UFC

Not sure how many of you are familiar with Ultimate Fighting Championship, but this weekend's event is going to be off the effing charts.

I highly suggest people gathering somewhere and watching it.

Liddell vs Couture 3 is going to be one for the ages. Plus, the return of former Heavyweight Champ Frank Muir, and my favorite fighter Renato "Babalu" Sobral. Plus, Joe Riggs vs Nick Diaz.

You may not know who these people are, but you should. This stuff shits on boxing.

I'm telling you all, buy it.

Straight Shooter

This isn't even so much about Bush as it is every neo-conservative, but when we start talking about "democracy" like Bush was last night it really starts to make you wonder what the hell they're talking about.

Our offensive against terror involves more than military action. Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change. So the United States of America supports democratic reform across the broader Middle East.

Elections are vital -- but they are only the beginning. Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law, protection of minorities, and strong, accountable institutions that last longer than a single vote. The great people of Egypt have voted in a multiparty presidential election -- and now their government should open paths of peaceful opposition that will reduce the appeal of radicalism.

The Palestinian people have voted in elections -- now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace.

Saudi Arabia has taken the first steps of reform -- now it can offer its people a better future by pressing forward with those efforts.

Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity.

The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end.

So what gives? What happened in the Palestinian held territories is democracy. Hamas was voted into office, by a landslide. So it's really not about democracy at all, but about them living by our standards. That's the democracy Bush speaks of. It's certainly not the isolationist stance someone like Pat Buchanan takes, which seems to make more sense than the b.s. democracy Bush speaks of. It's about conforming to our way of life, like that's ever going to work.

What happens when we call for democracy in Iran, or elsewhere, and what results is a regime that's fundamentally sectarian and against the desires of the United States? What happens then? What happens if in Saudi Arabia a democracy takes hold, a new leader rises up, and this leader makes it harder for the US to in the oil markets (we can discuss Bush's oil dependence bullshit later)? What if buying off their leaders is no longer seen as a benefit to the new honcho, who truly wants to give back to his citizenry? Does the US say, "Yay for Democracy!!!" No, they kill the guy, or force him out of office via a CIA coup of sorts. Yes, that's how it works (There's a new book out, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman").

It's not about democracy at all. It's about opening up your country's resources and making sure our business transactions run as smoothly as possible. Sure, even neo-cons believe that stable democracies would in turn result in longterm stable business transactions for us here at home, but then again it would also result in competition, which in turn could result in us losing our grip as the world's global financial superpower. These peoeple, these OIL AND ENERGY PEOPLE, don't truly want this. They may want it for the children, and their children's children, but no sacrifice will be made today. Heck, we don't even sacrifice to educate the children of this country. We're not going to get ALL CRAZY NOW!!!

Even if Neo-cons know a democracy would add stability to the world, they're not truly prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to make this happen. The financial bottom line of the United States is what guides their actions, period. The individuals running the show are not going to sacrifice their own positions in the world. It's group think, and they all can look to each other for blame as they shamelessly manipulate the world for their own benefit. It's sorta like when a group of people do something wrong everyone can point to someone else in the group more guilty than themselves. Of course there are those more guilty than others, but they're all truly guilty. Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Adelphia...

When American leaders talk about democracy these days it's an absolute joke. It's a word; not something we're truly hoping for. If democracies resulted in socialism throughout South America and the Middle East, all peaceful, would we support this? No chance. Again, back to Pat Buchanan, who is at least straightforward with his words. He calls for isolationism, and doing what's right for America only. Do I agree with that? No, but at least he has a realist's perspective, and doesn't pretend to be something he's not.

If conservatives wanted a real straighshooter, honest guy, they would have voted for Buchanan. But they don't want that. They want a mask. They want a coverguy. Someone who will say the right things, pretend to be a uniter, and make you think you're getting cash back in the form of tax cuts.

I doubt Americans will ever support a system that could possibly land us in second place. I mean, with the richest Americans voting in droves for tax cuts it tells you all you need to know about the path we'll always be on, for they make the decisions.

It will always come down to the almight dollar. When the President starts talking about Democracy he's really talking about capitalism and markets, which conservatives believe is much more important than self-rule. Capitalism trumps any other word, or phrase, in its importance when it comes to these people.

Bonnaroo 2006

Am I going to this?

Radiohead
Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers
Beck
Elvis Costello & the Imposters
Bonnie Raitt
Death Cab for Cutie
moe.
Bright Eyes
The Neville Brothers
Bela Fleck & the Flecktones
Buddy Guy
Damian Marley
Ben Folds
Robert Randolph & the Family Band
Dr. John
Matisyahu
G. Love & Special Sauce
My Morning Jacket
Ricky Skaggs & Kentucky Thunder
Steel Pulse
Mike Gordon and Ramble Dove
Cat Power
Medeski Martin & Wood
Nickel Creek
Gomez
Steve Earle
Blues Traveler
Amadou & Mariam
Stephen Malkmus & the Jicks
Dresden Dolls
Son Volt
Clap Your Hands Say Yeah
Jerry Douglas
SouliveRusted Root
Devendra Banhart Band
Donavon Frankenreiter
Mike Doughty
Sasha
Grace Potter & the Nocturnals
The Magic Numbers
Bill Frisell
Seu Jorge
Bettye LaVette
Dungen
Shooter Jennings
Rebirth Brass Band
Robinella
Andrew Bird
Steel Train
Jackie Greene
Devotchka
Wood Brothers
dios (malos)
Toubab Krewe
Marah
I-Nine
Balkan Beat Box
Cat Empire

I might be.

Ooops

So Cindy Sheehan wasn't holding a banner, as mentioned in the last post, but was wearing an anti-war t-shirt, or something similar. This according to the rules is not allowed.

In other words, freedom of speech is not allowed inside the nation's capitol.

Great Plan

I watched the SOTU for about 3 minutes. Once that jackoff starting talking about "tear-err" and "weapons of mass destruction" I turned it right off.

I wonder, do his writers think, "Lets start with the stuff he's good, and then slowly move into the show he's not so good at..." Yeah, like all of it. I just have no interest in hearing him discuss anything. I know it's a lie. I know it's not true. I KNOW Coretta Scott King has already rolled over twice once he mentioned her name. I know he doesn't give a shit about some child with HIV in Uganda. Heck, I hardly care! You think he cares?

I really think they start with the terror stuff, hoping the American public will just turn it off. Hence, minimizing the damage.

3 years of this character. Such a putz. He's going to bury the party, if they don't bury themselves.

As for CNN's coverage, which I watched, that sucked about as bad as the President did/does. They were waaay too excited about Cindy Sheehan being removed from the chambers. Hey, the woman broke a house rule. It's her own fault. And besides, why's she even there? Can't the Democrats find a symbol that's more fitting than her? I mean, I get it, really, but the war is on, and peoples' minds are made up about it, and her. The only thing she could do is make the Democrats look bad. They should be glad she was removed to avoid her causing any extra damage.

One of the CNN commentators, I believe Jeff Greenfield, said, "This President is extremely popular within his own party. Even more so than Ronald Reagan was..." Riiight. Great. Way not to point out that nationally Ronald Reagan was so much more loved than Bush, and if you were to privately ask every Senator and House member in the room who they'd rather have right now Reagan would win in a landslide. That's even if you included all the black Republicans in Congress...wait, there aren't any. I'm sure Mrs. King was aware of this.

CNN: Just the facts!!!

Then there's comments on CNN about how the President has a low approval rating, yet he manages to get things done. Wow, who woulda thunk it? You mean with a majority in the House and Senate he manages to get things done? That's amazing! How does he do it? No mention of that on CNN. I'm left to believe the President does it all through prayer...even though he doesn't goto church.

In the end it will be the most amazing feat in modern history if the Republicans can keep this guy afloat for 8 years. I mean, if they can do it with this guy, just imagine what they could have done with Jeb! Just be thankfully Bush has put an end to Jeb because had the roles been reversed George W. Bush may have been primed to win in 2008.

I'm still waiting for things to get worse. America, with our 3 second attention span, forget last week's news as quickly as they read it. Nothing matters, nothing changes.

I heard there was a big rain storm in New Orleans. You know anything about that?

Game

I like the Steelers. Initially I liked the Seahawks, but having checked out the two schedules, results, etc., I like the Steelers even with their coach that can never get it done. Then again, Mack Brown couldn't get it done at Texas, and Roy Williams couldn't get it done at Kansas or North Carolina. Things change.

The AFC is the stronger conference, and the Steelers have beaten better teams than the Seahawks, at least in my humble opinion.

There's a reason people are overlooking the Seahawks, who have players and a coach who have been to the Superbowl. Still, I like the Steelers

Seattle 22
Pittsburgh 27

Amazing

That no band has caught up these guys, still.

Wayne Krantz, Tim Lefebvre, Keith Carlock

Stockholm, 7.20.2000

Shirts Off.

(streaming)

Jesus

I've read some stupid shit in my day, but this takes the cake:

Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's upping the ante.

"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."

Oh, read on you should.

Here's an angle you haven't heard.

First off, we saw the planes crash into buildings. Not having a clue who would be where and when, it's quite a stretch to even make this claim. For example, Solicitor General Ted Olson's wife Barbara died in Shanksville, PA. He obviously didn't know. We saw the planes crash, and we saw the buildings topple from the top to the bottom, not the other way around.

So who knew? Did Bush know? I mean, obviously even if it was planned he wouldn't know, so no, he didn't know. Besides, we saw his face topple from the top down...for 10 minutes.

Here's the clincher of why this is the dumbest story ever, while putting aside the obvious fact that it's the dumbest story ever: Had the military, air traffic controllers, and so many others been just seconds faster (I read the 9/11 Report, and we were not far off from stopping this, which in and of itself is amazing), and we were able to stop one of the two planes, then only one building would have crumbled. There's a chance the crumbling of the second tower may have weakened the foundation, and the other would have tipped over. That would have been worse than anything.

Assuming the other building would have remained standing, don't you think inspectors would have gone into the building to check how stable it was? And had they gone into the building don't you think they would have found the explosives?!?!? Talk about risking getting caught! And who were the people who planted them? What time did they do this?

This alone makes the argument retarded.

Besides, the Bush administration gets little, if anything, right, ever. What makes anyone think they could pull off this? It takes a terrorist group living in caves to do something this perfect; not a moron sitting on a ranch.

Well...

Cheney is from Wyoming, and his wife did write a book... 

Nice

The land of Lincoln:

Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island today became the first Republican senator to oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. But the judge still seemed to have enough support for an all-important vote this afternoon.

"Judge Alito has outstanding legal credentials and an inspiring life story," Mr. Chafee said, in a statement released by his office. "However, I am greatly concerned about his philosophy on some important constitutional issues."

Mr. Chafee said he wanted to support President Bush's choice. "The president did win the election," the senator said. But he added, "I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican, and I will be voting against this nomination."

He said it wasn't enough having just one party hate him...

The State of Bush's Union

This by one of my old professors. I enjoyed it:

Tuesday night, President Bush will deliver the annual State of the Union address. As he enters the second year of his second term, it's a good time to take a fresh look at how he won his return to the White House -- and what that victory might say about his party's prospects in the next presidential campaign.

After election night in 2004, the pundits were quick to explain Bush's defeat of Democrat John Kerry. They stressed the division of the nation into "red" and "blue" states; they discussed the dominance of "moral issues" in the vote; they reported the president's claim of a "mandate" for his policies, particularly the war in Iraq.

Now, though, we have better evidence available -- the National Election Study, a scientific survey of almost 2,000 voters conducted every four years since 1948 by leading scholars. With this data in hand, we can more accurately test, and often dispute, the glib conclusions of election night.

The results show three main influences on voters' behavior: their partisanship, their judgments about Bush's first term, and their views on the candidates and their policy prescriptions.

The single best explanation of the 2004 results, in fact, is the same as that in any other election: party loyalty. Nine of every 10 Democrats voted for Kerry, and even more Republicans (93 percent) voted for Bush. Statistically, we can explain more than half of the final margin of victory simply on the basis of Bush's stronger command of his base.

But party loyalty doesn't explain everything. If it did, John Kerry would be giving the State of the Union address: Exactly half of the total electorate either identifies with the Democratic Party or leans in that direction, compared to 40 percent who prefer the Republican Party, and 10 percent who are "pure" independents.

Bush won because of two variations on party loyalty. First, Republicans were more likely to vote. Among those who came to the polls, the Democrats' numerical advantage was almost completely eliminated: An overall 50-40 advantage was reduced to 48-46 among actual voters (independents, as usual, were much less likely to cast their ballots). Second, Republicans were more loyal -- not much more, but it was enough.

Beyond party identification, the 2004 election can be best explained as a verdict on Bush's first term. The president gained votes on his conduct of the war on terror and on voters' favorable assessments of their economic condition. He lost just as many votes on his Iraq war policy. (In fact, if the election had been decided only on the Iraq issue, Bush would have lost.) Despite Bush's claims to the contrary, there was no mandate in the election for the continuation of his war program -- but also no mandate for immediate withdrawal.

After looking back, the voters also looked ahead, at the policies and the men they might prefer over the next four years. Although pundits tended to emphasize one issue or another, none actually had much resonance with voters. For example, abortion, Social Security and general foreign policy had no real effect on the outcome.

Bush did win some votes on his tax program, perhaps adding 1 percent or so to his share of the national vote. But the ballyhooed issue of gay marriage had little effect. At most, it was only half as important as the tax issue. (It could be true, however, that the issue had an indirect effect, by stimulating the greater turnout and loyalty of Republican partisans.)

Finally, the voters evaluated the candidates themselves. Bush gained considerably on evaluations of leadership. But Kerry also had personal strengths. Voters saw him as more knowledgeable than Bush and thought he cared more about their problems. If the election had been decided only on personal traits, contrary to conventional wisdom, Kerry could be president today.

These findings have considerable implications for the course of American politics in the remaining years of the Bush administration and the next presidential election. For one thing, they show the shrewdness of the Republican Party's strategy in 2004 of consolidating its base and stressing efforts to bring these devoted supporters to the polls. But the same strategy may not be sufficient in 2008.

However cohesive, the Republican base is not large enough to win on its own. Bush needed small increments beyond his partisan foundation, and these may not be available to the party's candidate in 2008. Why? Terrorism will be less threatening, we all hope, as the memory of 9/11 fades. Issues of homosexuality, of limited effect even in 2004, will likely have even less impact as gays become more accepted socially. There may be less optimism about the economy. And the president's reputation for leadership and moral character will be harder to recapture for a new nominee of a party now tarnished by scandals.

There is only one sure conclusion before Tuesday's presidential speech: The political state of the union remains uncertain.



Gerald M. Pomper is a professor of political science emeritus at Rutgers University and the author of "Ordinary Heroes and American Democracy."

Hope you did.

Pickup Trucks, Idiots, Hoodies, and Pussies

I'm not even sure where to start with this one, and I'm in no mood to multi-post, so here goes.

My friend called me earlier to tell me she thought New York City is the greatest place ever because on one side of the street the Falun Gong were doing their thing, and on the other side people were waiting anxiously to get into a store to buy newly released sneakers.

My first thought was, "Yeah, that's interesting, and sorta comical. But the real comedy is the fact that the people across the street have no care in the world that they're buying sneakers often made by the Chinese, under opporessive labor conditions. The powers that allow these conditions to operate are the same powers suppressing the religious freedoms of the Falun Gong, and others. Yet these people don't know, and if they did, don't give a shit."

There's nothing quite like ignorance.

There's also nothing quite like being a huge pussy in a pickup truck. By that I mean Bush's "red" America, and their attitudes toward terror, laws, liberty, etc.

America must be the biggest pussy nation ever, or at least we became it over time. Certainly there are brave people who fight wars, and there are those who choose to fight because they've run out of life options. But overall, the citizenry, huge pussies. All the flag waving, gun toaters, huge pussies.

These are the people who voted for Bush to protect the borders. The people who are scared of a terrorist attack, living in Nebraska. NEBRASKA! Who's coming after you? Who is bombing your buildings? Do you have buildings? These are the people who insist on the right to carry firearms. The people who are scared of border crossing Mexicans. These are the people who are just scared, living scared, and need to pray pray pray every day to God to make sure they're safe and sound. Scared, scared, scared. Tough acting Americans.

Is it being scared of death? Scared of losing the country? What's everyone so scared of? I mean, it must be death because they obviously don't care about the country. They don't care about the laws. They don't care about the apparent fact that we lose to the terrorists by allowing our leaders to change our laws, break our laws, and manipulate the public with fear. Then again, I don't think these people know the laws, or care about the laws. I think there are so many of them who got through our education system having learned nothing. Do I expect them to care about the nuances of the Constitution? Please. Give them more money, allow them to pray in school, and carry guns. That's life on the farm, folks. Presidents and sneaky lawyers breaking the law, well, that's just Washington being Washington. No biggie.

The people of New York, the pushover liberals, they're the pussies and wimps according to the tough conservatives. Right? I mean, they're the ones who were actually attacked, yet they want our laws to remain in place and strong. They're the ones who live with crime right outside their front doors, but yet they don't need to be toating ammo wherever they go. They're the ones who would lets us be attacked by terrorists!!! Riiight.

They're also the ones living amongst the terrorists. I live in Jersey City where the Blind Sheik was living. I live down the street from an Arabic money transfer. It is what it is. Do I want to die, no. Am I scared of dying, sorta. But it is what it is, and I live for the day. I don't have to pretend to be tough, carry firearms, and close off the country to those who want to come and make something of their lives. I don't need to pray good things will happen. I try to make them happen by being good.

Yet we're the wimps. Good one. It's the homophobes and the xenophobes and the racists and the bigots and the chauvinists. They're the ones who are scared, and will erect any wall, and change the laws any way possible to protect the status in life they've been born into: being white and Christian. Now they have a President as dumb as them willing to do the same things.

I'm just going to stop right here...for now...

(no edit)