The Latest Body Armor News

I realize that the majority in this country who now want the troops home, or the majority that disapprove of Bush and his handling of the Iraq war, hate America more than anyone else, and that those who never wanted the troops in Iraq in the first place should take most of the blame for getting them killed now that we’re there. (***Editor’s Note: Once in a while, try doing the exercise that I just did above. Write down the exact position Bush supporters are advocating, including their logic and reason for that position, and then read what you just wrote. It’s truly the only way to appreciate how fucking delusional Bush supporters are***).

However, it should be noted that the Pentagon’s latest position on body armor should at least catch a sliver of the blame, but first a little refresher.

When we first heard of the body armor issue, embedded members of the liberal media were reporting on entire battalions who had to search through scrap metal and other trash in Iraq to literally duct tape, rope or bolt on to their poorly armored humvees, as IED’s were blowing the crap out of the vehicles that didn’t receive the armor (hence coining the term “hillbilly armor.”) By doing this, the liberal media and their viewers, both of which who hate the troops, cast the spotlight on a huge problem which in turn put pressure on the government to fix.

Compounding this issue was troop-hater Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard, who asked Rumsfield during an open Q&A back in the winter of ’04: "Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles, and why don't we have those resources readily available to us?"

This drew loud applause and cheers from the other 2,300 troops in attendance, who also apparently despise the troops.

To which Rumsfeld replied: "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," which is politician speak for "tough shit." Rumsfeld has 3 yellow ribbon magnets on his Lexus, so statements like this are totally fine.

This brought critical attention to the issue, and pretty soon everyone was hating the troops by raising money to buy them the armor the Pentagon refused to supply, and that the tax cuts for the top% couldn’t fund. Parents were spending over $1,000 in some cases to protect the kids for which they weren’t supporting.

Well, liberals such those over at Americablog loathed the troops so much, blog founder John Aravosis organized a fundraiser to help injured soldier 1st Lt. William Eddie Rebrook with the body armor the Pentagon forced him to pay for after he was injured in battle and it was removed from his body to help save his life. They despised troops like this so much, the liberal readers raised $5,000 to help pay for the money the troop-supporting Bush administration was demanding from Rebrook. (It should be noted that troop-supporter Rush Limbaugh had a different strategy for donating to the troops.)

Especially after reading stories like this, all kinds of armor donations started pouring in – some of which are not sufficient or too heavy for the troops to want to even wear, the Pentagon has decided to solve the problem (from the LA Times):

Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor that was not issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday. Nathaniel R. Helms, editor of the Soldiers for the Truth online magazine DefenseWatch, said he already had received a number of e-mails from soldiers complaining about the policy.

"Outrageously we've seen that [soldiers] haven't been getting what they need in terms of equipment and body armor," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who
wrote legislation to provide reimbursement to troops for equipment purchases.

"That's totally unacceptable, and why this directive by the Pentagon needs to be scrutinized in much greater detail."

The justification is that the donated armor isn’t of the highest quality – you know, as opposed to not having any at all. I guess if the liberals never complained that the troops weren’t getting the protection they needed, we wouldn’t have a surplus of poor quality armor in the first place, now would we?

From the 'Kos

When people ask me why it is that I live in the Northeast, I'll just email them this picture. Observes Kos, "you can now travel through the US from the Atlantic to the Pacific without setting foot in a state where Bush's approval tops 45%."

You can also click here for an animated gif that depicts the approval rating over time, from the election in '04 up until now.

RepubliFear

The hot-button issue of gay adoption has made the rounds recently. I personally find it important to fight for gay rights issues, because I feel they’re the only group left in this country to which actual legal discrimination can be applied, with full consent with the law.

In Maine for example, if you wished to evict someone, deny them a bank loan, or fire them from their job because they were female or black, you’d be sued, and you’d lose the case. Up until last November, if you wanted to do the same to someone – ONLY based on their sexual orientation – you could do so without the threat of prosecution...and in many cases, persecution.

Maine has been voting and rejecting equal rights laws pertaining to gays and lesbians for decades. That is simply amazing to me, and if you really want to get examples of legislation voting that is fear and myth-based, I urge you to read about the vote mentioned above.

Lest you wondered why Bush constantly reminds people of terror and war post-9/11. Or why the Republican National Convention was 100% about terrorism. Or why the RNC will send surrogates to attack the Patriotism of decorated Veterans on a weekly basis. Or why anyone who calls themselves a conservative is also hyper-nationalist and obnoxiously over-symbolic, it must be understood that when you don’t have a political platform that makes sense factually, you need to pray on people’s primal instincts of fear and protection in order to win.

- See immigration: the Mexicans are coming to take your jobs! (nevermind that immigration keeps our economy from collapsing)
- See welfare debates: people too lazy to work are taking your tax dollars! (pay no attention to the fact that most welfare recipients are working single parents, and children)
- See the Social Security debate: there will be no money left! (nevermind the fact that privatization will really kill the program)
- See Iraq: they are going to bomb us TOMORROW! (nevermind the fact that we have intelligence stating there are no WMD’s)
- See Women’s Reproductive Rights: they’ll be abortions on demand! (nevermind a woman’s right to choose saving her own life, or that abortions decreased during the previous pro-choice administration
- See Sex Education: Your kid is going to run out and have sex right after class! (nevermind that studies show those who are educated use birth control and are more safe and mature about sex)

So it should be no surprise then, when any conservative plays the child molestation card when speaking of gay adoption. Tennessee state representative Debra Maggart wants the countless thousands of kids waiting in foster care for parents to know that they’ll be waiting a little bit longer if Mary and Sue want to give them a better chance at life:

"We also have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and
have, in some instances, adopted them in order to have unfretted access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse. I have strong convictions. I just feel kids in our foster have been through enough.”

Take a wild guess as to whether or not Maggart is religiously affiliated. Anyone want to take a stab at that? Google her name and look at the description immediately following for your shocking answer.

Again, here’s an example of fear superseding fact. If the state congresswoman or anyone ignorant enough to vote for her just did five minutes of research, they’d find that children who are placed in households with gay parents are loved, cared for, and completely well-adjusted, without any deviation from those who are placed with straight parents.

They’d also find out what one of the leading authorities regarding adoption, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, says about gay parents embracing foster children:

"Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes," the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute says in the report to be issued Friday.

It advises agencies and officials to make firm statements in support of such adoptions, forsaking a "don't ask, don't tell" approach which prompts some gays to feel their chances of adopting hinge on being discreet about their sexual orientation. Adoption agencies should energetically recruit gays and lesbians, including them in outreach programs and parenting panels, the institute said.

This major adoption agency is not alone. Joining their sediments are:

- The American Psychological Association.
- The American Academy of Pediatrics.
- The American Academy of Family Physicians.
- The American Psychiatric Association
- The American Psychoanalytic Association
- The Child Welfare League of America
- The North American Council on Adoptable Children
- The National Association of Social Workers…

And believe me, this is the short list.

Honestly, if you really wanted to point the molestation finger at someone, you’d discover that the group doing most of the molesting are heterosexuals, not homosexuals. And by quite a margin. Over 90% of convicted child molesters are heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Boy Scouts ran into this statistic the hard way, as they have a policy of banning gay men from the Scouts, while at the same time their straight, married program director Douglas Smith was caught with child porn. Woops!

Unfortunately, conservative politicians and the Scouts aren’t the only ones who try to get you to buy into the fear. The Boston Catholic Diocese, as well as my local Catholic Charities organizations are against gay anything, especially adoption. But hey, if anyone knows about child molestation, it’s the Catholic Church.

When you discover the staggering amount of well-organized, religiously affiliated organizations and people in roles of leadership who constantly preach gay people are less-than, don’t count, and should be barred from having the same rights as us normal people do – from conservative state politicians, to the Republican National committee, up to the President and the Pope – are you REALLY surprised when fringe groups show up at soldiers’ funerals with signs that say, God Hates Fags?” It’s a lot easier to hate someone after they’re dehumanized by the authority.

Shit roles down hill, doesn’t it?

Iraq Going Poorly? Blame the Media!

Welcome to the mainstream media news:

Audio:

The recent debate, ignited by conservatives and mimicked by dumbfounded, rapidly blinking President Smirky, pertains to media coverage in Iraq and the reporting on the war in general. The theory here is that since the local car bomb in Falluja gets the lead story over the new road we just constructed in Baghdad, there must be some sort of liberal media bias.

This has been a long favorite conservative talking point of mine, specifically because it’s so easy to dispel. But alas, most media outlets ironically covering the story of their own perceived bias coverage are interviewing and quoting the very conservatives who say their issues aren’t being covered enough. Go ahead; I’ll pause while you re-read that.

After all, conservatives don't deal with facts, research or experts in any particular field (see: Global Warming), so I guess it's a lot easier to blame the media for the mess in Iraq than it is to look at the violent, tribal relgious and cultural sects, the lack of an exit strategy, the ill-equipped military vehicles, the non-existent body armor, and the severe underestimating of - well, everything.

But regarding any media bias - I have stated this a million times, but will again reiterate this for your Bush supporting friends who are ready to launch another Anthrax attack on members of the media:

The media, ladies and gentlemen do NOT have a liberal bias - they have a sensationalist bias.

Most complex political debates cannot be dispelled by only one sentence but this issue isn’t complex, nor is this really up for debate. It’s actually proven, every single day, by every single cable and network news outlet, almost without exception. After all if there really were a liberal media bias, headlines like “Is the Iraq War Getting Fair Coverage” wouldn’t even appear around the country as they have this week.

This is a really big deal in this country because conservatives will concede there were no WMD’s in Iraq when we invaded before they’ll ever let go of the liberal media lie. What they don’t understand is that the media isn’t here to necessarily provide the best information. They’re here to make money, lead with big stories, entertain, get ratings, sell papers, and conquer their competitors.

It all goes back to the old journalism adage: If it bleeds, it leads.

This couldn’t be truer in a time of war. The basic cornerstones of war reporting include who fought where, and how many of them died. To think that the media is reporting only bad news from Iraq because they all have a collective and agreed upon agenda to discredit this war is so ridiculous I don’t really know where to start.

Do I really have to explain this? This is like 8th grade “introduction to journalism.” My conservative friends, the media reports on the deaths and destruction because you’re more likely to buy the paper with “52 Dead as Wave of Violence Sweeps Iraq” on the front page than you would be if “Mosque Basra Gets Second Coat of Gold Paint” was the lead story. So if you’re tired of the bad news, blame yourself and the guy next to you, because the consumers drive what is reported, not the reporters themselves.

In fact, their whole game is Capitalism, not necessarily reporting, and there are so many daily illustrations of the media NOT being liberal, I decided to make a small list of examples that I encourage you to forward to friends the next time you even hear a mentioning of the words, “liberal media.”

- There are 5 major, white/male/mostly Republican owned corporations who control almost everything you see and hear, and most are not exactly big Democratic donors. The impact of this cannot be stated enough, as this provides the entire backdrop of almost everything you see, hear and read unless you get your media from an independent source.

- Consider the incredible conservative AM radio domination drumming up support for Bush’s policies, on almost every dial, all day long, ever day. According to one recent study of the 45 top-rated AM talk radio stations in the United States, conservative talk accounts for 310 (or 98.4%)hours of airtime each week; liberal talk just 5 hours (1.6%).

- Think of the Republican attack machine via paid advertisements from local
political seats up to the presidential race. Most estimates and studies put the ’04 presidential elections at 75% to around 28%, Bush to Kerry, in terms of negative ads.

- Conservatives with poor memories (mostly due to lack of anti-embryonic stem cell research to combat Alzheimer’s) don’t remember that the New York Times was a strong supporter of both wars in Iraq before their invasions.

- Accusing black Louisiana citizens of “looting” while white citizens are “finding” is not exactly liberal thinking.

- Nor is coverage of missing white teens (do black teens ever get lost, abducted or killed?)

- Have you ever listened to Country Music? That counts as media

- Ever heard of ClearChannel, how much they own, or know what their politics are?

- Do you recall any media attention for the Swift Boat liars before the election or were you able to find the small, back page article about how they'd been dicredited after the election?

- Sinclair broadcasting, an ultra conservative media group, is the largest broadcaster
in the nation.

- Think about the “war rooms” all the networks set up at the start of the last few wars, and who their guests are. Most guests are ex-military generals and other high ranking officials of intelligence and the armed forces.

- Consider the amount of reporters and anchors embedded in war zones and traveling with our troops. Reports coming back from embedded reporters aren’t exactly liberal – they’re factual, and they provide a great perspective of war from a soldier’s point of view (as much as we can get via tv). They just don’t usually embed terrorist-supporting liberals with the infantries, including those who have risked and lost their lives to cover the story.

- Back in the 90’s, there was an affair between the President and an intern that produced some headlines. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.

- Did you hear who made Time’s Person of the Year in 2004?

- Studies have shown the more 9/11 and terrorism is mentioned, the more people rally around the President, mostly out of fear. Have you seen any terror or 9/11 coverage in the past few years?

- Have you ever noticed the American flag animations flapping right near the network icon during cable news broadcasts? Hyper flag waving isn't exactly a liberal
characteristic.

- By the same token, have you ever seen the scrolling terror alert level status on the cable news shows?

- Ever read the PIPA study on media bias?

- Have you seen the recent study regarding Meet the Press and who most of their guests are? Or the one conducted on the conservative guests versus liberal guests on the Sunday talk shows?

- Since liberals are all Saddam/dictatorship supporters, have you ever noticed the amount of anti-Saddam coverage on all of the Discovery channels? Brutal, human rights-raping dictators are a favorite of liberals throughout history, and the Discovery channel is clearly against us.

- Discovery Military, the Pentagon Channel, and CSPAN1, 2 and 3 are all government affiliated cable channels, controlled by Republican influence.

- Have you ever looked at what is broadcast over government-sponsored Armed Forces Radio?

- Gay rights marches, as many as 500,000 strong include a makeup of about .00001% drag queens. Guess who gets on camera.

- Ever hear "liberal" Hardball host Chris Matthews draw comparisons between liberals and Al-Zarqarwi?

- The Bush administration has spent more on PR firm contracting than any other president in history. It has produced: Fake news stories, fake journalists, fake town hall meetings, fake Q&A’s with the troops, fake members of the White House press corps, and fake photography.

- Remember the network news magazines that used to cover news? Dateline on NBC now covers who-done-it murders and cruise ship stories, 48 Hours on CBS now does unsolved crimes (and even changed it’s name to “48 Hours Mystery”), Primetime promotes whatever ABC airs on weekdays (i.e. Dancing with the Stars appears on this channel, so Primetime has done several series on ballroom dancing), and 20/20 features the trashing of anything public by John Stossel. 60 Minutes is the only news magazine covering the news, and when you cover the news you’re considered liberal (I call it informed).

- Mostly because they have more money and there are more of them, conservative think tanks are overquoted in the media by a ratio of 2 to 1 over their liberal counterparts. What’s worse, this is often done without identifying the think tank getting quoted has a conservative slant.

Liberals have the Daily Show (a comedy skit hosted by a comedian), Real Time (with Republican guests sharing the guest panel, and airing on a subscription cable channel), Democracy Now (which has the same cinematic and broadcasting sophistication as Wayne’s World) and Air America.

That’s it.

So I was checking the latest headlines from the 10 or 12 sources I hit daily (actually one of which is Foxnews.com), when I noticed CNN.com was actively proving the point that progressives make regularly regarding the liberal media, right there on their web site.

Take a look at the screenshot from the aforementioned CNN.com from just the other day, a favorite target of the Right. All in one front page, you have the day's biggest news stories. Cruise ship fires, tour buses going into canyons, missing boys in Milwaukee (the first black kids to ever go missing, according to CNN), the death of a beautiful college student, a big break in another missing beautiful girl case, and on and one....see below:





I rest my case.

Go Fuck Yourself, Mr. Scalia

I finally found a connection, after years of searching, between right-wing theocratic leaders, and the right-wing activist judges they continue to appoint to the bench: they both like to flip off the American public.

A few years ago an old video of a rich, spoiled G.W. Bush circulated the internet, showing our President extending upward toward the God who told him to invade Iraq, the finger between his index, and ring fingers. This is known by anthropologists as “the fuck you finger,” and is typically seen as a gross sign of disrespect in Western culture.

In a strange twist of irony, the apple of Bush’s cocaine-glassed eye, Judge Scalia, mimicked the very man who claims such affection toward him…while leaving church:

Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.

“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene
gesture under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs

Hey, I’m all for flicking off whomever, especially after receiving a special Communion, or even during Mass, but doing so on the steps of a Church when you're ranked a distant second to "Jesus" as the most celebrated figure for the Christian Right will net you some attention. Add Dick’ Cheney’s “go fuck yourself” on the senate floor, and the Religious Right has a trifecta they can really call their own…or should I say, a Holy Fucking Trinity?

Now I'm Not One to Threaten People, But...

My fellow Mainers –

You thought I was joking when I wrote about the ultra-conservative Christian group picketing at soldiers’ funerals because they believe their deaths are a direct result of God’s retribution against America for tolerating homosexuality.

Apparently with His busy schedule, ranging from directing footballs through the uprights at high school football games in Texas, to smiting our soldiers in Iraq out of anger that American boys are kissing, God hasn’t had much time to read the newspaper. If he did, He’d figure out that America isn’t exactly leading the charge around the world for gay rights, and he could lay off blowing our soldiers up with IED’s in Baghdad. God may want to take his smiting to say, Western Europe.

Either that or…the members of this Church who run the site GodHatesFags.com, are totally fucking bat-shit. Take your pick.

While most Americans dismiss these groups as fringe, crazy, or even slightly entertaining, I think it’s safe to assume that if were your brother, father or daughter getting buried, a large group of homophobic, child-molesting protestors picketing the funeral is probably the last thing you’d want to see during the service.

So for the towel-head-haters, the next time you’d like to assign the words “suicide bomber” to all 1 billion Muslims around the world, perhaps you can consider this group of Baptists as a perfect example of religious perversion and misrepresentation of a greater whole. Appearing on the next SAT test, you may see: “Terrorist is to Islam as the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.”

And for those from around here attending the funeral of Sgt. Corey Dan from the Oxford Hills area including a housemate of mine, you’ll get your chance to see these people close up on Saturday. With that said, I’d have to think members of the Midwestern Church might want to bring their luckiest crucifixes with them to get out of Norway, Maine safe and sound, because as the saying goes, you won’t be in Kansas anymore.

They grow ‘em big in the ‘Hills. Good luck.

Bill O'Reilly Threatening His Callers?

This story got some attention last week on Kos, Crooks & Liars, etc, so I wanted to post the audio here.

Bill O'Reilly is obviously a weak, psychotic, pouting man-child who blows his splotchy top at the slightest provocation, however nothing beats the latest gem when he threatens someone for mentioning his nemisis Keith Olbermann. The caller simply called into the Radio Factor, mentioned Keith's name, was dumped immediately by the 7-second delay button, and was promised a visit by the local authorities who would be tipped off by Fox News security.

In the audio clip below, Keith Olbermann talks about the incident on his show. You couldn't make this stuff up folks.

Audio:

CALLER: I like to listen to you during the day, I think Keith Olbermann's show
-- (*click*)

O'REILLY: There ya go, Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit.

HILL (co-host): Maybe Mike is from the mothership.

O'REILLY: No, Maybe Mike is going to get into big trouble, because we're not going to play around. When you call us, ladies and gentleman, just so you know, we do have your phone number, and if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?

HILL: That's fair.

Bush Bullshits His Way Through Press Conferences Like So Many Essays at Yale

On Tuesday Bush had a question and answer session that wasn’t in front of a carefully, hand-picked audience, nor were the questions pre-screened and tailored to spin the appearance into a meticulously planned PR event.

I realize it’s difficult to discern my sarcasm from my genuine thoughts here, but let there be no doubt when I tell you that appearances from Bush such as those today, free from scripts, planted press corps members, and hand-picked audience members are incredibly rare. Perhaps we ought to think about how this impacts our model for Democracy around the world, at least while we’re installing it forcibly, but hey, that's just me.

Non-scripted interactions with our President often prove valuable, because questions that need asking are posed, and even more importantly, people can observe first hand the question-dodging, lying, and weaseling out of really important conversations.

During the real Q&A, Bush got a little flustered as he tried to justify the occupation of Iraq. One specific exchange, involving Bush and Helen Thomas occurred, and something completely expected happened.

Bush answered a question about the Iraq war by dropping S11-bombs (referring to Sept 11th) and spurting out the same exact falsehoods that kool-aid drinking Bush supporters still believe today – that Iraq, Sept 11th, and Al Qaeda are linked.

I've highlighted interesting pieces of the conversation below in red. Red is for the rage I feel when I read it.

Helen Thomas: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

Your President: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect -- Hold on for a second, please. Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen.

You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second –

Helen Thomas: They didn't do anything to you, or to our country…

Your President: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained –

Helen Thomas: I'm talking about Iraq –

Your President: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans. I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world.

And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

I have a million and one problems with his answer, but here are the highlights.

- Everyone who has documented activities starting with the Project for a New American Century, on through every reporter who has covered this White House, will tell you this administration has been looking to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Read Bob Woodward's book. Listen to Paul O'Neil. Read the Downing Street memos. Many conservatives openly and proudly agree with our preoccupation with Iraq's invasion, so I’m not sure why Bush denied it the other day.

- I recognize that Bush was a C student at Yale, but I think since “The Redcoats are coming!” was exclaimed in the late 1700’s during the Revolutionary war, we pretty much knew that oceans didn’t protect us.

- Once again – despite repeated denials intentionally linking the two, Bush mentioned the attacks on September 11th 4 times in a question regarding Iraq in his first paragraph.

- Each time Helen Thomas tried to say that once again, he's got his geography confused and was answering questions about Afganistan rather than Iraq, she was cut off childishly by Bush.

- Bush flat out lied about Iraq providing a safe haven for Al Qaeda. They did no such thing, and everyone knows there is proof for this now. Al Qaeda had no training camps in Iraq before this war, none of the hijackers were Iraqi, Mohammed Atta never met with Iraqi officials, Saddam squashed any radical Islam in his country, and there are more Al Qaeda living near the Jersey shore than living in Iraq, at any time, throughout history, ever, period.

- Perhaps this one bothers me the most, because it's such a flat out lie. Saddam never denied inspectors in his country, nor did he ever remove the inspectors. The country that did remove the inspectors? The United States, just before we bombed their country. First when Clinton was president, and just before the invasion in 2003.

- We didn't "work with the world," (as my 10 year old cousin might phrase it as well) regarding this occupation. In face, this may be the most simultaneously protested war ever conducted by the United States with less world support than any other campaign we've ever waged. Sorry, Vietnam.

- The world is not safer after the removal of Saddam. Hell, IRAQ is not safer after the removal of Saddam. There have been more terrorist attacks in Asia and Europe since our invasion. More people have died in Iraq and around the world as a result of our invasion, since Saddam was overthrown.

Realizing the only person with balls in the press corps is a 200 year old 80 pound woman with way too much cheek makeup, Bush then tried to call on Jeff Gannon, and looked agitated when no one answered.

Pat, You're Just in Time

Pat Robertson is on a monthly schedule that you can set your period to. Every 28 days or so, Pat makes a ridiculous comment, like the fact that God smote Ariel Sharon for appeasing the European Union, or that citizens of Dover, PA will feel God’s wrath for striking down Intelligent Design (proponents of which swear it has nothing to do with Creationism), or that Americans deserved the Sept 11th attacks because of our feminists and groups that protect Civil Liberties, or that we should assassinate leaders of foreign countries…and then he apologizes a few days later.

By my watch, Pat was due to blurt out some sort of incredibly offensive yet slightly humorous statement on his 700 Club circus of hate, gladly aired of course by the Family Channel.

Pat’s latest contribution to the possessed, American Taliban that watches his show? Winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim community:

"These people are crazed fanatics and I want to say it now; I believe it's motivated by demonic power, it is satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with...the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination."

When fundamenalists make fundamentalist statements about another religion's fundamentalist behavior, the irony can be smelled all the way down to the hell each religion thinks the other is going to.

So just as Sharon suffered a stroke because he appeased the European union, rather than the fact that he was 300 lbs and in late 60’s, fanitcal conservative Muslims exist, not becuase they're products theocratic, poverty stricken nations set in the hottest bed of politics the world has ever seen, but rather because they’re possessed by the Devil.

Most people think of Pat Robertson the same way we think of a cute but slightly Alzheimer’s-afflicted grandfather who preaches on about “the blacks” and “the gays” taking over America during Thanksgiving dinner – we just kinda smile, and shake our heads with slight embarrassment while saying to ourselves, “ahh, he doesn’t know any better.”

However, when you stop and think about how much of today’s Republican party is controlled by right-wing Christian groups, and how heavily the leaders in the Republican party court the Christian Right, accept millions of their dollars, from Tom Delay on up to Bill First and our President, it’s not really so funny, is it? Conservative politicians are so far gone in this country, before you know it, they’ll have special Congressional sessions just to force feeding tubes back into brain-liquefied vegetables.

I Apologize for the Unannounced Vacation

You know how it is...NCAA hockey and basketball tournaments are in full swing, I just spent some time in Boston...blah blah.

More blogs on the way.

Missouri's New State Religion

Since the new conservative, coat hanger-sponsored Supreme Court has been seated, the local government in the Red States are going a little nuts. First we had South Dakota trying to outright ban abortions (including for women raped or in cases of incest), and other states including Missouri, Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee are just drooling at the opportunity to limit women's reproductive choices.

Missouri has decided to test our new federal theocracy even further, and build one of their own at the state level. They’ve introduced a bill that would make Christianity the official religion of the state, thus ignoring any Church/State concerns, and making other religions and those who don’t subscribe to a religion, secondary.

Well isn’t this cute.

If this passes, we’ll have the Christian version 10 Commandments, 80% of which have nothing to do with American law, posted on public buildings and in schools, which will be the perfect wall hanging backdrop during public school prayers.

Got Jewish children or one that doesn’t attend Church in the Missouri school system? Wish them luck while this new atmosphere further divides already cliquey, insecure, kids who are just learning about people’s differences and culture into a group which has one more thing to segregate themselves over. Just ask someone who already has to deal with being a member of Missouri’s de facto minority religions, before the government literally decides to make it official, and sanction their minority status via state law.

It seems that the good conservatives of Missouri don't seem to realize the separation of Church and State guarantees freedom of religion, freedom from religion, and protection from any government interference in our religion.

I’m sure the Missouri legislature has proposed this bill due to the overwhelming oppression of Christians living in Missouri, especially in the rural areas. The Christians who have been forced to hide under rocks since the discovery of our great nation surely agree with Jon Stewart when he said, “I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, openly wearing the symbols of their religion…. perhaps around their necks? And maybe — dare I dream it? — maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."


Perhaps it’s not due to oppression, but rather to please our Christian founding fathers, who have been dead for 200 years. Except this argument was not only formulated by the Christian Right, it's actually totally incorrect. Those in Missouri who might support this bill may be interested to know:

- No where in our Constitution is God referred to, and this was done intentionally, and in fact our Constitution does proclaim, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
- It is forbidden, again in the Constitution, that our legislative body make laws concerning any religion.
- In the Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1796 by John Adams and overwhelmingly approved by the U.S. Senate of our founding fathers states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
- Almost all of our founding fathers fled England's Christianity because they were Deists, not Christians, and most followed the European Enlightenment, not the Bible. When they mention God, they're not referring to a biblical God, but rather "the god of nature."
- Our founding fathers, throughout their political careers, made several references to their favor of Church and State separation, and their choice to not subscribe to the Christian religion.

With that said, and considering this legislation is on the table, I’ve tried to do some research of my own, just to get a feel of what state sponsored religion looks like, and I came up with the following visual aids:




Looks like fun!

I honestly don’t think what Missouri has done is such a bad idea. In fact, it has inspired me to write my own state legislators, and ask for Italians to be the official nationality of the state of Maine, while making “white” the official race. Oh wait, it already is.

Cedar Interviews Dyson - Redneck Later Proves Their Point

As a student of psychology and sociology, I have always found de facto racism to be extremely interesting in terms of how it rears it’s subtle but still ugly head in society.

This type of racism interests me because as we live in a more socially conscious society, we find that black jokes and white-only drinking fountains are almost extinct, while gestures that tend to be more insinuating are so common that we tend to not even know it’s occurring, or cover it up with “well I have friends who are black!”

We see examples of this in the “liberal media” on a weekly basis, whether it’s the “finding versus looting” captions below, or entire nation-wide efforts to find missing white teens in Aruba or via Amber alerts for missing white children, or the unbelievable media barrage that occurs with the murder of attractive women by their husbands.

Either black girls don’t ever go missing or get murdered by their husbands, or there is some unintentional, societal racism here propagated in part by our media.

Now, this needs to be said:

This is one of thousands examples why those who are more aware of this stuff are not only in disagreement but in absolute shock when the tired “liberal media” sound byte is uttered by the Right, and it’s why I truly believe conservatives who believe there is a liberal media are either not educated, or unwilling to understand the sophistication of cultural bias to even participate in this conversation intelligently.

While those on the Right cling to tabloid-esque botched Dan Rather investigations of the President’s military service as confirmation of their paranoia, the rest of us who are much more culturally aware, view all of this on much, much deeper and educationally mature level, and view those of differing opinions as children, as the neanderthals of society. It would be like explaining physics to a 4-year-old.

It’s why when conservative Bush supporters talk about racism, they don’t understand how incredibly ridiculous the rest of us think they sound. Call it elitist, I don’t care. We call you fucking morons.

Sam Cedar, pinch hitting for Franken last Thursday on Air America, gave a great interview to Dr. Michael Eric Dyson that I have posted below regarding Hurricane Katrina and much of the cultural/socioeconomic issues surrounding the storm regarding this subject.

Regular Bill Maher views will recognize Dyson as a rotating panel guest, who could probably be 10% more effective if Maher would ban comedians from his discussion table.

You can listen to the Dyson interview here...Warning – your conservative friends will just blink rapidly and change the dial:

"See, most people fail to understand that race played a huge role (in Katrina), but it doesn't mean necessarily racism, so that (people said) 'oh they're a bunch of black people so forget them.'

"No, this is how race operates. There's this set of expectations, there's an atmosphere, it's an environment. Whatever happened when the nation was transfixed during Natalie Halloway, but indifferent to Tameka Houston, is what happened in Katrina.

"However you explain it, whatever words you want to apply to that phenomenon, that if you're white and blonde - and God knows that if it's my daughter, I want every resource of the state to be deployed to help her - but that when black and latino women disappear, there's not eagerness, there's not anticipation, there's not use of the resource base, there's not appear to the nation's conscience in the same way to inflame the passions of the people to respond in a serious fashion.

"And that's what I'm talking about here...it's true the government may not have been able to get down there any quicker, because the ineptitude and the inexperience were devastating and the disinclination to use resources to help the public has been well documented, but they might well have tried.

"It's not simply a very narrow 1 to 1 relationship of 'ah ha, we hate black people!' It's about a set of expectations, the collective racial unconscious that gives us queues about who is important and who is not.

"I think Kanye West had it right, because he's not speaking about George Bush the individual when he said, 'George Bush doesn't care about black people.' What does he mean? He's not talking about George Bush the individual, he doesn't know him. He speaking about George Bush, the face of the government, George Bush the particular head of American Democracy. And when he says, 'not caring,' he's not talking about person sentiments that are sympathetic to black people, he's speaking about care in political terms. How do you measure that? Distributing resources in a timely fashion to people in crisis who need help, that's how we measure care..."

Now, in sharp contrast, almost as if on queue, the exact type of overt racism emerged via a caller who compliments the exact theme that Dyson is speaks of just moments before.

Have a listen to Clay from Louisiana, here:


I must add to all of this by saying that this entire theme doesn’t just apply to issues of race and culture. Almost everything this “uniter not a divider” Bush administration stands for is so divisive among our population, but divides us so predictably every time. The cultural centers, the colleges, the health food store goers, the intellectuals, the questioners, the scientists, the grass-roots organizers, the critical thinkers – they flock to one side, while the oversimplistic, uniformed people who respond best to fear and nationalism flock to the other.

Bush’s administration and philosophies of its supporters are predicated on a hyper-patriotic, over-nationalistic, heart string-tugging policies and speeches that evokes “us versus them,” over simplistic ways of looking at the world in terms of national security and terrorism. It’s as if the Bush Administration practices policy based on used by authors of fiction novels (see Star Wars). There’s the antagonist – terror, accompanied by the black pit of evil, and the good guys who can do no wrong, whatsoever – the USA.

I believe much of this is routed in Bush’s strong conservative Christian beliefs, which is a sect of religion that thrives upon good and evil, right and wrong, the hero against the enemy, etc. It taps into a primal yet incredibly basic formula on how to rally people and make them fight against an enemy, whether perceived or real, and anyone who disagrees with you is part of the problem, and sides with that enemy. It’s why countless whistleblower after whistleblower in this administration gets fired or smeared, and it all has to do with keeping the weaker minds hooked on the plot, if you will.

It should be no surprise then that the analogy with which liberals view conservatives, in terms protecting America the way a 5-year old protects mommy, holds true.

Want to try and warn people Saddam might not be seeking uranium from Niger? Your wife will pay the price. Want to try and see Bush speak if you’re opposed to his agenda? You’ll be kicked out of the venue. Want to try and show a movie detailing the Bush administration’s ties to the Saudi family and failure to act before 9/11? You’ll have bomb threats called into your theater. Feel like criticizing the Bush administration’s military policies despite the fact that you’re a war veteran and the accuser is not? You’ll be labeled a traitor. In short, even when the facts are completely against them, they’ll smear anyone who attempts to inject reason, as we have done to the Galileos throughout our history.

Bush-supporters, especially during difficult times, fail to examine what is right and just intellectually, while huddling around those who are like-minded for protection, and take their fears to the ballot box. Because after all, Bush’s entire agenda is marketed through fear, propaganda and symbolism, while destroying the very foundation of what those symbols represent (burn the flag? No way. Violate Constitutional law? No problem).

Think about the constant messages from this administration. Endless terror alerts before the election, and hardly any after. The gays want to destroy your family! Prescription drugs from Canada are unsafe! Social Security is going to leave us broke! The blacks are trying to gain access to college! Saddam is going to nuke us ASAP! When you’re on the wrong side of almost everything factually, you can’t get anything done unless you scare the shit out of people as a method of motivation.

As a liberal I can tell you I’ve always loved my country, kept an eye on my government, and have been proud to be an American. Through watching some of the Olympics I realized how much our national anthem, especially when played in front of a mostly non-American audience, still evokes emotions within me that I can’t explain. And that’s exactly the difference between liberals and conservatives. We love our country’s symbols – but we’re not hypnotized by them into poor decisions that hurt the very things those symbols represent.

Despite this, it no longer puzzles me that Constitutional values liberals, progressives, independents and libertarians are trying to preserve are not of importance to Bush supporters, and those who are voicing these concerns are lumped with the enemy to continue the simplistic view of a simple black and white world.

I have honestly never experienced a moment in history where such a large group of individuals were so collectively misinformed and misguided, and I hope I never have to see it again.

Statcounter.com SUCKS

Add-on’s coming back.

Just a quick housekeeping note here. Last week someone emailed me to see if they could get the code for the Osama clock but saw that it was missing.

I have been having some problems with a malicious piece of javascript that continued to prompt visitors to download some spyware via an Active X control. I had to remove all the add-ons, including the Osama clock, the site’s search tool, the casualty count tool, the counter, etc.

I’m going to add each piece of code back slowly to make sure the culprit is exactly what I thought it was (Yeah, I’m looking at you, bastards at statcounter.com and your incredibly obnoxious spyware fetish).

Anyway, the clock is back, and the casualty count will be up soon. Not that Barbara Bush cares, because her mind is too beautiful to worry about body bags and deaths in Iraq, to which she can find no relevance.

Conservatives Weigh in on Civil War

Conservatives are hilarious creatures. They have an explanation for EVERYTHING. Other than Katrina, Bush has really done the right thing and hasn’t made any mistakes.

Things are FANTASTIC in Iraq, or if not, it’s a valid struggle because of 9/11...uhh, Saddam’s WMD’s...well see, Iraq was a haven for terror...wait, we’re there to free the people...err, we’re there because we’re not cowards who cut and run...uh, 9/11 punchbuggy red no returns!

As civilian violence is reaching the worst levels yet in the nation we "broke" and consequently "own," the conservatives are trying to spin what may develope into a bloody civil war (or, if your definition of civil war includes a violent conflict within a country fought between organized groups seeking to take control of the center or a region iteself, then we've been having a civil war in Iraq for almost two years). Thing is, they're not quite in agreement as to how to do it.

First, Fox wondered if civil war would be good thing:

Then they thought, "we're the party of optimism, let's look at the bright side!"

But then of course, it was decided that perhaps the whole thing was just pretend:

Finally, not to be outdone Rush Limbaugh disagreed with all of these things. Rush, ever the human rights pioneer, doesn't think civil war is a good thing, and doesn't think it's made up. He simply thinks it's being wished for by the left.

Audio:

Because after all, if there's anything liberals have shown through their history in this nation - it's that they're always hungry for a good 'ol war.

Bush Quote of the Day

“I believe that a prosperous, democratic Pakistan will be a steadfast partner for America, a peaceful neighbor for India and a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world."

That's nice George.

Um, could someone please tap our dumbass president on the shoulder and inform him that Pakistan is NOT an Arab nation?

The Latest Group to Hate the Troops: The Troops in Iraq

Perhaps the single most ridiculous claim Bush-supporters vomit out of their ignorant, tight-lipped pie holes is that if you don’t support war or the president, you hate the troops and you hate our country.

According to recent polls, most Americans hate the troops these days, so I’ve tried to cast the spotlight on other troop-hating groups to raise awareness and act accordingly, because as it turns out lots of entities hate our troops.

Conservative Christians hate the troops.
A recent Pentagon report hates the troops.
Vets returning home from the Iraq war hate the troops. You better goddamn well believe the liberal bloggers hate the troops. Bill O’Reilly didn’t hate the troops before, but now he does (I believe Republicans refer to that as a flip-flop).

It’s no wonder Bush supporters get worked up…troop-haters are EVERYWHERE!

Which is precisely why it comes as no surprise that we have found yet another group who hates the troops, and wants them to cut ‘n run: the troops themselves.

Jean Schmidt has been briefed on this, and reportedly went ape-shit.

That’s right. According to recent polling data:

- Roughly only 20% of the American troops agree with Bush and want to stay “as long as they are needed,” to achieve victory in Iraq.
- 72% think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year
- 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
- Most troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
- More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of insurgent attacks.
- 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war.
- Almost 75% are in Iraq for either the second or third time

And…get ready for this…

85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks." Hmm...what in the world would have given them that idea?

We’re all awaiting Schmidt’s statement on the House floor to our troops in Iraq, telling them that only cowards cut and run. Rumor has it she has just shipped 90,000 yellow ribbon magnets for the troops to stick on their un-armored Humvees…because, you know, that’ll protect ‘em.

Oh, btw, spurious george has a written his take on this poll here.

Those in Favor of the Port Deal: Bush, the UAE and...Bush!

I've always been interested in knowing what people affected by particular political agenda have to say about those trying to legislate for them.

Let's face it - there are certain areas of the nation that are of *much* interest to Islamic militants than other areas. For example, New York City? Pretty good looking target if you're a terrorist.

Ashland, Kansas? Not so much.

In fact, I find it interesting the way most of these prime targets and more importantly, those who experienced the attacks first hand or who lost loved ones voted. You just might recall - New York, New Jersey, Boston (city of departure for 9/11 flights), California (including target cities L.A. and San Francisco), Chicago, Miami, Washington DC, Pennsylvania – not did they not vote for Bush, they voted overwhelmingly against him.

With that in mind, what are the 6 governors of the states directly affected by the Dubai deal saying?

Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell says, “Trust us is not good enough,” and is threatening the to not renew the least for the Port of Philadelphia, saying, "We can just not renew (it).”

Maryland's Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich says, "We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are given security."

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco had this to say: “I share the security concerns expressed by citizens, Congressional leaders and my fellow governors regarding the decision to permit a United Arab Emirates-owned company to take over some shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports. We in Louisiana take the management and safety of our ports seriously and we expect the same from Washington."

New Jersey's Governor Jon Corzine is filing lawsuits (both federal and state) to block the deal, and said it "fails the basic test of common sense."

New York's Republican Governor George Pataki said "Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World. I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction.”

“But Jeremy, please, tell us about the 6th governor,” you beg?

Take it away, Florida governor Jeb Bush:

"I have full confidence that the president of the United States will make the right decision as it relates to our national security interests."

Of course you do Jebber. Of course you do.