam Hussein accurate was actually more secure, and had no problem with terrorism? Granted, the guy wasn't a good guy, but when he was there the region was clearly more secure.

Now it's run by militias and clerics who are probally equally as fucked up.

Things get worse every day.

Ruh Ruh Roh

More honest Republicans:

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed documents from Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham related to the eight-term Republican's home sale to a defense contractor at what may have been an inflated $1.675 million price.

You be the judge.

Ruh Roh

DOCTOR Frist.

Nice

Bush agrees to overhaul intelligence.

Lobotomy surgery only days away...

David Byrne

Is playing tonight at Summer Stage in Central Park.

Here are some tracks from his performance last week at the Mountain Winery in Saratoga, CA. Coincidentally, my Uncle had a hand in getting that place off the ground.

Finite = Alright

This Must be the Place

Get Your Flypaper!

I'm glad Democrats are complaining about Bush's use of 9/11 when he talks about the Iraq War. Better late than not at all, right?

Bush first mentioned the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center at the beginning of his speech, delivered at an Army base that has 9,300 troops in Iraq. He acknowledged that Americans are disturbed by frequent deaths of U.S. troops, but tried to persuade an increasingly skeptical public to stick with the mission.

"The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001," Bush told a national television audience and 750 soldiers and airmen in dress uniform who mostly listened quietly as they had been asked to do.

"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he continued.

Bush said he understands the public concerns about a 27-month-old war that has killed more than 1,700 Americans and 12,000 Iraqi civilians and cost $200 billion. But he argued that the sacrifice "is worth it."

"We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

You must remember, Bush believes. It's not even like he hears Nancy Pelosi's comments about his misuse of 9/11 and thinks, "Man, that Nancy, I see her point, but I gotta keep doin' it..."

No, he's not that guy. He believes 9/11 and Iraq are the same thing. It's the "Flypaper Theory" commeth back. In case you forgot, that was the theory being bandied about after the war looked bad, by folks like Paul Wolfowitz, arguing that we have made Iraq the central battlefield in the war on terror. The Wall St Journal, and conservative hacks everywhere loved this theory. I heard it nonstop.

I just want to say, "Thank you, Iraq. Thank you for allowing us to use your country as the place where we invite all the terrorists so we can kill them. We appreciate the land use. In return we shall give you FREEDOM!"

You must realize Bush believes in what he says. He convinced himself ages ago that Iraq and 9/11 are one in the same: the "larger" "global" "War on Terror." It's not his fault. He's dumb, and this is what he believes. Americans elected this guy, and this is what he believes. He doesn't flip flop. When he said over a year, or two, ago that 9/11 and Iraq were part of this "global struggle" he meant it. He hasn't changed his mind. To change his mind would be, uhhh, hmmmm, what's the word here...Oh, oh yeah, Kerry-like. And to be Kerry-like would mean you have, uhh, like, uhhh, a brain.

I am happy Democrats will point out how dumb his comments and he is just to put on display what so many Americans voted for. Granted, they're only speaking to 20% of the electorate since about 30% are equally as retarded as Bush, and believe in the "global" struggle. That's fine with me because the 20% is the swing vote, and they are realizing their mistakes more and more every day. Hopefully they'll wake up one day and collectively say, "Okay, okay! I get your point! I fucked up, and I won't let it happen again!"

One final point here, which is intentional deception by Bush, and that is his terminology. There are certainly "terrorists" in Iraq who have come from other countries just to fight the United States. Again, flypaper. However, there are also Iraqis, and Bush has never acknowledged this point.

Are Iraqis who defend their country against the United States, or the Coalition, terrorists? Is everyone who fights for nationalism against the United States "terrorists?" I would have to think that there are many Iraqis who are not terrorists. Afterall, Iraq was pretty much a terrorist free area, relative to the nations that do harbor terrorists, before the Iraq War. Many of these people hate it that America has come to "save them", and they're fighting back.

Iraqis may hate Saddam, but Saddam was their guy. He was Iraqi. He was bad, sure, but Iraqis maintained a belief they were adults. That's until America came and let them know they were now children, and would be treated like so.

Maybe one Republican politician will admit we're not just fighting terrorists, but Iraqi nationalists as well. I don't think a Sunni who was previously in the military, since disbanded, who fights the coalition is a terrorist. He's a soldier, stripped of dignity, who fights. I certainly want this guy dead, but that doesn't make him a terrorist.

We're so dumb.

The Draft

I enjoy the NBA Draft a lot more then I do the NBA itself. Last night's draft is clearly one of the most interesting drafts in memoty.

What you had is some good picks, some bad picks, and a spotlight shined on some of the dumbest decisions ever made by college basketball players (maybe even their agents).

Lets start with the positives, before I get to the Knicks.

Wait, no, lets just get to the Knicks. Do they have a clue what's going on? Is Isiah Thomas retarded? That weird looking grin he always expresses isn't a sign of confidence, no. It's a sign that he's really retarded.

How in the world do you end up selecting Channing Frye (Center, Arizona) with the 8th pick? Why?!?!?! Note: I'm not a Knicks fan anymore, and haven't been for a while. It's things like this that have made me not a fan.

Frye was a huge recruit coming out of high school who could do everything well. He had the height (6'10), long arms, touch, and mobility. He also proved he was as soft as can be, even in high school. Then he went to college and put on display all those skills that made him one of the top ballers in the nation. However, the softness was the most glaring part of his game. But Isiah Thomas thinks NOW is the time he's going to get tough. In the NBA! Where guys like Ben Wallace play basketball. That's who he'll be guarding! He'll be guarding Tim Duncan! Emeka Okafor! Now he'll get TOUGH! PROMISE! What a joke.

Frye is obviously a practice player. He's the kind of guy who most likely wows you with his ability and potential during tryouts, aka, games that don't matter. In high school I'm sure he dominated 6'4" centers, and at the combines he must have looked great. Whatever the case, he's gonna be a bust.

The Knicks took David Lee with the last pick in the first round, who isn't that good either, but no joke, he's probably as good as Frye. In fact, they're practically twins.

The Knicks rolled the dice on two big men who could potentially be good, in their minds. In my mind, if you're going to roll the dice, roll it on youth. Roll it on guys who have tremendous upside. Not college Seniors who didn't dominate in college.

How the Knicks passed on the high school and college talent available at #8 is so shocking. How they passed on Sean May, a guy who could put Frye in a tuna can, is beyond me. Why they suck is not beyond me. Ever heard of trading down? Ever heard of Wayne Simien? Heck, Jason Maxiell at 6'7" will be better than Frye because at least he's intense.

At least they got Nate Robinson, the 5'9" legend from Washington. He'll be good.

Oh yeah, the good picks.

The Celtics cleaned up, AGAIN. They rolled the dice and came away with a 3, as in 3 good, possibly some great, players (Green, Gomes, Greene).

New Orleans did well. They got my favorite player in the Draft: Chris Paul. He'll be a great player. They also nabbed Brandon Bass who will be a crowd favorite, and has great game for a swingman.

I love how Larry Legend got Danny Granger at #17. That's why they're good, and the Knicks aren't.

I would suggest reading this article, basketball fan or not, about the DUMBEST CONFERENCE IN AMERICA: The SEC.

Why Does She Hate America?

Was she sleeping with Mark Felt?

Former Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley, whose public criticism of the bureau set off an uproar over the FBI's pre-Sept. 11 counterterrorism lapses, said Monday that she will run as a Democrat for the U.S. House.

Rowley plans to challenge second-term Republican Rep. John Kline in Minnesota's Second District, which stretches across the Twin Cities' western and southern suburbs and as far south as Le Sueur and Red Wing.

TIME Magazine fears being branded more liberal than NEWSWEEK. I hope she can handle being held personally responsible for 9/11.

AND WE'RE WINNING!

Yes, "winning!":

The Bush administration and congressional allies are gearing up to renew a plan for drug eradication in Latin America despite some grim news: The $5.4 billion spent on the plan since 2000 has made no dent in the availability of cocaine on American streets and prices are at all-time lows.

United Nations figures released this month show that coca cultivation in the Andean region increased by 2% in 2004 as declines in Colombia were swamped by massive increases in Peru and Bolivia. And the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said last week that the anti-drug effort had had "no effect" on the price or purity of drugs in the United States.

The findings have fueled skepticism in Congress, where conservative groups have joined efforts to lobby against continued funding. The National Taxpayers Union called the anti-drug program a "boondoggle."

Nonetheless, a House committee last week approved the administration's request for $734.5 million for next year as part of a foreign aid bill. Debate on the bill could start as early as today. President Bush also may unveil a renewed multiyear commitment to South American anti-drug efforts this year when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a staunch U.S. ally, is expected to visit.

"We are heading in the right direction and we are winning," the federal drug czar, John P. Walters, told Congress last month.

I don't have the desire to write about this AGAIN.

:)

Richard Cohen's "Right Wing Sucker Punch":

Edward Klein has written one hell of an exposé. His new book on Hillary Clinton, "The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President," insinuates epic mendacities, sapphic sex, fiscal improprieties and marital rape. All of that Klein documents either vaguely or not at all and is so beyond belief and good taste that the very fact his book is selling like proverbial hotcakes starkly exposes the anti-Clinton people as the village idiots of our time. It takes one to buy this book.

Cohen is so overlooked, it seems.

Not a Poll Guy

Bush doesn't follow the polls, and polls are not the reason he's going on television to "reassure" Americans:

The findings crystallize the challenges facing Bush this evening in his nationally televised address from Fort Bragg, N.C., an event the administration sees as a critical opportunity for the president to restate the case for his Iraq policies. The goal is to reinvigorate public support for a war that has grown unpopular over time and convince Americans the administration has a policy that will lead to success over time.

Read the article.

Only 1 in 8 support immediate Iraq pullout. Maybe they're right, regardless of their motives, that pulling out would help end the conflict. I don't really know. However, 7 out of 8 don't support immediate pullout, which means they support staying for a certain amount of time, whatever that may be.

The other numbers tell a simple story: Bush is less and less believable, and his support continues to sink. However, Americans are aware Iraq needs to be fixed now, but they wish someone else was fixing it. That's the story.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with this guy. His credibility becomes more shot every day, but that won't stop him from going on TV to "reassure Americans." The thing is, when he speaks he loses more credibility! He's not going on TV to restore faith in Iraq. He's going on TV so he can push his judges and Social Security through Congress.

Americans are losing faith in him by the day when it comes the Iraq War, economy, education, health plans, and the environment. Iraq is pretty much the reason he has lost his "mandate." So don't believe for a second his showing up at Fort Bragg is for the benefit of a free and safe Iraq. They're forecasting up to 12 years! You think he gives a crap about 12 years? He cares about the next 2+ years, and needs to find a way to get some capital back.

This speech is solely about himself, and nothing more. Like a good Republican, guided by Cheney and Rove, all about self preservation and pushing his own agenda. Whatever they can salvage.

I'll tell you this: he's praying he loses the House, or the Senate in 2006.

Energy for the 'Lil Guy

It's so nice of Congress to consider an Energy Bill, but of course leave out the most important issue like MPG for SUVs and Cars. I assume they're doing this so Americans who have a new car don't have to worry about getting a new one.

First read the news about the bill.

Then read the TNR Editorial:

No one would support a crime bill that didn't mention murder, a Social Security bill that said nothing about benefits, or an anti-terrorism bill without provisions concerning the capture of terrorists. But, this week, the Senate is debating the equivalent, as it considers an omnibus energy bill that says nothing about the number-one problem in U.S. energy policy: rising petroleum consumption by cars, SUVs, and trucks. This issue swamps all other energy policy concerns combined. Yet the administration's energy bill, more than four years in the making, does absolutely nothing to mandate or even encourage higher miles-per-gallon (MPG) performance by U.S. vehicles. This makes the energy bill one of the most preposterous pieces of major legislation ever seriously considered by the U.S. Congress, which, we realize, is saying a lot.

The Senate even rejected a symbolic amendment setting a national goal of gradual petroleum-use reduction by 2025, due to Republican opposition. But it's not just the White House and Hill Republicans who are to blame. Democrats have done little to promote fuel-efficiency standards; most seem content to enact a legislative endorsement of the low-MPG, mega-SUV status quo. The overall fuel mileage of new cars, trucks, and SUVs has been declining since 1988; a succession of presidents from both parties has done everything possible to avoid the issue. Rising U.S. petroleum imports are driven mainly by the need to fill the tanks of more low-mileage vehicles. The Department of Energy estimates that, if every personal-use vehicle in the United States were just one mile-per-gallon more efficient, the United States would save more than 100 million barrels of oil per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than ten million metric tons annually. At this writing, the world oil price has just topped a record $59 a barrel. Supply is not the problem--oil inventories are at an all-time high. But rising demand--not just in the United States, but in places like China and India as well--drives up price. Rising oil prices worsen the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, keep the nation dependent on Persian Gulf dictatorships, and channel ever-more cash to the oil sheiks who fund Islamist terrorism (see "Oil-for-Feud," page 14). The energy bill does nothing to change this dynamic.

To be sure, the energy bill contains some attractive provisions. The most important would make likely a new natural gas pipeline to bring methane from Alaska's North Slope to the 48 states, a widely supported idea that is unrelated to proposals to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Natural gas prices are rising, and supply has become a problem for the petrochemical industry: A pipeline from Alaska is badly needed. Other provisions would make likely, though not certain, the construction of a new generation of safe nuclear reactors. Nuclear power is the sole greenhouse-neutral technology available to produce electricity in large amounts. (Renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, are also greenhouse-neutral, but cannot supply electricity in the sheer quantities that nuclear power can.)

In a first step toward action against artificial global warming, the Senate approved a resolution, sponsored by Republican Pete Domenici and Democrat Jeff Bingaman, acknowledging that "mandatory steps" are required regarding greenhouse gases. The resolution, modeled on a proposal of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, puts the Senate on record as accepting the scientific consensus that global warming is a danger. This is an important start; all corporate leaders know greenhouse gas restrictions are needed.

There are, however, many clunker provisions in the energy bill. House Republicans added billions of dollars in tax breaks for the oil industry, a mature sector that needs no government support--and that has already benefitted enormously from the run-up in petroleum prices. The farm-state delegation added even more federal subsidies for research on ethanol, a fuel that, some studies show, requires more petroleum to produce than it replaces.

Meanwhile, the lack of provisions to increase car and SUV fuel efficiency is simply a scandal. Democrats run from the issue because most SUVs are built by the United Auto Workers. Republicans run from the issue because they are beholden to big oil producers--such as ExxonMobil--that benefit from higher gasoline prices and essentially give Republicans a commission by contributing heavily to the GOP. Increased MPG standards would reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil, cut the trade deficit, lower pump prices (by decreasing demand), and reduce greenhouse gases (which are proportional to petroleum burned). Lower oil imports, lower greenhouse gases, lower gasoline prices--now, why would anyone want those things in an energy bill?

I'll bet a few coins I can find a few Bush constituents who don't want those things...

So Clueless

Bush is going to allay our fears:

President Bush is using the first anniversary of Iraq's sovereignty to try to ease Americans' doubts about the mission and outline a winning strategy for a violent conflict that has cost the lives of more than 1,740 U.S. troops and has no end in sight.

In a prime-time address from Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division, Bush was to argue that there is no need to change course in Iraq despite the upsetting images produced by daily insurgent attacks.

His assessment comes on the heels of a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll that showed public doubts about the war reaching a high point — with more than half saying that invading Iraq was a mistake.

How would you feel if actually admitted it was a mistake? It wouldn't make me feel one bit better. In fact, it really would embolden terrorists, and there's no reason to say it at this point. At the same time it'd be nice if he wasn't living in some fantasy land where all will go right in the long run. Makes us all look retarded.

Americans aren't worried about the Iraq War because they think there's no exit strategy. Americans are worried about the Iraq War because they KNOW there's no exit strategy.

Not only have we not made any gains in Iraq, it's only become worse. I'm sure the Wall St. Journal Opinion page can point out some "Good News" but that news is manufactured bullshit. The Iraqi Army? Is that the good news? That's a joke. They can't even accomplish anything with our support, let alone by themselves. Once we leave for good the army will deteriorate. No Arab country, like Iran or Egypt, is going to let a free standing Iraq Army stand. They'll do whatever it takes to undermine, and that's leaving aside the fact Iraqis themselves do not get along with each other.

Former National Security Advisor,Zbigniew Brzezinski, nailed it this past weekend when he referred to this war as one justified by "slogans." President Bush will continue with the slogans. His people will continue to blame the "24 hour news" cycle. It's none of these things.

People realize nothing good has come of this, and nothing good will come of it. The 30% that always support Bush, they don't even count because they don't think for themselves. The 10-15% wavering on the War, I'm sure some think we "had to do something," or like Bush cannot admit a mistake. But the reality is we are really in a horrible situation, and anyone with half a brain is worried there's no way out. Some would like to just leave Iraq, and others would prefer that we not leave with our tail between our legs. I suspect some supporters continue to back the war because they fear just that scenario.

We may have proved we can bomb the crap out of anyone, but we didn't prove we can win a war (or "win the peace") in the most contentious area on the planet. That truly worries a lot of Americans.

Truth be told, when your exit strategy is as Brzezinki pointed out, a slogan ("welcomed as liberators"), the likelihood of winning a prolonged conflict is pretty bad. Would the situation under Al Gore or John Kerry have been any different? Of course! Al Gore never would have went to Iraq, and John Kerry would have listened to professionals, not hacks (Kerry, like Gore, would never have begun this war).

Again, Bush can wax all he wants about the benefits of this war, but truth is this guy has really screwed us in so many ways, and it's more clear every day. The success of the first Iraq War enabled us to use military power post-Vietnam. This war will set us back once again, and achieve nothing.

That's what worries Americans. They're past the day when something really beneficial will come of this. Enough with the bullshit, please.

-----------
What's the over/under on the use of the word "freedom" in his next speech? I'm going to go with 8. Any takers?

C.R.E.A.M.

Cash Rules Everything Around Me!!! That's not the "street niggah" way, but the Republican way.

See, "niggahs" do what they do to get by. Republicans do it because they're flat out greedy.

This whole issue about CAFTA is a blatant example of their greed, especially Tom Delay's, Dennis Hastert's, and of course, President Douche.

In 2001, when the Bush administration was trying to win congressional authority to negotiate new trade agreements, two of the leading figures in the debate in Congress had a brief encounter that may come back to haunt the White House.

Bill Thomas, the powerful Republican head of the House ways and means committee, was approached by Sander Levin, then the top Democrat in the committee on trade issues and a supporter of most of the big free trade initiatives of the past decade. When Mr Levin suggested a negotiation on the substance of the bill particularly on the issue of how labour standards should be incorporated into new trade deals Mr Thomas fired back: “I consider you part of the enemy on this issue.”

The incident, recounted in the new edition of I.M. Destler's American Trade Politics, published earlier this month, highlights why the administration is having such difficulty persuading Congress to endorse a bilateral trade agreement with Central America.

The bill giving the White House “trade promotion authority” (TPA) passed the House in December 2001 by a single vote, only after Republicans held the vote open for 20 minutes to persuade enough of their colleagues to switch sides. Mr Destler calls it “the most partisan congressional vote on such a bill since the 1930s”. In the end, only 21 of the 210 House Democrats voted for the bill.

No different then when they held open the vote to pass Medicare legislation, all the while threatening and bribing congressfolk to get on board. Remember that?

We go on:

Unlike past trade agreements, if Cafta passes it will be almost entirely due to Republican support. As of the weekend, only five Democrats out of the 206 in the House of Representatives had said they would support the agreement.

The White House may still get the votes, but it is likely to pay a very high price. With the Republican party holding a 30-seat House majority, the administration is using every tactic available to persuade its recalcitrant congressional members to support the deal.

It has tried to placate textile-state Republicans by imposing new quotas on Chinese textile imports, and to mollify those in sugar producing states by pledging to pay Central American sugar growers not to sell their sugar to the US.

But a US trade official acknowledged that the lack of Democratic support “means we are going to have to make some trade-offs with elements of the Republican party that do not normally support trade agreements. That will probably involve making some uncomfortable deals.”

But Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on trade in the House, said on Friday that he would cast his first vote ever against a free trade agreement, and that politics had nothing to do with it. He said many otherwise pro-trade Democrats simply would not support a bill that he said did nothing to strengthen worker rights in Central America and would expand the pool of cheap labour undercutting US workers.

See, there it is, the Republicans will do anything to pass this vote. And why? Well the only reason must be because it supports the American worker with lower prices. Or, if not that, it supports "free trade" which is a good thing to help other nations grow out of poverty. If not that it's because it'll help businesses at home grow and that will lead to more jobs for US workers.

Riiiiight. It's all those things, and more, of course.

Now lets talk about the more part of it.

It's that conservatives are scumbags, and goosesteppers. They all want to be re-elected, and they all fear the White House and Tom Delay. They don't want to go against them because they have the money. The White House doesn't care if you're an incumbent. Afterall, Senator Smith of New Hampshire was the incumbent but they challenged him with Senator Sununu because Senator Smith was too independent. So all the other steppers just not their heads.

The White House and particular Republicans only care about money and big business which is why they'll do anything to pass this bill. Whether it's keeping the vote open, offering side deals they'll never fulfill, or erecting tariffs, they'll do it because BIG BUSINESS wants it.

They're not even concerned with the impact on the host countries. Why would you think they are? Are you reading this and thinking, "No, you're wrong. This creates jobs to help others grow out of poverty?" Don't think that. While free trade is the best way, and does help others grow, this bill sure doesn't. Republicans are against raising the standards and wages those in other countries need to have in order to actually grow. This bill is solely a cheap labor bill masked in the term "Free Trade" to help their big donors. No fucking joke. That's all it is.

Why would anyone assume Republicans, especially Bush, care one bit about Maria and Juan in El Salvador when they don't give a shit about Margie and John in Gary, Indiana? Heck, all they do for Margie and John is make sure they don't vote!

You've got to be a real dipshit to think this supposed "free trade" bill is going to help anyone but big business. Hey, maybe it'll help us get some goods slightly cheaper, whatever it may be. It won't be sugar, that's for sure, because there will be tariffs, and it won't be cotton t-shirts because they'll do what they can to protect politicians in South Carolina. Whatever it is it will be irrelevant, accept to big business. It will be HUGE to them, hence why Republicans are trading votes to pass this thing. The first serious free trade bill that will pass the House with one party support.

These people have no shame. Never will. It's not that they don't believe in what they're doing because they do. They've either convinced themselves this is a good bill by lying internally with the term "free trade", or they were just raised to be greedy scumbags who don't know any better. At the end of the day they can all goto church and repent for their sins.

Digressing with the irony: if there is a maker, and it does decide the fate of man, all these fucks will be in hell, which is nice, so I can actually relax in heaven.

Liberating the Iraqis

I can't believe they let him serve! I thought being "liberal" was similar to having a broken foot, or something:

Thank all of you for writing in. I will make sure to tell my fellow soldiers of your prayers and support in the “Russian Roulette “that is Iraq. I know that all of us don’t always agree in America on issues for example here in this website there are messages that say liberals don’t fight for their country but rest assured I (a liberal) am in Iraq right now as you express your freedom as speech serving my country even though I disagree with a leader who is now letting American men and women soldiers die just because he is to arrogant and proud to admit he was wrong.

I don’t know how long they the leadership will let me write before I become a political prisoner and a prisoner of conscience but one thing you may be assured of : I will go “beyond the wire” every day they order me to go as long as my brothers and sisters in the Arizona Army National Guard 860th M.P. CO. go and I will not come home until they come home or I am forced to come home against my will. I love them my fellow soldiers even though some of them might hate me for telling the truth about this cruel lunacy which we call the Occupation of Iraq.

I do not worry to much for my life as I worry about the child and wife that are back at home. I worry about a child who will grow up in this world without her dad but I know that one thing she will hopefuly know: that her dad spoke the truth even win there would be those of his own nation who would willingly have him killed to silence him and that her father spoke the truth as he believed it to be and most importantly like many of his fellow soldiers : That he Loved his daugther and wife.
I just thank GOD that the some people in this world have heard my words and that I and my fellow soldiers are not alone.
Thank you,

your friend Leonard Clark
(The damned liberal in Iraq patrolling the mean streets of Iraq every day)
and candidate for the U.S. Senate against John Kyl in Arizona 2006

Let Us Clarify

When the war started two years ago you may have been "shocked", "awed" or both. Now we hear it could end in 2 more years. COULD!

In the spirit of saving paper and time, I suggest saving this article. Read again in 2 years, and it should apply.

Damn, had only John Kerry not thrown his medals over the wall this thing would be lonnnnng over.

If We're Lucky

The Democrats will pull off one of their great compromises again:

The White House gathered key political operatives at a strategy meeting Friday to prepare for a possible Supreme Court vacancy that officials believe could occur this week, leading to the first high court confirmation battle in a decade, according to Republicans informed about the session.

The meeting, hosted by White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., his deputy Karl Rove and counsel Harriet Miers, was called to ensure that President Bush's supporters are ready for the high-stakes, high-intensity, high-dollar campaign that would follow a nomination. But some participants later told associates that they were not sure if any justice would retire.

Much of Washington has been anticipating word from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on whether he will retire after 19 years as the nation's top judge. Rehnquist, 80, has thyroid cancer, and many officials, jurists and activists believe he will step down after the court's current term ends today. From the White House and Capitol Hill to lobbying groups, both sides spent the weekend mobilizing on that assumption.

Rehnquist's resignation would presage a struggle of enormous proportions between the two parties and their ideological allies -- one that would likely eclipse the recent Senate showdown over lower-court appointments and that could overshadow the rest of Bush's domestic agenda for months.

The last compromise has really worked out.

I'm predicting (praying) he does not step down. If he does, O'Connor becomes Chief Justice so the Republicans can comment on how they made a woman Chief Justice. They're not quite ready for a negro.

Remember, this is the only reason they wanted Bush in office in the first place, so this should be a fight.

Speaking of China

Between last week's news letting us know the war has already begun with China, and this week's news about the perception amongst others that China has a better image worldwide than we do (although all those people would still live here), one has to wonder what Bush is going to do about it.

Here's how you know the war has begun, since afterall, all wars are fought over money, and not freedom. Freedom to spend money, maybe:

If Unocal Corp. accepts an $18.5 billion bid by China's CNOOC Ltd. the fate of the deal could hinge on how a secretive U.S. review panel defines "national security," experts said on Friday.

State-owned CNOOC's unsolicited bid trumped a roughly $16.4 billion offer from Chevron Corp. and coincides with record oil prices, unease over China's $160 billion trade surplus with the United States and concerns about China's growing military might.

Many lawmakers want the definition of national security to be broadened to include economic security.

"The primary question for this transaction is whether they consider energy security to be a national security issue," said Michael Wessel, a Democrat and one of 12 members of the congressionally mandated U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Get it?

Anyway, apparently, the tough guy talk is only used on defenseless nations that cannot actually fight us. I'm glad this is the case.

Just like with North Korea, I'm hoping this administration has nothing to do with China. All I ask is that they not fuck it up before a new President takes over.

Let us deal with Tom Delay, Bush, and everything else here. Lets get Congress and the Presidency back into stable hands (I'm not even talking democratic hands. I just want stable), and lets have the next Congress and President deal with what will be the biggest issue of the next 20+ years.

Write your Congresspeople and beg them to do nothing. This shouldn't be hard since they've got tons of practice in that department.

Leaders?

Thank to reader Al for sending me this:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States' image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that communist China is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many long-time Western European allies, an international poll has found.

The poor image persists even though the Bush administration has been promoting freedom and democracy throughout the world in recent months -- which many viewed favorably -- and has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in relief aid to Indian Ocean nations hit by the devastating December 26 tsunami.

"It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which surveyed public opinion in 16 countries, including the United States.

In Britain, almost two-thirds of Britons, 65 percent, saw China favorably, compared with 55 percent who held a positive view of the United States.

Why Do It?

The Supreme Court ruled today 5-4 that the 10 Commandments cannot be displayed on courthouse grounds:

In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses today, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.

The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

"Of course, not all agreed, including the oh-so liberal Justice Kennedy. Scalia had things to say:

"In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."

"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote.

I've heard comments time and time again that "liberals are trying to push their beliefs on everyone..." I'm sure you've heard it as well. Is this not the ultimate in "pushing beliefs?"

The Commandments do have a place in our civil history, but it's the part dealing with RELIGION.

Why would justices, or any group, continue to push their beliefs on Americans when so many people don't believe the 10 Commandments, or religion in general, should be part of public life? Why?

Is it because they don't care about the plurality of beliefs?

Is it because they fear the spread of Islam worldwide?

Is it because they believe only their morals are the right morals?

Is it because they want to be the sole, true majority in this country?

I'm sure it's all of these things, and it says so much about those behind the effort. I find many of them to be racists and bigots at the core. The types of persons who don't accept America as something that can change. The types of persons who want to enshrine America as a Christian country to avoid the possibility of any other segment of the population, relgious or not, from having a louder voice than Jesus'.

These are the scared people. Scared of change for sure. Scared of everything, and hiding behind religion, the thing that cannot be proven, to push their agenda.

Imagine a conservative without religion. What's left?

But Don't Worry

It's just "some."

Come Together

Why is it that a private company like the New York Times is in full support of PBS and other public broadcasting? Afterall, they're in competition, yet the Times still supports public broadcasting? WHY?!?!?

Maybe it's because the Times tries to be honest unlike the people trying to force PBS to be dishonest?

Why don't the people working for public broadcasting outlets come together and strike? Why don't they defend their practice? Refuse to go on the air until this story becomes the ONLY story in the news, and then you'll expose the scumbag conservatives.

I often wonder what America will look like in 20 years.