Yo

I'm out for the weekend, but I have to reiterate and respond to those who have asked:

YOU HAVE TO WATCH THE R KELLY VIDEO, ALL FIVE "In the Closets."

...Why can't we handle this Christian like???

Agree...Sorta

SiFli sent me this take on the Rove thing, and it makes sense for the most part.

If I were Howard Dean, or any other Dem leader, I'd instruct all of my peeps not to do interviews about the issue. The cable news channels and radio programs are going to find people to interview. If it's not a Congressperson it'll be someone from MoveOn.org, etc. Let those people do the interviews. No one knows who they are, but the words will be the same. Listeners will hear the criticisms of Rove, and that'll be enough, but Democrats shouldn't engage since it really has nothing to do with them.

Sure, it's a national security issue, and getting someone like Rove tossed is a benefit for all Americans, but if Republicans don't see it that way then so be it. It'll come back to haunt them.

Simply put, and I don't see how anyone can argue around this point, Bush has to fire Rove for dishonesty, regardless of the legal matter.

Once again, Bush said anyone involed would be fired. If he wants to elaborate now and say, "Anyone who did something illegal, or dishonest, will be fired" that's fine. There's no way around it for Rove.

Bush supposedly asked all White House employees if they were involved. Rove and Scooter Libby denied involvement. Rove is involved. He should then be fired. Republicans now say Rove didn't do anything wrong, and that's fine. If that's the case then why didn't the President tell us what Rove did at the time he inquired? Why did an investigation have to be started? Because there was an election? Obviously. If Rove's actions were not illegal the President should have told us then. If the President just found out about what Rove did now then Rove lied to him. There's no way around it from a political standpoint.

The media needs to make this case, not Democrats since it's not their party. Sure, it'll only result in Rove losing his job only to become a lobbyist/consultant, but at least we won't have to see his face.

If you're banking on jailtime you're aiming way too high.

-----
My day was just ruined. I'm eating my empanada and apparently the chef decided to put an olive right in the middle. That's fucked up, yo. I was ill-prepared for that.

Obviously!

I remember reading a Peggy Noonan Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal who argued the opposite point.

Social conservatives relish the idea that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation from the Supreme Court has moved them one step closer to their goal of outlawing abortion. Liberals are vowing to fight any potential successor who would, unlike O'Connor, favor overturning Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 ruling that affirmed a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

But the political irony that few on either side readily acknowledge — but many are pondering — is that Roe's demise could transform American elections by crippling the conservative political majority that opposes abortion and by giving new life to hobbled liberals who support the ruling's preservation.

Conservatives and Republicans never want "Abortion" off the table. It's the same way they don't want "Tax Cuts" off the table. Where is the "Flat Tax" bill? Where is the complete repeal of the "Estate Tax?" They need these wedge issues to divide America where Liberals and Democrats want bills and laws that create balance and equality.

Conservatives will never wholly stand by their convictions. You may have a few who are willing to go the distance, but as a group, never. Their true colors paint a picture too far out of the mainstream.

Overturning Roe v. Wade is a party killer.

Liberals and many Democrats are champions of so many different issues, and often these people are not united. Unionized auto workers aren't likely to be for gay rights. Those for affirmative action, especially minorities like Blacks and Latinos, may not be pro-choice (hence the need for the wedge).

On the other side you have those who want tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, and everyone else. Tax cutters will attach themselves to any issue because it's selfishness that drives them (or the hope others don't rise up). If the liberals were for cutting taxes those conservatives would support pro-choice candidates. Becoming one with the conservatives on the abortion issue is easy for them.

The left's convictions are different, nuanced, and not simplistic. It's not group think stupidity. The right needs these wedge issues to keep the money rolling in, and continue the unwholly marriage between the super rich and the super stupid.

The Legendary

Roots.

Back to back Hip/Hop posts, who woulda thunk it?

The Roots show they put on for free at Pier 54 was amazing.

First off, the sound quality on the pier was awesome, especially for a show like that.

There are really not enough good things you can say about this band. So many HH acts have DJs and electronic music which makes them all too similar. The Roots are a band, period, and a great one.

At times they were the best HH act you'd want to see, and other times they were the best wedding band! :) How many HH acts would cover Zeppelin, James Brown, Old Dirty Bastard, Booker T, Amerie, and so many others, as well as dropping their own hits? Not many, but Black Thought, ?uestlove, and the rest do it with ease.

Great show.

Few things like seeing a free show during the summer on the water in NYC , especially when it's this good, and you can roll to John's Pizza post-show while discussing the demise of Joe's Pizza. Oh to have options.

Thank God for R. Kelly

And SiFli for turning me onto what Rack calls the "Greatest Movie of our generation."

Please, just watch parts 1 thru 5, for there is nothing like it.

R Kelly in the Closet

Note: You need to watch ALL FIVE PARTS.

Thanks Again

To Narm Charmsky for this:

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff | July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, refused yesterday to back off on his earlier statements connecting Boston's ''liberalism" with the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, saying that the city's ''sexual license" and ''sexual freedom" nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur.

''The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people's behavior," Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.

''If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way," Santorum said.

I guess the only time a Catholic is a liberal is when said Catholic is a pedophile. Makes sense.

Lets do a comparison of wife cheats, drunks, cheats, thieves, gamblers, druggies, and whore users between the two parties and see what we come up with.

Good Stuff

This one is legit.

DJ Ferrari - Summer Soulstice 2005

Here's a full tracklisting too (original unless otherwise noted):

Kool and the Gang - Summer Madness
Boca 45 - In the City
El Michels Affair - Behind the Blue Curtain
Main Ingredient - Summer Breeze
Dead Prez - Hip Hop
Rotary Connection - Sunshine of Your Love
Roy Ayers - Everybody Loves the Sunshine
Brother Ali - Forest Whitiker
Funkadelic - Can You Get to That
Nite-Liters - Do the Granny
Sergio Mendes - For What It's Worth
S.O.U.L - Peace of Mind
Top Choice Clique - Peace of Mind
The Meters - Just Kissed my Baby
Digable Planets - Summer
Shalimar OST - Baby Let's Dance Together
Steady B - Don't Disturb This Groove
Bill Withers - Kissing my Love
Ugly Duckling - I Did it Like This
Nicki Richards - Summer Breeze
Dub Diablo - Dream Makers
Justice System - Summer in the City
Pamoja - Ooh Baby (Lotusland)
Ernie Hawks & the Soul IG's - Soulful Trip
Johhny Thunder - I'm Alive
American Gypsy - Golden Ring
Heaven Sent & Ecstasy - Rappin with my Subconscious Mind
Cloud One - Atmosphere Strutt
Jadell - Stronger that the Sun
Luther Davis - You Can Be a Star (Soul Cal)
Rock Master Scott - Roof is on Fire
Brafa - Disco Train
Diplo - Rhythm
Sons & Daughters of Lite - Let the Sun Shine In (Luv n Haight)

Odd

This is the White House's photo of McClellan, but I haven't seen him like this in quite some time. I guess when you're going to lie through your teeth every day you have to show them.

It must be harder to lie through dentures, at which point you just cave in. 


Check out McClellan's lastest:

Q The Rand Corporation also keeps track of statistics on international terrorism, and their data also shows that 2004 had the highest rate of international attacks in 13 years.

MR. McCLELLAN: The difference between 13 years ago and today is that we are on the offensive. We are taking the fight to the enemy. And the President has made it very clear that we are going to prevail, we are going to defeat the enemy. They are now on the defensive, and we're going to keep them on the defensive. We're going to continue to seek out those who seek to do us harm and bring them to justice, and try to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. We are fighting them abroad so that we don't have to fight them here at home. The best way to win the war on terrorism is to stay on the offensive, and the ultimate path to victory is spreading freedom, because freedom -- or free societies are peaceful societies.

Putting aside the fact terrorist attacks have gone up tremendously since 9/11, the British may want to thank us for the Latest. See, we don't want to "fight them here at home." Rather, we choose London. Just a larger piece of flypaper, that's all.

London Bombings

Almost comical to read what the Economist wrote about Britons' thoughts on the bombings:

As might be expected in the wake of such devastating attacks, a poll for Tuesday's London Times by Populus shows strong support for new anti-terrorism measures: 89% of those polled supported increased security and baggage checks on public transport, while 70% backed extra police powers to stop and search people on the streets. Less predictably, support for such measures seemed stronger outside London than in the capital itself.

Maybe you haven't heard of a little place called America? You know, the place where the people living in the targeted cities voted to oust the President and ditch the Patriot Act, and where in the farmlands people ratcheted up support and their own fears.

The four suspected men who pulled off this act were caught on camera at the King's Cross railway station, "carrying rucksacks." Here they were, on camera, 4 Muslim men, and what could be done about it? Nothing.

How do we expect to stop this?

No, No...

Really, I'm trying not to but I have so many questions.

The entire contretemps at the White House this week centers on whether Mr. Rove tried to discredit Mr. Wilson by suggesting that his mission to Niger was the product of nepotism, and that Ms. Wilson had arranged for it. Why a mission to Niger would be such a plum assignment is still a mystery, but the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a report last year, quotes a State Department official as saying that Ms. Wilson had suggested sending her husband. She denies it.

This is an investigation. Who is the State Department official who claimed Valerie Plame requested her husband to goto Niger.

Lets say she did make that request. Lets say she thought sending her husband, Joe Wilson, formerly employed under the first President Bush, was a good idea. So? Is she the decision maker over at State? Was Plame the decision maker in the office of the Vice President which is where this investigation into Niger uranium began? Wasn't Colin Powell the head of the State Department? Was this "plum" assignment of traveling to Niger to seek out whether Saddam Hussein was seeking material to build nuclear weapons something to be taken lightly? Wasn't Dick Cheney running this show?

Apparently people over at Bush's White House believed Joe Wilson was qualified. If the Bush White House (Cheney White House) sent over a half-witted retard who discovered nothing would it be the fault of the White House or the retard? Hmmm.

No matter how you spin it, they're liars.

They hoped a former servant to the first President Bush would be just like all their other servants. They miscalculated. After that they attacked the servant, hoping to send a message to all future servants that they are not to be messed with. Stay on message or we will ruin you. They've been doing it since they day they took office.

Then Why Didn't...

I'm trying not to post about Rove, but I have some questions first.

President Bush claimed if someone in his office was involved they'd be fired, right? Right. Karl Rove was "involved." For the sake of argument lets say President Bush didn't think what Rove did was illegal. One has to assume he knew, right? Actually, that's quite the assumption, but again, for argument's sake. So if Bush really wanted to get to the bottom of this, and knew about Rove's role, then why didn't he just come out and say, "Yes, Karl Rove contacted reporters, but what he did wasn't illegal...What he did was certainly irresponsible, but not illegal. If more information comes to light we will address the situation..."?

Why didn't he say that? Maybe because he didn't know? Okay, lets now pretend he didn't know. Has Rove therefore gone behind the back of the President of the United States? Did the President conduct an internal White House investigation involving Rove that came up empty handed? If that's the case, did Rove not lie to the President?

If conservatives want to claim Rove is now innocent then why weren't they declaring the details of his innocence when the story first broke? Why did they wait until reporters were embarrassed, a prosecutor's time wasted, and taxpayers' dollars were wasted? Afterall, these are conservatives, and they hate waste.

Then why didn't they come clean from the get go if Rove is so innocent?

Before You Get Stiff

There's always the details:

For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Of course he does. But then there's reality:

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion..."

But many independent analysts cautioned that the improvement, though notable, could prove ephemeral and that it did little to eliminate much bigger fiscal problems just over the horizon. "Lawmakers who allow themselves to be lulled into thinking that the economy is growing its way out of the deficit," wrote Edward McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs in New York, "are unlikely to support the painful measures needed to reach a more lasting solution."

For one thing, analysts note, federal spending has continued to climb rapidly, about 7 percent this year. Despite cutbacks in many domestic programs, spending has surged for the war in Iraq as well as in certain benefit programs providing health coverage.

In addition, while a lot of the increase in tax revenue flows from the improving economy and higher incomes, part of the jump stemmed from a special factor: the expiration of a temporary tax break that allowed companies to write off their investment in new equipment much more rapidly than normal.

That tax break reduced revenue by about $61 billion in 2004, but it merely postponed taxes that companies would have to pay once their equipment was fully depreciated.

Other financial hurdles may be down the road. Mr. Bush's intention to extend his tax cuts indefinitely, and to add new ones, would drain more than $1.4 trillion from government coffers over the next 10 years.

Don't think Bush will let facts get the best of his dreams.

Can't Say They Don't Try

Because every chance they get to deceive they take it:

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's inspector general is expanding his investigation of corporation Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson to include a look at how former Republican National Committee co-chair Patricia Harrison was installed as the new CPB president.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said Tuesday from Washington that he had asked CPB Inspector General Kenneth Konz to look into the hiring of Harrison, who was Tomlinson's choice for the gig, after receiving complaints that the process may have been "rushed" and "outside normal practices."

"Complaints that the selection process was inadequate are significant and come from people in a position to know the facts," Dorgan said in a statement. "I think such an investigation is not only appropriate but very much needed..."

Konz already was up to his gills in Tomlinson investigations, including a look at the agency chairman's decision to spend more than $14,000 of CPB funds to monitor public TV programming for signs of political bias, and his decision to hire Republican consultants to keep tabs on legislation in the Senate that would have added more public radio and TV representation to the CPB board.

Earlier in the day, PBS President Pat Mitchell said she supported the investigation of Tomlinson's "very troubling" use of CPB bucks to monitor public TV programming.

Getting back to "Fair and Balanced" news, last night Paual Zahn had on Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Editor of The Nation, and Reverend Joe Watkins, pastor of the Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church in Philadelphia.

Wow, if ever there was a black man looking to get a chicken leg up in the world, this is the guy. He actually sat there and denied Rove's role in a way even I thought would be beyond the Republicans. Where did they get this token?

Now, Reverend, I have heard all the Republican talking points today.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: Everybody has essentially said this is nothing more than a smear campaign against Karl Rove. But now you have his own attorney admitted that he leaked this information to "TIME" magazine Matt Cooper. Will you concede, at a minimum, this is not good news for a president who said he would fire someone in the White House if they were found to be leaking inside information, privileged information?

(CROSSTALK)

JOE WATKINS, GUEST CO-HOST: This is a political smear operation here.

ZAHN: Come back to the question, though.

WATKINS: Well, the question is, is...

ZAHN: This doesn't look good for the president, does it?

WATKINS: Well, think about this.

The truth of the matter is, there is an investigation going on. But Karl Rove is not the target of the investigation. Karl Rove hasn't committed any crime. He hasn't done anything wrong.

ZAHN: Karl Rove went on camera. And you heard exactly what he said: I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name.

Now his attorney has admitted that he in fact shared his identity with a reporter.

WATKINS: Well, he said Wilson's wife.

ZAHN: Her identity. Right.

WATKINS: He didn't call her by name. And he was correcting a story that would have been erroneous otherwise. That is what he was doing.

He didn't call her by name! This is really what they're going with?

Harken back to what the definition of "sex" is, or "is" is. He didn't call her by name.

If Rove didn't know her name, and I'm sure he did and used it, he still spilled who she was. What, did he call Bob Novak and say, "Listen, this guy Joe Wilson, his wife, she's a dressmaker down in Langley. She makes dresses for some real higher-ups here in D.C. She used her pull to get her husband this job. Just recently she made a dress for the First Lady and it was returned. Uhh, uh, see, what I'm saying is the Wilsons cannot be trusted. They have it in for the President."

Lets really pretend he didn't use her name. It'd go something like this, "Bob, Karl here."

Bob: Heay, Karhh, how you doim?

Karl: What?

Bob: Hoh on, Karhh, I jusp haf to put my demcherrs back im.

Karl: What?

Bob: Hoh on (clicking noise). Ahh, there we go. Just putting in my wall of teeth. So what's going on?

Karl: I've got a story for you...See, this guy Joseph Wilson can't be trusted. He got the job because his wife is a spy in the CIA, and she recommened him for the job.

Bob: I don't see how her recommending him is a problem.

Karl: It's a problem because the CIA isn't wholly on the side of the President, and this is actually someone within the agency trying to bury us.

Bob: Can you give me her name?

Karl: Uhh, no, but you can easily find it. All you need to do is find a bio on Wilson, and find out who he's married to. Once you have her name you'll have the name of a person who is an undercover spy who has been working on, or was working, issues related to Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, I cannot flat out say her name.

Bob: Sounds good. Hey, you wanna pray together this weekend and then maybe catch a game of paddle ball of my chompers?

I Always Liked This Exercise

Take the current problems in the world: Iraq, Terrorism, Iran, Israel, Supreme Court, Education, Economy, Corporate Scandals, Price of Oil, Environment, and then ask yourself:

"What if Bill Clinton was President?"

"What if Al Gore was President?"

"What if John Kerry was President?"

Today I'm going to play this game, but I'm going to change it up just a little bit.

I'm going to say, "What if a fucking child wasn't President?"

Okay, folks, hold onto your chairs because here we gizzo!

Iraq

Now this one's really unfair because it's so easy, and clearly the cause of so many current and future problems.

If a "fucking child" wasn't President we wouldn't be there. It's that simple! We wouldn't have blown world credibility, millions of dollars and billions to come, and increased world terrorism.

Anyway...

Terrorism

This one's a layup.

If a FCWP (effing child wasn't President) you'd have someone who would actually be engaged in fighting terrorism, and trying to solve the real issues fueling terrorism.

Clearly, the Israel/Palestinian situation is the gas fueling the fire. The child's response has been absurd. Basically, the child has nodded his head as Ariel Sharon has done whatever he chooses. The child worries that an Israeli conflict spiraling out of control is an issue which could derail other games the child wants to play, like tax cuts and choosing judges. The child defers.

An adult would be engaged in this situation full time, and most likely fighting a continuous war in Afghanistan which would probably result in escalating tensions with Pakisatn. There's no doubt our current "ally" Pakistan harbors terrorists in the Northwestern province of Pakistan. The United States, backed by almost all nations, would be breathing down the Musharaf's neck to clean things up. Because Pakistan has nukes it'd be a dicey situation that must be solved, and would actually seriously threaten the world. But that's the world we live in. It's a world with nuclear weapons, and they must be dealt with.

The child chose to deal with the country that didn't have them.

Truly amazing.

Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, but as long as we were truly dealing with real threats right now, a majority of Americans would support the cause (outside of the 30% who hate Adults, and hardcore liberals who never believe in war.)

An adult would have sided with the Chechens, or at least played the middle between them and Putin. An opportunity to support Muslims in an opppressed region. Of course, the child blew that one as well.

Like I said, too easy.

Iran

Iran, what can I say?

Well, all I know is there are more nuclear weapons now with the supposed hardline stance than there were before the War on Terror.

Iran wouldn't be funding insurgencies in Iraq to help stymie the United States.

Impossible to say where we'd be, but I know the situation wouldn't be as bad as it is.

Iran votes Dubya, this I know.

Israel

Another tough to judge situation, but I am aware that Adult Clinton was actively engaged in working towards a two-state solution until his last days.

Conservatives said, "He's trying to make his legacy!" Then again, what do they know, or care about Jews? Yeah, there's a few of you working on Wall St. who get your kids Bar/Bat Mitzvahed, and there's the genius Wolfowitz type, but generally, those folks are either as selfish as the Jew-haters, or don't give a shit at all.

It's impossible to judge the situation, but I know it wouldn't be a free hand policy like it is now.

Israel's situation has certainly become worse since 9/11, and this because this pussy administration is scared to get their hands really dirty. They'll blow up a nation with other peoples' children, but they won't truly engage.

Israel has used the US to fight terror. We can't be seen as hypocrites. The child needs to stand by his words, and his words must apply to all. Therefore Israel has free reign.

Afterall, who needs nuance?

Supreme Court

We'd have to assume they were an honest Supreme Court. One that actually looked at the 2000 election and utilized a conscience.

I'm all for Presidents having to nominate someone from the other party, or someone more palatable to the other party than their own. Democrats could do this. Republicans never. Create true balance.

I do know there wouldn't be an assault on judges as displayed by Tom Delay and John Cornyn.

See Republicans have control of all branches, so now it's an assualt on the media and the courts. It never ends. Always a target. Sorta why I'm happy Kerry lost. Let all of these things be their babies.

Remember, the only reason the child was annointed to begin with was the courts. Don't EVER FORGET THAT.

Education

Hmmm, I remember and Education Bill that promised $28 Billion and came up with only $20 Billion in funding.

I remember the assault on public education.

I can go on FOREVER about education, and I have. So you can read that here.

I will say that Scumbag Tom Delay secured $16 Billion for Mars, but only $20 Billion for education here on Earth.

Economy

I'm running out of gas here. It's too easy.

Lets just say it wouldn't be 5+ years of a "soft patch."

Lets just say the rich wouldn't continue to get richer, and more tax cuts the entire time.

Lets just say the Capital Gains Tax and Estate Tax wouldn't be in question.

Lets just say an Adult wouldn't lie to farmers, promise a big Farm Bill, and then once elected scale it back tremendously, claiming the sour forecasts make it hard to fulfill.

You KNEW the forecasts, ignored them, and used them when it was time to cut cash for farmers. That's reality.

Dumbest economic plan ever. Unreal how they got away with it, and rid themselves of Paul O'Neil and Larry Lindsay. UNREAL.

"EVERYONE, GET IN HERE! WE'VE GOT KOOLAID!!!!"

Corporate Scandals

These would no doubt have happened under the adult as they did the child.

The adult would have crafted laws to avoid this. The child was doing everything possible, and still is, to ease the burdens on business. The child was elected and fueled by the types of people who commit corporate scandals and fraud. The child is cut from the same cloth, except the child's friends are shrewder and smarter than he could ever be.

The scandals have come about because people who agree with the child have created a climate where getting away with corporate murder is okay. The Tom Delays of the world make all this possible. The Bushes of the world do as well.

Price of Oil

Pffff. Can't even.

Environment

See "Pffff."




Hope you got your workout. I know I did.

Btw, can't proof this right now...

WOW!

Thanks to reader Narm Charmsky for sending me this nugget.

Unbelievable!

By Brian McGrory, Globe Columnist | July 12, 2005

Today, I'd like to take a few moments to express profound thanks to Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the US Senate. In fact, all Bostonians should thank him for sharing his incredible wisdom and insight about this city and its depraved ways.

Specifically, here's what Santorum wrote about the church pedophile scandal on a religious website called Catholic Online. ''When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

So thank you, senator, for setting us straight about the problems with the clergy. Thank you for letting us know that all those pedophilic priests and the church leaders who covered up their crimes are the fault of every Bostonian.

Who knew that the president of Harvard, the people at the Museum of Science, and Mayor Thomas M. Menino were to blame for Cardinal Bernard F. Law's decision to move predatory priests from one parish to another? Here's who knew: Senator Rick Santorum.

Santorum's words about Boston, though written in 2002, weren't highlighted until the last couple of weeks, when a Philadelphia Daily News columnist, John Baer, raised them in print and prompted a running political discourse in the blogosphere. Perhaps so many imbecilic statements flow from Santorum's mouth and pen that this one was initially overlooked.

So I asked a Santorum spokesman whether the senator still believed what he said about Boston. I mean, guilt might be our greatest natural resource, but do we really have to fall on our collective sword over wayward priests?

''It's an open secret that you have Harvard University and MIT that tend to tilt to the left in terms of academic biases," said Robert Traynham, the Santorum aide. ''I think that's what the senator was speaking to."

Of course. The whole thing is MIT's fault. Why didn't we realize this sooner? Maybe the Globe should give its Pulitzer Prize back because it failed to get to the root cause of the scandal: Cambridge-based rocket science professors.

I asked Mitt Romney about this. He's starting to hang out in this crowd, raising money for a conservative political action committee in Washington just last night.

His spokeswoman, Julie Teer, called back and said: ''What happened with the church sex abuse scandal was a tragedy, but it had nothing to do with geography or the culture of Boston. What we know now is that the sex abuse was occurring around the country and around the world. Boston was just the first to find out about it."

Good answer. Then I called Menino, who groaned. ''Typical of the guy who doesn't understand the issue, doesn't understand the Catholicism. He should come up to Boston and see what it's all about. Maybe we'll send a welcome wagon to get him."

Please don't, mayor. Please don't. You're talking about a senator who intruded on Terri Schiavo's deathbed, and, after she died of what an autopsy determined was an atrophied brain that sent her into a permanent vegetative state, said she had been ''executed."

He talked about ''man on dog" sex in once explaining to a reporter his opposition to homosexuality. He told The New York Times that gay marriage ''absolutely" threatens his own marriage.

Poor Orrin Hatch, John McCain, and Chuck Hagel, all thoughtful Republican senators who are tainted by Santorum's mere presence.

What would he find up here, anyway? He'd find one of the most Catholic cities in the country.

He'd find academic institutions that are the intellectual engine of the nation, schools, by the way, that have churned out plenty of Republican leaders, George W. Bush among them.

And he'd find a city that is pretty much the birthplace of civil political discourse, a concept that Santorum essentially violates every time he opens his mouth.

Brian McGrory is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at mcgrory@globe.com.

Anyone? Anyone?

Please, send this to every Republican you know.

I Meant in the British Way

I just got an email from someone saying "I think the word 'cunt' is offensive." I couldn't agree more. But I used it in the very loose, British sense. You have to picture a Brit saying it to really understand what I was getting at.

I think you should watch Shawn of the Dead 7 times to really get a grip on what I'm writing about.

Bob Novak, Jew Hater

Everyone is familiar with "Columnist" Robert Novak, the man who saw the light and decided he no longer wanted to be part of the chosen people. This guy has been a self-hater his whole life, and now he's apparently a pussy as well.

When you watch and listen to Novak speak on television he tries to act as if he's the scion of the world's greatest journalists. It's as if he's one of the last remaning men to uphold honesty and integrity. CNN did a whole show on his conversion away from Judaism to Catholicism. It was priceless shit, let me tell ya.

My mom's a convert from Cath to Jew, so I know something about that. However, my Mom's not a little bitch cunt like Novak.

Does anyone think for a second that Novak didn't run to the Prosecutor Fitzgerald and spill the beans? How do you think Fitzgerald landed on Miller and Cooper but not Denture Bob? Yet he's not going to jail, is he?

TIME Magazine is not a place for news, and now that Cooper has spilled it's even less likely to be so. It's a magazine owned by an Entertainment Company (Time Inc.), which also owns CNN. Are they still a place for news? If they want to be seen as a place for news they should fire Novak immediately.

Sure, he'll be replaced with a hack with a set of teeth you probably can't play paddle ball on, but hey, at least it'll send a message.

There's nothing like a Republican, shill, hypocrite, and no one fits the bill more than Bob Novak.

As for Judith Novak, just remember, bitch, they may hate gays, but Republicans will always fuck you in the ass. How does it feel now?

Stupid White Peoples?

Totally.

I think I mentioned this before, but after the Madrid bombings there was some rise in anxiety here in the US, but not nearly the rise that we've seen since the London attacks. The reason: They're white too.

When the bombings hit Spain I'm sure many middle-Americans just thought they were the descendants of border crossers who we don't really want here anyway. I mean, afterall, they all speak Spanish. Now the attacks have been against uber-ally England, home of the "White." Different story now.

Watching CNN after the attacks hearing the female host say, "I'm just not sure I feel safe taking my children to the pool this weekend..." really did it for me.

Here are some new numbers:

President Bush urged Americans on Monday to maintain their resolve in the face of terrorism, even as a poll suggested that last week's bombings in London rattled U.S. residents.


A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken after explosions rocked the British capital revealed a surge in U.S. anxiety that there will be further acts of terrorism at home. (Related: Poll results)


Taken Thursday through Sunday, the poll found 55% of Americans believe terrorist acts are very likely or somewhat likely in the next several weeks. That's a jump from 35% in a poll June 16-19.

Whether or not there's an attack isn't really the issue. The issue to me is how clueless people are about the attacks, and the plans of Al Qaeda.

It's pretty obvious if you compare the goals of Al Qaeda with the goals of the United States that Al Qaeda is accomplishing a lot more of what they want to do.

The purpose of the Spain attacks was to make the Spanish people rise up against their government and get it to withdraw troops from the Iraq War. Read Robert Pape's take from the Times this past weekend. It worked. In England you have a population divided on the terrorism issue, and generally not for the Iraq War. If attacks galvanize the population to move away from supporting the war America loses again. That's the plan. Don't be surprised to see an attack in Poland.

Al Qaeda realizes America is on lockdown (btw, we're on Orange again, so that's nice), so it's easier to strike other allies. The plan is to weaken support, and leave America holding the bag financially and militarily. The goal is to make sure America stands alone in this battle. Will this work for Al Qaeda? Well, we'll see what happens in London over the next few weeks.

An attack comes and Americans view the next attack as imminent, more likely. Yet attacks are always spread out which means you have more time to sorta relax until the next one. That's the reality. Expect the attacks to happen here in the states? Don't. It'll happen elsewhere, but probably to white people again.

Btw, if an attack does happen here in the states let it happen in Texas. Seriously, Texas, Oklahoma, or the south. People in California, New York, and places where people huddle together and build cities are already pretty much against the war. If you want the US to pullout you may have to start bombing Bush's base. It's possible this may "strengthen their resolve" but I'd rather it be then then us.

When Bush says we must show "resolve" how do we do this? I mean, do we continue to sit at home, watch other parents children die, and do nothing? If that's the plan then he doesn't need to stress it at all. We're great at that. We follow his lead.

Zappa's Back

A local radio station was doing one of those great "2 for Tuesday" things today, and Joe's Garage was the first of two songs. For those not in the know, we're talking Frank Zappa, and I'm not sure I've ever been more excited in my life to hear a song on the radio (except when I won "Desert Island Discs on K-Rock in 1991).

Here's the latest on Zappa. Not sure I'd see this tour:

Although it's been nearly twelve years since Frank Zappa's death, his influence is heard in the music of artists ranging from System of a Down to Trey Anastasio. This fall, Dweezil and Ahmet Zappa will pay tribute to their late father by performing his music across Europe on the Zappa Plays Zappa tour. The Zappa family is also assembling the first full-length documentary about the legendary musical iconoclast, which they plan to release by early next year. They will debut a condensed version of the film on the tour.
The documentary spans the guitarist/bandleader/composer's diverse career, from early performance footage of songs such as "Inca Roads" and "Call Any Vegetable" through sessions for his final project, 1993's The Yellow Shark. Zappa died of prostate cancer that same year.

Coincidentally, I was driving around Salt Lake City on Thursday with Jeremy Horn and he put on System of a Down. He asked me and my boy Stu if we liked it. I said I was familiar, and thought they had an odd hint of Zappa in their music. Apparently I'm not the only one thinks that.

Of course, I'm well versed in the music of Trey "Heroin" Anastasio, so I've got all the bases covered for this tour.

If 104.3 was using this news as a reason to play the music of Frank then that's a great fucking job by the DJ to get away with that. Program Directors are generally so dumb they wouldn't say "yes" to that request, and are too dumb to say "no" once you tie it into the news...

Sir, You Can't Say Bomb...

On an airplane!

BOMB Ba Ba BOMB ba BOMB ba BOMB BOMB ba BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB...

Just do a search on Bomb.

Bush, making the world a better place.

He Didn't Know

Karl Rove decided to call reporters Robert Novak and Matt Cooper to give them tips on Joseph Wilson. He didn't know who his wife was at all. All he knew is she had enough clout to send her husband on a WMD fact finding mission to Africa. That's all he knew. As far as Rove was concerned she worked at 7/11.

The e-mail did not say that Rove identified Plame by name, and Rove has maintained from the beginning that he neither knew her name nor leaked it to anyone. Columnist Robert D. Novak first reported Plame's identity in July 2003. The law says that for a violation to occur, a government official must have deliberately identified a covert agent, and must have known that the agent was under cover and that the government was trying to keep the agent's identity secret. It was the issue of credibility, more than of criminal culpability, that produced some of the most aggressive questioning at a White House briefing in recent memory -- but no answers.

Also keep in mind that the President had no idea as well. What comes out of the White House is beyond him. He delegates.

The thing about delegating is you're supposed to have complete confidence and trust in the people you are delegating to. If they do something wrong it's supposed to be your fault for choosing those particular people. Nuh uh, not in Bush's case. He's a special delegator. If things happen to go right, and they rarely do, then it's the "leadership" of George W. Bush making it happen, through delegation of course. When they go wrong, as is the norm, it's not his fault. No, it's the fault of those who chose to delegate to.

It's amazing how the richest and greediest people in America have convinced a whole bunch of people to act really dumb, and in return we'll try to cut taxes for you. Truly amazing.

It's the Post Kyoto/Rove Era

Democrats shouldn't tell the White House, "Fire Rove!" What they should do is continually point out what a scumbag he is. Just maintain a consistent, simple message that reads like this: Karl Rove has been dishonest at the earliest stages of his career, and apparently at the later stages.

Leave the door open for the media to pry. "What do you mean he's been dishonest?" Then go into his past a little bit. Let people know the types of people George W. Bush relies on. Let people know the types of things Karl Rove practiced in college to get ahead., such as this:

But Rove acknowledges that, in 1970, he used a false identity to gain entry to the campaign offices of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon, who was running for state treasurer. Once inside, Rove swiped some letterhead stationery and sent out 1,000 bogus invitations to the opening of the candidate's headquarters promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing."

It's not like he was selling weed or using fake IDs. He was breaking the trust of as many people as he could. He hasn't changed a bit.

Once Democrats figure out how to open the door on scumbags like this guy they'll start to get somewhere.

Earlier this year Scumator John Cornyn of (shockingly) Texas, made the comment that the reason for courthouse violence against judges might be because of the "ideological" decisions judges have made. In other words, liberals on the bench have created the backlash. This was in response to Judge Lefkow's family being murdered by a psycho. This was the Conservative response from the Senator from Texas.

Did John Cornyn face a major backlash himself because of it? No chance. In fact, he got face time on television to "clarify" his remarks. That's right, he got free airtime for a week to expound on his comments. He ducked a bit, claimed he didn't mean to say this, or that, or whatever. But he certainly had his moment. Now he's seemingly a party leader. His comments are almost mainstream to the psycho fucks that vote for him.

Democrats needs to figure this shit out, and it starts with leaving the door open for reporters to ask, pry, get you on their shows to "expound" on what they said earlier, and then "clarify."

Back to Rove. His college crimes may not seem like a big deal, but I've always judged a crime by how much it hurts others. If you steal, or deceive ordinary every day Janes & Joes then you're doing something wrong. Rove is that type of guy. In fact, those are the worst types of people. This guy hasn't changed a bit. He certainly hasn't suffered from what he's done. In fact, his actions have lead him right to the top. Right to the office of the President of the United States, an honest man, of course.

We'll see if this guy gets fired. We'll see how the White House reacts. We'll see how the White House defends, or doesn't defend Rove.

The other day Bush was being interviewed in Denmark. It was probably the height of US embarrassment in a lonnnnnng time. If you didn't see it, you should. It was ridiculous. He sounds like a child. In fact, I'm going to write another piece on it momentarily. Point is, he defended Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against those who don't care for his work (I'm being nice).

Gonzales is being considered for the Supreme Court. Bush was upset that people spoke harshly about him during his confirmation process for AG. Bush defended his friend. It was like watching a child. Truly amazing. Actually, I'm not going to post about it. Just watch it.

Lets see how Bush defends his "friend" Karl Rove from the attacks. Lets see if he's willing to standby a dishonest man like this.

Oh yeah, seriously, WATCH IT. Watch how dumb he is. Watch how when he starts making a comment he can't just stop, cut it off, and move on. Compare and contrast with Prime Minister Rasmussen. Bush has to go on, and on, and on, digging, and digging, and digging. True sign of a childlike mind. Watch how angry he is at the SWEDES! THE SWEDES! Imagine, a press conference not completely scripted.

Watch how pissed he gets as he asks himself questions. Himself! He yells about Kyoto, as if someone challenged him. Seriously, pure comedy, but pure sadness for the world.

"Fossil fuels, heh!"

Also, count the number of times he says "Freedom."

So that's my rant, which has swirled around my head since I went to Vegas.

Too Funny

So I was staying at the Mandalay Bay this past weekend, and guess who else was?

I'm sure a strip club was never seen by any of them.

Had I only known about this earlier I certainly would've rolled down in my khakis, blue blazer, pink shirt, bowtie, and American Flag Ribbon button on the lapel.

7/11

Get over to 7/11 today. FREE SLURPEES!

:)

Worse Than Watergate?

Of course it is, as Frank Rich points out. When you're shameless and dishonest at the core it really doesn't matter. When your supporters care nothing about truth, and only about winning, it doesn't matter.

It's nice to see Rich mention Judith Miller's role in the "aluminum tubes" story. As noble as her actions are with regard to the current story, her role in the tubes story was equally ignoble. I believe she helped allow this administration lie to the public. It's hard for me to forget Dick Cheney referencing her story on Tim Russert's show as proof of Iraq's intentions.

Sorry

I've returned from my Vegas excursion. I've wanted to comment on a billion things since I left, but in a way it's probably better for my soul that I did not. I suggest ignoring the news for a few days. It's actually healthy.

As for Karl Rove, I don't buy the story that he didn't reveal Valerie Plame's name to Time's Matt Miller, or anyone else for that matter, and that he only mentioned the agent in question is Joseph Wilson's wife.

It seems clear to me Rove is trying to get a jump on his criminal case through the media. He'll maintain he allowed Mr. Miller to reveal himself as the source of the leak in order to have this filter back to the prosecutor, or anyone else involved, thereby helping his own case. Granted, the legal case against Rove is certainly separate from the public case, but humans are humans, and those involved in trying this case will certainly be aware of the public case.

Rove's lawyer will maintain Rove so believed he hadn't done anything wrong that he allowed Miller to give him up as the source. Their case will be, "Why would he allow Miller to testify if he was worried about the ramifications?" and that "Rove never mentioned her by name, or knew she was an agent."

All lies, of course.