March 31, 2004

Post for Today

I'm still alive, but I'm incredibly busy. There is some stuff I want to write about, but I don't have time. Oh well.

Until I can get something meaningful posted, I'll leave you with an edition of "Professors Say the Darndest Things." This one's from my math professor:

"I didn't do this in the same order as the book. I kind of did it backasswards."

Is that physically possible?

All right, I have to go now. My planet needs me I'm outlining a documentary for TRF.


Posted by CD at 04:11 PM | Comments (3)


Okay, I know that when I say I'm going to be posting less, it usually leads to me posting a lot more, but this is probably going to be an exception.

Here's the deal: I've got a lot of work to do. And that's a massive understatement. I've got research, projects, reading, tests, TV show stuff, housing, class registration, and a lot in between, and with only a few weeks before finals, I really need to start catching up. I'm also testing out a new method of studying/working that requires me to be busy pretty much all day, so I can't take huge 2 hour chunks of time to blog like I have been doing.

For the next month or so, posting will be limited on weekdays. There's no way around it. I know how disappointed you all must be (/sarcasm), but this blog really isn't as important as my education. Shocking, isn't it?

I can't even guarantee one post per day. I'll post when I friggin' feel like it, and I probably won't respond to every comment. There will be no schedule, and if a couple days go by without a post, it just means I was busy.

Finals end May 6. We'll see what happens after that. Until then, keep checking back, but I can't guarantee anything for a while.


Posted by CD at 12:49 AM | Comments (5)

March 30, 2004

This Man is Running for President


Seriously, what's with the friggin' flower? I was going to "Photoshop" this (I don't actually have Photoshop), but I think the speech bubble is enough. The picture is pretty funny on its own.

I feel like a member of the Republican Attack Machine™ now.

(Hat tip: Right Wing News)

Posted by CD at 06:52 PM | Comments (7)

Liberals in Academia? Impossible!

Hey, remember the Spanish professor I mentioned a few days ago? You know, the one who believes that all rich people are conservative, and only liberals can demonstrate against the government? He gave me more great blogging material this morning.

We were discussing human rights abuses in 1970s Argentina today (remember, this is more of a history class than a language class for some reason), and he started talking about the actions of the government during that time. Among other things, they imprisoned dissenters and put military spies all over the place. Here's my best recollection of one thing he said:

"We don't have that here, luckily. We have freedom of a certain point. George is...gettin' a little scary. Yeah. He's a...scary individual......but I'm not gonna get into that here..."

That's how I remember it. I know he called Bush a "scary individual," at least. And he really did call him "George."

Here's another fun moment from today's class: The professor was talking about how some of these human rights abuses still happen in some parts of the world today, but we're too isolated to realize it. A couple seconds later, some guy in the class blurted out: "That's 'cuz we move it to Cuba!" (he also muttered "Guantanamo" a couple times)

Somebody save me from the idiots.

Actually, there's a bit of irony here. The professor discussed how Argentina put spies in college classrooms to make sure students and instructors weren't criticizing the government, and after his "George is a scary individual" comment, I thought to myself, "This is going on the blog." Think about it for a second.

I think the exact words that popped into my head were, "You're getting blogged, you douche!" But this was at 9 AM, so my memory's fuzzy...

Posted by CD at 12:16 PM | Comments (7)

March 29, 2004

How Dare You Outlaw Infanticide!

Yep. It's time for another abortion post. Get ready for some invective, people. I have very little sympathy for the pro-death camp. Check out this crap:

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Challenged

Trials began in federal courtrooms in three states Monday as abortion-rights activists sought to have the new federal ban on partial-birth abortion declared unconstitutional.

I can't wait to see how they fit "the right of the people to kill their children in the womb shall not be infringed" into the Constitution.

The trials — in New York, San Francisco and Lincoln, Neb. — are the first to dispute the law President Bush signed in November that bans the controversial late-term abortion procedure.

In the opening statements of the New York case, the government contended that fetuses feel pain during partial-birth abortions and that the procedure therefore should be illegal.

Is that the best they can come up with? How about mentioning that it's F**KING MURDER! Are you trying to lose the case?!

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean H. Lane defended the federal ban, which he described as an attempt to stop an "inhumane and gruesome procedure that causes pain to the fetus."

Yes. Pain and F**KING DEATH!!!! Why are they sugarcoating it?

But a lawyer for the plaintiffs argued that making some abortions illegal poses a threat to all late-term abortions and violates constitutional rights.

I think it's interesting that the Constitution doesn't mention any right even remotely related to this. Which amendment are they looking at?

A. Stephen Hut Jr., the plaintiffs' attorney, said the law is overly vague and should be taken off the books.

What's vague about it? It makes a certain procedure illegal. Case closed. Dang it.

"Our evidence will show the court that this act unconstitutionally compromises a woman's right to reproductive choice and it is designed to remove the abortion alternatives," Hut told the court.

"Right to reproductive choice?" Oh, you people are f**king brilliant, aren't you?

"The right to kill off kids we don't want isn't in the Constitution, but...we'll call it a right because we're right, so that means what we say is right counts as a right!!!!"

I'm sure it went something like that. If women want "reproductive choice," they should stop having f**king sex before they can handle a child. If it's a rape or something, make the decision before the fetus is ready to friggin' come out.


To date, the federal law has not yet been enforced because judges in the three cities agreed to hear evidence in the separate trials without juries before deciding whether it violates the Constitution.

What part of the freaking Constitution are they freaking looking at? Are they going to tell us, or do they just base their view of reality on their opinions?

Judges in the three cities will hear from the National Abortion Federation...

Holy crap. Excuse me while I vomit in disgust at the thought that an organization like that even exists.


There. Let's move on.

...the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and several doctors that the law was written too broadly and vaguely, and in such a way that it threatens the health of some mothers.

Oh no! Not their health! Never mind the fact that it's MEANT TO MAKE THEIR CHILDREN DIE!

The simultaneous litigation centers on the ban of what lawmakers defined as "partial-birth" abortion and what doctors call "intact dilation and extraction" — or D&X.

I like to call it "treating human children like frogs in a high school biology class," but whatever.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Act carries a maximum two-year prison term for doctors convicted of performing the procedure. The litigation appears likely to reach the Supreme Court.

In the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester and occasionally in the third, a fetus is partially delivered and its skull is punctured. An estimated 2,200 to 5,000 such abortions are performed annually in the United States, out of 1.3 million total abortions.

Just look at those numbers. Look at 'em. And think about 'em. 1.3 million abortions. Every year. EVERY. YEAR.

Do you really think they were all to protect "the mother's health?"

Sick freaks.

Critics of the law say its language could criminalize more common types of abortion and could be a step toward abolishing abortion.


Supporters contend it applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy that is never necessary to protect the health of the mother.

"B-b-b-b-b-b-but the baby is an inconvenience! That affects the mother's mental health, and could make her upset or sad! How can you force that on innocent women, you monsters?!"

Hut warned that evidence in the trial will include "very raw stuff" and that descriptions of surgery were "not for the faint of heart." But he said that the federal ban was hazy and unconstitutional and therefore should be tossed.

"I don't care how repulsive it is! It's still right!"

The government said partial-birth abortions aren't ever required medically, as defenders have advocated, and because of the nature of the procedure, doctors shouldn't be allowed to perform it.

"Evidence at trial will illuminate that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary and is an inhumane procedure that should be banned," Lane said.

And he said the law was specific in banning an abortion procedure that kills a "partially born fetus just inches from birth."

According to some *cough*Wesley Clark*cough*, it's not really human until the mother says so. I wonder if these people are going to speak up.

Abortion-rights supporters say the partial-birth ban, the first substantial limitation on abortion since the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision, violates that ruling.

Oh no. That's not very "progressive," is it?

The high court struck down a similar Nebraska law almost four years ago because it lacked an exception for procedures done to preserve a woman's health. Anticipating this problem, Congress declared that "a partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman" and is "outside the standard of medical care."

The abortion-rights groups disagree, saying that doctors may find themselves with no good alternative to the banned procedure to protect a woman's life or health if problems develop.

I find it hard to believe that there are a decent number of situations where this is the ONLY option available.

The American Medical Association does not encourage use of D&X, but says it should not be banned. The College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says alternatives to D&X usually exist, but that in some circumstances it may be the best procedure.

What circumstances, exactly? The ones where the friggin' MOTHER doesn't want a CHILD, but can't decide soon enough?

Opponents of the ban also argue that its language is vague and could be interpreted as covering more common, less controversial procedures, including "dilation and evacuation." Known as D&E, it is the most common method of second-trimester abortion. An estimated 140,000 D&Es take place in the United States annually.

Get rid of those too. Get rid of 'em. Now. Faster. Abortion is evil.

And that's not an exaggeration.

Posted by CD at 09:15 PM | Comments (3)

Pay Us Back for What You Didn't Do to People Who Aren't Us!!!

That title could be shorter. Anyway, check out this story:

Slave descendants sue British, U.S. firms

Descendants of black American slaves accused the Lloyds of London insurance firm and two U.S. companies of genocide in a lawsuit on Monday that sought billions of dollars in damages.

Brilliant. They couldn't get their "reparations," so now they're suing. Why does something tell me the London company is going to lose this one?

The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court, seeks $2 billion in punitive damages from London's Society of Lloyd's, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and FleetBoston Financial Corp. The suit also seeks unspecified actual damages.

"Actual damages" which occurred 200 YEARS AGO YOU IDIOTS!

Filed on behalf of six adults and two minors, the suit alleges the companies intentionally sought to destroy the plaintiffs' "people, culture, religion and heritage."

They obviously failed, first of all, and in any case, ALL. THOSE. PEOPLE. ARE. DEAD. NOW. Seems like they got what was coming to 'em. Unless they're somehow transmitting their bigotry from beyond the grave. Zoinks.

The plaintiffs say their ancestors were transported from African nations as part of the slave trade from 1619 to 1865.

Is anyone denying this?

They allege that Lloyds insured slave ships, while FleetBoston, then called Rhode Island's Providence Bank, financed the ships in the slave trade. R.J. Reynolds, the suit states, profited from plantations.

When was the last time that happened? If it was recent, I'm sure we would've heard about it.

The companies profited from ethnic cleansing, rape, forced breeding, kidnapping and murder that violate U.N. declarations and international law and are defined as genocide, according to the court papers.

UN declarations?! The UN didn't even exist when this was happening, morons! Doesn't international law have ex post facto?

R.J. Reynolds spokeswoman Ellen Matthews said the firm had not yet seen the complaint but added "currently we are not aware of any legal precedent or even a legal theory that would allow these cases to proceed to trial."

"We're pioneers! We're just a few generations late!"

A Lloyds spokeswoman in London said that it had not seen the claim and was not in a position to comment. But she added that previous claims regarding slavery had been dismissed.

That's a shock.

Officials at FleetBoston did not returns calls.

It's good to see that they're giving this the amount of attention it deserves.

This is ridiculous. I haven't talked about things like this very much, but I think that if they're trying to set precedent, it should apply to all oppressed people. For example:

- I have a Scottish last name (no, it's not "D." You really didn't think it was just "D," did you?). The Scots were oppressed by the English. Where are my reparations from England?

-I'm a Protestant Christian. The Catholic Church oppressed my people in Europe for years. Where's my money, John Paul? Is it in the hat? Gimme gimme gimme!!!

See how ridiculous this is? Nimrods.

Posted by CD at 08:48 PM | Comments (5)

Question of the Day

I honestly don't feel like blogging today. I don't know why, but since nobody's forcing me to do it, I'm not going to try and post a bunch of stupid crap.

I do have a quick college question though: Why does everyone who owns a guitar or a ball suddenly go outside the second it gets warm? They're everywhere!!!!

I'm not even going to start about the jugglers who were on the Quad yesterday. Strange.

Posted by CD at 05:24 PM | Comments (5)

Don't You People THINK?!

Okay. Here's some commentary to kill time while I avoid studying. I usually don't read a lot of left-wing blogs, but I've been going through a few of them over the past hour, and it's incredible. They all say the exact. same. things.

There's no originality. There's no disagreement among them. EVERY. FREAKING. POST. involves something from this list:

-Bush lied/Bush is a liar/Republicans lie
-Bush is an "extremist"
-The "religious right" wants to force their morality on everyone
-War for oil
-Bush stole the election
-Republicans/Bush are racist/fascist/nazi/evil/etc.
-Republican smear machine/attack machine, etc.
-Old/rich/white males, or any combination of these items


DANG IT!!!!!!

...I feel better now.

Posted by CD at 12:07 AM | Comments (5)

March 28, 2004

Message for the Left

Okay, liberals, we need to talk for a second. I'm going to say this one time:

"Bush did it too," "Republicans do it too," and "the right did the same thing to Clinton" are NOT acceptable responses to criticism of the left. Did we ever say that we approved of the stupid behavior of the right?

This is America. We don't have groupthink. We're allowed to disagree with ANYONE who does something stupid. It shouldn't make a difference whether their name is followed by (D) or (R).



Posted by CD at 04:28 PM | Comments (4)

As If You Care...

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that, thanks to the brilliance of Pixy, the MuNu blogs have discussion forums now (also known as "Munuvian Underground").

The SIT forum is located here, if you're at all interested. You can also click the link under "Discussion" in the sidebar. You have to register in order to post, I think, but that takes all of 30 seconds or so.

...I'll be really surprised if anyone bothers to post in the forum, but it's there if you want it.

Posted by CD at 03:41 PM | Comments (3)

Who's Your Dowdy Fisker?

Hey, who's up for a 2:30 AM fisking? I know I am!

Yeah. That's right. I'm a college student. And I'm typing a political weblog entry. At 2:30 in the morning. On a weekend. I really need a social life. Or a girlfriend. Or something. Oh well. This is entertaining.

Maureen Dowd is back again with another column full of her classic "I'll base my entire argument on stereotypes" technique. Let's take a look:

Who's Your Daddy Party? By MAUREEN DOWD

I wasn't sure how to ask John Kerry, so I just blurted it out: "Is there anything we need to know about your relationship with your father?"

I didn't think the country could take another vertiginous ride on the Oedipal tilt-a-whirl. It's hard not to see the Bush unilateral foreign policy...

TWEET!!!! Maureen Dowd, two minutes for using the "unilateral" meme. Time of the penalty, 2 paragraphs. That's Dowd, 2 for unilateral, 2 paragraphs.

Have I mentioned I love hockey? I don't think I've mentioned that in a while.

...blowing off allies and the U.N...

Right. Because people who want to see us fail are always great allies.

to rewrite the ending of a gulf war his father felt had ended appropriately — as the ultimate act of adolescent rebellion.

So, it had nothing to do with WMD, terrorism, human rights violations, violations of the rules set by your precious U.N., or harassing weapons inspectors? It was all just Bush trying to rebel? I'm glad you're not a psychologist.

"I know what you're saying," Mr. Kerry murmured.

Which means, of course, that Kerry understands the English language. Impressive.

The globe got whipsawed...

"Whipsawed?" a father-son relationship so twisty and rife with undercurrents that we're still not sure if W. was trying to avenge his father with Saddam or upend his dad's legacy in Iraq — or both.

Did it occur to you that he may have had actual motives beyond your little conspiracy theories? There's this thing called terrorism, you see, and it tends to make people not be alive anymore...

Or was he just following the gloomy, brass-knuckled lead of his surrogate father, Dick Cheney?

I really don't understand how she can regurgitate some weird DUish stereotype and expect people to treat it as an actual argument. It would be like me saying, "Hey, MoDo, you're a poodle, so your column must be bad, because dogs can't write!"

You don't win an argument by beating the crap out of straw men. Unless you're arguing with a straw man. Which should be pretty easy, since they don't have brains. And if you have flying monkeys at your disposal...Wait, what was I saying?

Little Bush cited big Bush as a rationale for war in Iraq, referring to Saddam as "the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."

News flash: Saddam DID try to kill his dad at one time. Is there something wrong with telling the truth now?

Now Mr. Bush's ex-counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, has said that the war in Iraq "greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

Gee, there couldn't be any @ss covering involved there...

Both J.F.K. and W. were the oldest sons of patrician fathers who had served as diplomats.

But while dutiful son John and the uneffusive father who sent him to Swiss boarding school were able to bond when they talked about foreign affairs, black sheep W. and his effusive father spent more time on sports than foreign policy tutorials.

Wow, it almost sounds like Dubya and his dad had a TYPICAL FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIP, YOU ELITIST MORON!!!!!!

"Your dad played catch with you? That's nothing! My dad and I talked about the stock market all summer!"

Junior, as he was known in those days...

It's almost like he has the same first name as his father. Isn't that weird?

...was disengaged from the policy side of his father's presidency. He ran the political loyalty department.

Senator Kerry is cast as the heir to George H. W. Bush's avid internationalism and tender stewardship of the Atlantic alliance.

I wish I'd paid more attention when we diagrammed sentences in elementary school, because I don't know which part of that last statement is the part I'm supposed to argue with. Let's move on.

Being the son of a foreign service officer, Mr. Kerry says, "gave me a great sense of being able to look at other countries not just through our eyes but through their eyes, and that's, I think, an important asset."

Evidently, that also gives him the ability to see our country through their eyes. In other words, as a threat to humanity. Either that, or he's REALLY clueless about national defense. What's that saying about ignorance and malice...?

Mr. Kerry's father, Richard, was the anti-Wolfie. He wrote a 1990 book, "The Star-Spangled Mirror," warning that America should not see the world in "black and white," exaggerating our goodness and our enemies' evil, or try to recast the world in our image, "propagating democracy" and imposing our values and institutions on the third world.

I guess all those people enjoyed being raped and killed for their dictators' amusement. Who knew?

W. went along with the neocons' desire to dis Europe and undermine the U.N., where his father once reigned as affable U.S. ambassador.

If Europe and the U.N. try to undermine us, why shouldn't we "dis" them? We're a superpower for a reason.

...I guess that's a bad thing in your world.

The president seems oblivious to the swelling doubts about his policy in an Iraq sulfurous with treachery and blood.

Also known as a "war."

On Wednesday, he went to a press dinner here and made light of the fact that his rationale for invasion has evaporated. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he cracked, showing a photo of himself searching under a table in the Oval Office.

It seems to me that he just admitted he may have been wrong. Oh, but it can't be that simple, can it? The Indispensable Opposition™ has to find a way to attack him for it.

This was awkward for some...

Everything is awkward for some, dang it.

...because the dinner also featured the first presentation of an award named for David Bloom and a speech by his wife, Melanie. Mr. Bloom, the NBC correspondent who died in Iraq, probably would not have been there without the hyped claims of W.M.D.

Uh...okay...since when does Bush control the press? I'm not saying Bloom would still be dead if we hadn't gone to war, but how can you blame the president for it?

Republicans are demonizing Mr. Clarke, who has accused the administration of negligence on terrorism in the months before 9/11.

I love it. It's not "discrediting because he waffles more than John Kerry and lied about Condoleeza Rice." No. It's "demonizing." Not like insinuating that Bush got a reporter needlessly killed. That's just stating the facts.

Bush officials accuse him of playing fast and loose with facts...

Accusations are true sometimes, you know.

Insert leftist here: "Neocon facts don't count!"

There we go.

...even while they still refuse to acknowledge they took us to war by playing fast and loose with facts.

What happened to Bush's comment about WMD? You can practically taste the cognitive dissonance.

Even after a remarkable week in which a simple apology by Mr. Clarke carried such emotional power, Mr. Bush was still repeating his discredited line on Iraq, as if by rote.

Calling it "discredited" doesn't make it discredited. Unless you're some kind of genie or wizard or something. And you're probably not. Then again, how else could the NYT not have fired you yet...

"I made a choice to defend the security of the country," he said Friday, in a speech in Albuquerque, adding: "You can't see what you think is a threat and hope it goes away. You used to could when the oceans protected us. But the lesson of September the 11th is, is when the president sees a threat we must deal with it before it comes to fruition, through death, on our own soils, for example."

And what have we learned from this, children? That's right: The president isn't allowed to take action against a threat after trying other methods for over a year, but he can still be criticized for not dealing with a threat in his first 9 months as president. Ow, my head.

Even a president who was routinely referred to as adolescent criticized this White House's adolescent attitude.

How is it adolescent to defend your country?

"They remind me of teenagers who got their inheritance too soon and couldn't wait to blow it," Bill Clinton said.

Heh. He said "blow it."

...What? Don't tell me you didn't laugh at that.

And this, he scoffed, is the "mature daddy party"?

"Mature daddy party?" What the crap are you talking about?

Well, it's the party obsessed with daddy. That's for sure.

Let's review: She made a few brief statements about GHWB in the beginning, then proceeded to make an argument based on the version of Richard Clarke's testimony that makes Dubya look bad. Where is this "daddy obsession" she mentions?

I'm amazed Dowd still has a job. How can you not believe the NYT has a left-wing bias?

Posted by CD at 02:53 AM | Comments (8)

You Don't Say...

French Lawyer Says He Will Defend Saddam



...Is anyone surprised by this?

I didn't think so.

Posted by CD at 12:04 AM | Comments (3)

March 26, 2004

Interesting Logic

I should've mentioned this earlier, but I didn't really think it was important. I changed my mind.

My Spanish class on Thursday morning was about the recent political history of Latin America, and the professor decided to break down the various elements of 19th Century Latin-American society into "conservative" and "liberal" so we could see how the power structure worked.

Based on the way he made the chart, his understanding of politics is as follows:

- All rich people are conservative, because they keep their money instead of giving it to others.
-All people with power are conservative, because they want to hold onto their power instead of moving toward democracy.
-All poor people are liberal, because they want more money.
-All lower-class people are liberal, because they want more power.
-The church hovers around the center. It is conservative when it gains power, and liberal when it uses its influence for social activism.
-The military is totally conservative.
-Laborers and university students are all liberal.

DYOC (draw your own conclusions)

Did I mention this is a Spanish class? Shouldn't we be learning...SPANISH???

Posted by CD at 12:49 AM | Comments (5)

March 25, 2004

The More You Know

When Syracuse loses a basketball game, thus destroying their chances of winning the national championship two years in a row, people walk around in the hall slamming doors and yelling "F**K!!!!"

Just thought you might like to know that.

Posted by CD at 11:41 PM | Comments (2)

Animal Rights Freaks

I just got back from the SU Live writers' meeting. We meet in a lounge in the student center underground, and there's a bulletin board there with all kinds of flyers and things on it. Among them, there were several advertising an upcoming series of events sponsored by the Animal Liberation Front, or A.L.F.

Apparently, they're a group that breaks into research laboratories and releases test animals, among other things. For more info, you can go here and check out the website of the group that organized the event.

I don't have the flyer in front of me, but from what I can remember, they're sponsoring a bunch of speakers and films about the quest to "liberate" animals, and they want people to know that they're "freedom fighters," not terrorists.

They had a quote on the bottom of this thing that was frightening. I can't remember the exact words, but it was something like, "If what we're doing is wrong, then the people who shut down German concentration camps were wrong..." There was more comparing it to the Underground Railroad and similar efforts throughout history. That's really warped thinking.

How can you possibly compare an effort to set back medical research to freeing victims of slavery and the Holocaust? Delusions of grandeur, anyone?

Fortunately, it did give me an idea for an SU Live sketch. Let me know if you think this would be funny: Stuffed Animal Liberation Front.

I want to write a sketch about "activists" who are on a mission to rescue the stuffed animals of the world. For example, a guy wins a stuffed bear for his girlfriend at a carnival, but as he's about to hand it to her, one of the SALF activists jumps in and steals it from him, telling him he's no better than a slave trader. They could also break into kids' rooms at night and "rescue" the stuffed animals from "imprisonment."

This is what I meant by "infiltrating the liberal media." I even got the idea approved by the head writer, so it might make it into a show at some point.

I love college.

I found the quote I referenced above:

"If we are trespassing, so were the soldiers who broke down the gates of Hitler's death camps;

If we are thieves, so were the members of the Underground Railroad who freed the slaves of the South;

And if we are vandals, so were those who destroyed Forever the gas chambers of Buchenwald and Auschwitz."

That's right, slaves and Holocaust victims! You're no better than animals!

What a bunch of friggin' idiots. I can't believe they're coming to the university.

...Yes I can.

Posted by CD at 09:37 PM | Comments (4)


All right, I just got back from my TRF class, where my professor deprived me of an opportunity to write a brilliant script, but I don't really feel like ranting about that right now. I already forced my roommate to listen to the story.

Anyway, my interview is posted at Jen's blog. I spent a lot of time answering those questions, so go check it out.

...That's an order.

Posted by CD at 05:49 PM | Comments (2)

Celebrate Good Times, Come On...

What's up with the title, you ask? Well, today is the 6-month blogiversary of Semi-Intelligent Thoughts! I believe that gives me permission to toot my own horn for a couple minutes.

On September 25, 2003, I wrote this post and began my blogging adventure. Actually, this post is the real original, but I'm free from Blog*Spot now.

When I started, I had no comments, no Sitemeter, no readers, and no real idea what I was doing. Within a week, I had comments and stats, and I was linked on VRWC. In the next few months, I joined the Alliance of Free Blogs, won second place in the TTLB showcase, and somehow got people to read my posts every day.

Now, 6 months later, I'm getting a good 60 or 70 visitors a day, I've got about a dozen regular readers, and for some reason, I still enjoy it.

I'd like to waste more space congratulating myself, but I've got class until 5:30, followed by an SU Live writers' meeting at 8, so there won't be much posting today.

Anyway, I just thought I'd celebrate. Yay.

Posted by CD at 12:33 PM | Comments (4)

March 24, 2004

WTF Is Wrong With These People?

I thought I was done for the night, but then I found this:

The animal-rights activists who once suggested Ronald McDonald was a bloody butcher are going after Colonel Sanders, contending cruelty is the "secret recipe" for KFC's fried chicken.

Why hasn't PETA shut up yet? The fact that they're still an organization is all the proof I need that Bush isn't Hitler. Let's see what the crazy "animal rights" "activists" are up to now:

Starting next month, Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans to hand out "Buckets of Blood" to children outside KFC restaurants and at middle and high schools near the restaurants. The buckets are part of PETA's international campaign against what it says are farming and slaughter abuses by KFC's suppliers.

What f**king business do these f**king freaks have giving this stuff to CHILDREN? This is sick. How sick, you ask? Let's find out:

The 5-inch-tall, red-and-white striped containers mimic KFC's buckets. But instead of fried chicken, each is filled with items including a bag of fake blood and bones, a bloodied plastic chicken and a cardboard caricature of a blood-spattered Colonel Sanders holding a butcher knife toward a terrified-looking chicken.

Yeah, cause giving 'em nightmares will really make them want to join your cause, sh*twits. I don't believe this.

Labels on the bucket proclaim, "Shhh! The 'secret recipe' in this bucket of body parts is ... cruelty" and "The Colonel's secret recipe: live scalding, painful debeaking, crippled chickens."

"But giving buckets of fake mutilated chickens to children isn't cruel, because we're right!"

I don't even care about the rest of the article at this point. I just want to know what the F**K is wrong with these people. First there was that "your mommy kills animals" load of crap, and now this.

I think they're just mad because the only jobs they can get with their level of education involve serving dead animals to other people on a daily basis.

Sick freaks. There are PEOPLE in the world who are suffering, you know.

I guess helping actual people might be dangerous. You can't solve most of the world's problems by traumatizing children.

F**king lunatics.

Posted by CD at 08:29 PM | Comments (4)

"How Dare You Kill People For Killing People!"

I haven't had to do this in a while, but I'm starting a new post to finish my coverage of today's Daily Orange opinion section. There's an editorial I can't resist fisking, entitled Hamas assassination harms peace process. Keep in mind, I don't know that much about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but I do know that this person is utterly clueless about how to fight terrorism. Check it out:

Israel's assassination of Hamas founder and leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin on Monday was a wrong move on the road to peace in the Middle East. By killing the leader of the radical and combative political-terrorist group, Israel has not defused any tension between Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, where's the problem with this argument, children? That's right: They admit that Hamas is a dangerous group, but still get upset if Israelis kill them! What do you propose? Should they be passing out cookies and milk to the f**king murderers? Are you going to melt their icy hearts with a hot island rhythm? Enlighten us, dang it!

Supporters and followers of Hamas now have more motive and anger to fuel any terrorist action they may take.

Bring 'em on. They. Need. To. DIE. Maybe they'll actually fight the military now instead of blowing up civilians on f**king buses.

"Explode for Allah!!!! It's a virgin clearance sale!!!!!!"

By Israel killing Palestinians, the cycle of violence is perpetuated.

There can only be so many terrorist Palestinians. Eventually, they'll learn their lesson.

Furthermore, the United States has now become even more involved in the situation, as part of the Hamas' retaliation to the assassination of Yassin was to promise attacks on America as a collaborator and counterpart of Israel.

Nobody's ever threatened the U.S. before. How original of them. Did they call us the Great Satan too?

The seemingly never-ending Middle East conflict is a futile exercise in hatred, intolerance and a childish inability for forgiveness.

"Well, Mohammed, you killed my entire family just for being Jooooooos, but...hey, we're still pals, right? Right? Mo, why are you ticking?"

Unfortunately, there is nothing childish about the death tolls. Israeli attacks hurt the peace process equally to those of the Palestinians. The assassination of Yassin was a terrible error.

I'm glad you're such a master of morality, since you can put Israeli civilians on the same level as F**KING TERRORIST MURDERERS. You people just don't get it, do you?

This reminds me of my sociology TA last semester. His reason for opposing war was, and I quote, "I don't like killing." Too bad terrorists do.

By employing a pro-active and pre-emptive strategy to seek out and kill those Israel deems its enemies...

"Anyone could've nail-bombed that restaurant while screaming 'Allahu Akbar!' You Jooooos are so paranoid!" brings the Middle East conflict into treacherous waters where the endless cycle of revenge will continue unimpeded.

That's why they need to kill terrorists before they can get their revenge. It's why we have pre-emption. Idiot.

The role of the United States in this conflict is paramount to a peaceful end. Because the United States funds and supplies Israel militarily, it is important for the United States to condemn actions such as the assassination of Yassin.

I'm sure that reprimanding Israel for killing a terrorist would really help our credibility as the leader in the War on Terror, you frickin' moron.

Given that America has ended the practice of political assassination, it seems purely hypocritical of us to fund and arm a country that carries it out themselves.

It was not a "political assassination." Yassin. Organized. MURDER. Murderers deserve to die. I'm glad we could straighten this out.

Furthermore, the United States needs to sincerely threaten Israel with action if they continue such attacks and assassinations.

How dumb are you? Why should we threaten Israel for making our job easier? The more terrorists get sent to hell, the better. Keep it up, guys!

While lip-service is given to the inappropriateness of these actions and the United States has condemned similar actions in the past, Israel continues to act and attack because they have nothing to lose in doing so.

Of course, in not doing so, they have a lot to lose. Like land. And rights. And...uh...LIFE! If they don't fight, they'll be killed. It's that simple. I'm sorry we don't live in your happy little hand-holding rainbow fairy world, but in the real world, some people need to be eliminated.

Peace cannot be attained without the United States using its clout over Israel to help end the violence.

May I suggest "Nuke Palestine" as a new campaign slogan?

Finally, it should be the goal of all sides, Israeli, Palestinian and American, to seek compromise - not bloodshed.

I really don't see how hard this is to understand. Palestinians want all the Joooooos dead. That's the only thing they want. "Compromise" would be killing them relatively painlessly. That's about as good as it gets.

..."Political assassinations." Unbefrigginlievable.

Posted by CD at 08:01 PM | Comments (6)

Daily Orange Idiocy Explosion

Wow. There's so much ignorant crap in the DO opinion section today, I hardly know where to begin. It's unbelievable.

Let's start with some selections from the letters to the editor. I won't cover them completely, but each has its own especially entertaining sections. First, there's one entitled Protest dates had meaning. It's basically a response to a letter that criticized protesters for not showing up in cold weather. However, there's one really interesting quote in the second paragraph:

While demonstrations are an important part of reminding people about issues, education plays a key role. The fact that people are standing outside with signs protesting the U.S. military means little if you aren't educated about the United States' role in world affairs.

"Protesting the U.S. military?" So much for "we support the troops, but not the war." @sshats.

There's also another letter about the protests on the same page. Let's take a look at that one:

Be enlightened: The Student Environmental Action Coalition and Syracuse Peace Action Network gathered on the Quad March 4 to rally for peace because it was Books not Bombs day, where demonstrators from around the country demanded that the U.S. government fund schooling and financial aid rather than frivolous military expenses.

"Frivolous military expenses." Wonderful. You know, school funding and financial aid really don't help very much if YOU'RE F**KING KILLED BY F**KING TERRORISTS, YOU F**KING IDIOTS!!!!

There's more of that letter, believe it or not, and this is just an excerpt:

March 19 was a campus-rally to show that one year after the unilateral bombing and invasion of Iraq, there is still a public outcry for peace.

I can't believe the amount of cognitive dissonance contained in that one sentence. Let's break it down:

1) They're protesting the unilateral invasion, even though the invasion was carried out by a coalition.

2) They're still protesting the war, even though it started a year ago and leaving now would make things worse.

3) They want peace, but aren't willing to fight evil in order to gain it.

I cannot believe these idiots got into college. Oh, wait, yes I can. They probably wrote anti-war screeds in their application essays.

There's another fun letter to look at too. It's called Spanish voters acted properly. It's so good, I've just decided to fisk the whole thing, then I'll continue in another post, because there's an editorial I want to look at. Click the extended entry:

The recent elections in Spain prompted the sensationalist mainstream media to proclaim that the Spanish voters handed terrorists a victory.

I must've missed that one. When did they flash the headline saying "Terrorists Win?"

This is great news for the Bush administration - they can now claim that giving your vote to the Democratic Party is unpatriotic and wimpy.

Such maturity. I can't believe how nuanced your arguments are. I mean, we all know Bush is calling everyone an unpatriotic wimp, right? Well, all loony leftists "know" that, at least.

But is that what the Spaniards did?

They may not realize it, but yeah, it is.

Certainly not.

*GASP!* A disagreement! We can't have that! You're going to the gulags to attend re-education classes with the homos and union reps!

To think that is to have a very simplistic and naïve view of the world.

And to think that giving terrorists what they want will make them stop killing people isn't?

That is Chris N. Malagisi's view ("Spanish voters hand terrorists a victory," March 22, 2004). In his column he argued that the real winners of the Spanish elections are the terrorists. He went on to say that "this is World War III and the days of playing the spectator are over." Perhaps he is right that we have engaged in a war with the terrorists, but that war is distinct from the war in Iraq.

Good ol' Saddamster! He was just a victim of U.S. imperialism and hatred of brown people!

Although we invaded Iraq after the September 11 terrorist attacks, it is not the case that the two events are causally connected.

Did anyone say they were, or is that just what Imaginary Bush™ said?

If you recall, we invaded Iraq because Saddam was an "imminent threat..."

Uh, no, moron, I "recall" President Bush saying we must act before the threat is imminent. I'm amazed that they ignore this. After all, they don't believe in pre-emptive war, so attacking a threat that wasn't imminent still would've been wrong.

I guess it just throws a wrench into the "Bush is a liar" idea. That meddling reality.

...due to the massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, which they never found.

*cough* SYRIA *cough*

The terrorists that took down the Twin Towers on September 11 were Arabs, not Iraqis.

Thank you for that brilliant and enlightening piece of information. I guess President Cowboy just lumps all them A-rabs together, don't he?

So let's not confuse the issues since we can run the danger of drawing the wrong conclusions, as Malagasi has done.

Pot, meet kettle. He thinks you're black.

The Spanish did not hand the war to the terrorists. They made a strong statement against governmental oppression and deception.

I wonder what Imaginary Aznar™ could've possibly said to provoke this reaction. Did he also talk about an "imminent threat?" Or maybe "una amenaza inminente?"

Let us not oversimplify the issue as to underscore their success in putting a stop to the abuse of power. Our elections will show how rational we are.

Exactly. When Bush wins.

How do you argue with people who honestly believe that:

1) Bush said Iraq and 9/11 were causally connected
2) Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat
3) The administration said that voting for Democrats is unpatriotic
4) The attack on Iraq was unilateral

How. Do. You. Argue?

I guess they probably feel the same way about the right.

"How do you argue with people who honestly believe that Bush isn't the Antichrist? It's impossible!"


Posted by CD at 07:31 PM | Comments (7)

One More Note

I almost forgot: According to Google, I have exclusive rights to the word "Bushchimpler™."

Keep that in mind if you ever want to use it.

Posted by CD at 04:28 PM | Comments (4)

Yet Another Moonbat Question

Sorry about the light posting. I'm pretty busy this week (I'm actually just stopping in to check the site, then I have to eat dinner and go to a registration thingy).

Here's another question to think about: If Kerry somehow manages to win the election, and we get attacked by terrorists soon after the inauguration, how will the far left explain it?

A) Bush weakened us against terror during his term, so he's to blame
B) They're testing Kerry's will
C) They just hate America
D) Bush orchestrated the attack as an act of revenge against President Kerry

Choose one, or several. You never know how many theories they'll have.

I'm guessing D. I don't know about you.

Posted by CD at 04:20 PM | Comments (4)

March 23, 2004

DU Post of the Day: "The New Holocaust is Coming!!!"

Sorry about using DU(mb as bricks) 2 days in a row, but the latest moonbattery I found there is just way too good to ignore. I really don't care at this point whether or not they represent anyone other than themselves. Stuff like this scares me, because they actually believe it:

GLBT DUer's...when do you plan on leaving?

The new discrimination announced by the gubmint today, should be a wake up call. If Al Queda with their suitcase nuke, takes out a major American city...the camps are not far behind. They have already said they will curtail civil rights. So, when do we wake the fuck up and smell the coffee???...and go?

Call me the canary in the coal mine.

Call me crazy, but seriously think about what I am saying.

We are next on the list.

Yep. They think Bush is going to start rounding up gays. I don't know exactly who they think is going to do that, as I'm pretty sure most people would refuse to participate, but logic isn't exactly...well, present at DU. Let's see what they have to say:

If you think that, Andy, then I am worried And I have to believe that it won't be just you, but all of us straights who oppose the Emperor, too.

You will have plenty of non-gay company in the Gulags, Andy.

He says it like he's looking forward to it. I sometimes think they actually want the world to be this way, with Bush as a dictator and everything, just so they can feel like they were right.

I believe in fighting...But I know what these people are capable of. If 3000 lives mean nothing to them surely mine means nothing to them.

I am for the first time unhappy about having been born Gay...I mean really unhappy. I have NEVER felt this way. I have always been out and proud.

But damn...these people scare the hell out of me.

The gay DUers must get the best kool-aid.

Your feeling are as logical as those of a German Jew in 1933

Yes, these "kinder and gentler" Nazis may not stuff you in a gas chamber, but only because it's "bad PR".

They have something in store for all of us, as orwell stated below.

And they are scary for the reason their spiritual antecedents, Grandpa Prescott's Business Partners, were. Because we know that they are capable of infinite atrocity, as are their followers.

Just like 1933.

I'm so afraid. Please, tell me more:

Not just you, but leftists, socialists, communists, free thinkers, anti-regime bloggers, unionists, anyone that can be deemed enemy of the state.

I have already begun broaching the subject to my wife. At what point do you summon up the courage to assert your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, whatever mythic plane that may inhabit.

Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

They can't even get their quotes right. It's "ask not for whom the bell tolls." Morons.

And feminists, liberals, NEA teachers, environmentalists, Nation and Utne readers, single parents (like me, who, like Clinton, get blamed for every fucking thing wrong under the sun from the beginning of time), anyone who's written a critical letter or speech, anti-war marchers, etc., etc.

Keep in mind, this is coming from people who see nothing wrong with vandalizing the property of anyone who dares to support Republicans.

I'm getting my resume in order If the BFEE in whatever way retain the presidency, that resume is going all over Canada and a few other places. Then I'll sell the house and bye bye. Also will keep an eye on developments in case I have to go sooner, would give all to daughter or another relative and split fast. I'm pretty darn worried.

I don't have any idea if they could pull off a anti-gay Kristallnacht before the elections, but will definitly be keeping a close eye on all my options.

I wish these paranoid freaks would actually leave the country and SHUT THE F**K UP!!! What's stopping you from fleeing Bushchimpler?

it is essential to have an exit plan if the worst case scenario happens

if BushCo steal it then i have given myself six months to get out of here. i would leave instantly, but i need to save more money.

even so, the odds of undoing what has become amerikkkan culture are slim to none. the propaganda and the pravda would have to be thoroughly destroyed...

the hated filled and easily led evangelicals are emboldened by the evil bush.

you should be afraid. i am afraid for myself, but after reading this, i am more immediately concerned for the GLBT community.

the window of opportunity to stop this thing is nearly gone.

horrible horrible news. save money, make contigency plans, or leave now...

Don't let the door hit your @ss...which I guess is also where your head is...on the way out.

There is no such thing as paranoia anymore.

They really ARE out to get you.

"The gnomes! The gnomes and the bunnies are stealing my thoughts!!!"

They very could start to arrest and imprision gay and lesbians who have recieved civil unions, try to attain a marriage license, those who have had their relationships blessed with a church service w/o a marriage license...

It is not all that hard really to imagine them trying to do that in the least. Who will stand up for us? Unfortunately only those close to this community will stand up, and bying doing so they will also be arrested, thus no one will stand up. It is not all that hard to imagine it happening.

Make up your own clever response based on "imagination." Good times...

Again, I have one message for these paranoid f**king idiots: LEAVE THE COUNTRY IF YOU DON'T F**KING LIKE IT.

@sshats. I can't believe these people vote...

Posted by CD at 10:44 PM | Comments (6)

Another Question

Here's something else to think about:

From what we've seen so far, the left seems to view any criticism of John Kerry as an attack on his patriotism. If Kerry wins the election, how do you think his administration will handle dissent?

Posted by CD at 08:46 PM | Comments (5)

Question of the Day

I seem to be low on stuff to write about again, but here's something to think about:

How come whenever we see something like this, the people involved are dismissed as a "fringe group," but whenever anyone on the right says something stupid, they're automatically part of the "Republican Attack Machine?"

Double standards, anyone?

Posted by CD at 08:21 PM | Comments (4)

March 22, 2004

DU Post of the Day: Reaction to the Death of Ahmed Yassin

I'll admit that I don't know very much about the Israel/Palestine situation, other than Palestine's tendency to kill people who aren't actually threatening them ("Bomb toddlers for Allah!"), so I can't really offer much insightful commentary on the subject.

Fortunately, the DU reaction to the death of the Hamas leader doesn't take a lot of thought to enjoy (to be fair, there are a lot of posts condemning Hamas, but those aren't very entertaining). Check it out:

Somehow I have a hard time seeing calm and restraint resulting from the death of poor Mr. Yassin.

Awwww...the poow widdle tewwowist!

Hamas was supported and encouraged by Israel...

"Palestinian terrorism? It was all because of the Jooooooooos!!!!"

The main issue is that when Clinton left office he almost had an agreement between the Israel and the Palestinians. When Bush won, did he take over where Clinton left off? NO, instead he ignored the whole situation for 9 months, and now it is in shambles...

"...Wait! It wasn't the Joooos! It was Bushchimpler!!!!"

This Blood is on Bush's Hands! Bush has let the Sharon fascist regime run amok and I blame Bush first, then Sharon, then the Israeli Army. While I sympathise with the Israeli victims, we all know that Israel could have captured these people they "targeted" but apparently the Israeli army has become Judge, jury and executioner. They have nothing on these people they kill, otherwise why not capture and try? Why? Because the Israeli has long ago forgotten about the rule of law and equal treatment.

The Palestinians are like a wounded animal; all they know is that they are fighting for their very existence.

"No! Wait! It was the Joooooos AND Bushchimpler!!!!"

Not to bother you with the facts, but the current Israeli government has killed far more civilians than Hamas has. And the root of the problem is the occupation. Do you know about the occupation?

"WAIT! WAIT! Hamas may have killed civilians, but...THE JOOOOOOS KILLED MORE! WE WIN!!!!"

This is fun. I'm going to post more.

Arafat is just like Washington...Hammas are Palestinian "Sons of Liberty"

The Israelis are the religious fanatics! What country has a religious test before you can immigrate to it?!! What country discriminates based on religion more than any else? Israel thats who?!! Remember that Zionists believe God himself gave them the whole of Israel! That's sounds like a Holy War started by the Israelis!

Like the British, the Israelis colonized this land that belonged mostly to someone else. Then the Israeli's basically stole, bought and chased off the inhabitants of the land. (This happened less than 60 years ago) I personally know people who had their olive farm stolen by these Israeli "fighters", the Israeli Army is really exactly the same as Hamas and the PLO. Both kill citizens solely based on political beliefs. Every one in the land of Israel must choose between the Tories(Israel) or the Rebels (PLO). The Israelis are the one perpetuating this conflict by ignoring Palestinian legitimate grievances, like England ignored ours. Just like then King George (Bush) supports the anti-democratic side.

Hilarious. I can't even comment on this one.

Killing without trial is wrong and violates the rules of war. And the Geneva Convention. First of all Yassin is not my "Buddy". He was killed by Israel without a shred of evidence, a trial or anything close to "due process".

Since 9/11 and Bush giving Sharon the green light for Sharon to KILL all members of Hamas, PLO and anyone who expresses support for them (foreign activists) (Maybe Massad will come after me next.)These are all lawfully subject to immediate targeted execution!

How many swimming pools of Hamas blood will satisfy Sharon, the Israeli Army and their fanatical supporters?? Just where is this all supposed to lead?

"Terrorism? What's that?"

The man was in a wheel chair and had two guards. Israel knew exactly where he was. Thet could have -easily- captured him. This is the head Cleric of the Palestinians. Why doesn't he deserve a trial. Why doesn't Osama deserve a trial for that matter. I would like to hear from both of them.You are essentially saying a trial would cause "more deaths" so that is now a reason for this extra-judicial killing by a supposed democracy. This concept disturbs me.

"Don't you see? Yassin and Osama are just misunderstood! Who are we to say that killing civilians is wrong without proving it in a court of law? It's just their culture!"

Missiles to get a man in a wheel chair? this is true terrorism. If any country but Israel had done this, we would be sending troops right now.

"Israel is bigoted against people who are differently-abled!!! How dare they kill him just because he was responsible for terrorism! HE WAS DIFFERENTLY-ABLED!!!"

Since when is speeches avocating national liberation a reason for a targeted killing. Why if they knew exactly where this supposed criminal is could they have not captured him and put him of trial? Why? Because they have no proof and they have long ago abandoned justice.

Its bullshit. Its murder. Cold blooded murder.

"See? He was a freedom fighter! Why did they kill him just because freedom requires blowing up Israeli buses?"

Assassination is Terrorism! Israel- a Rogue State.

Israel - a rogue state that ignores basic human rights. Israel a state that shoots missiles at handicap clerics and children.

Israel - Our best ally in the Middle East.

Israel - makes me sick

"The only real terrorists are the JOOOOOOOS!!!! Have you forgotten that Islam is a religion of PEACE, you racists?!"

interesting sharon just had a meeting with the rightwing thugs and they wanted bush`s blessing- a few hours later they kill a guy in a wheel chair that they installed to counter arafat. i suppose many here will have nothing but praise for the killing. i guess that is what they wanted now the people of israel and palistine will pay the price. and who`s happy now? got to be those fundies waiting for the rapture and the white power/nazi`s hoping that the jews all die. only god knows why sharon order the murder and only god will judge him

I don't know what it means either, although I think they managed to accuse Israel of being anti-Semitic.

...I would say the israeli lobby controls outright some aspects of america's foreign policy. And jews generaly speaking consider themselves connected to that lobby and support it.

And lets face it muslims lobby and support candidates that are viewed to be pro muslim, but they don't have the type of resources to affect much, or the population inside america to sway elections.

The problem is that any group can hijack america's foreign policy in favour of another nation. That is treason plain and simple.

I seem to remember now once america did urge israeli restraint. I do think they are much louder at calling for the palestinians to have restraint though. Can you imagine if a bunch of 'terrorists' were destroying israeli government compounds including the prime minister's offices?

Do you honestly think america would be telling the Israelis to show restraint? The politicians would lose their job if they said that. And they know it.

And one last point, I do get tired of hearing how opressed jews are and how we must constantly feel sorry for them. The way I see it they are living pretty damn well on average and we are saving their asses over in the middle east. Israel would rapidly be pushed into the sea without american support at this point in history. At minimum they would be forced to the negotiating table and have to give up a hell of a lot.

Instead of going on and on about how opressed they were, and how people are bigots for not supporting Israel enough, I want to start hearing how thankful they are to us for saving israel. Because with a growing war against islamic forces it sure as hell isn't in our interest to help them.

The best move for america at this point would be to ditch israel and help get rid of them as a symbol of how pro-muslim they were. Instead we are taking massive heat for protecting them. That deserves at minimum constant thank yous, and talk of how lucky the jewish people are to have a protector.

Gotta love that liberal tolerance.

[this is a response to another post, not the one above] That is one of my chief objections to the way US does foreign policy. We act as though we are God and get to decide who lives and dies because we can. The person who bullies because they can is in for a big fall when someone bigger and meaner comes along. The acts of terrorism we see today are the only way otherwise helpless people can fight against our military might. I used to side with Israel until I started paying more attention to one-sided the situation was. Israel has nuclear weapons and the other side has human bombs. Pictures often show boys throwing rocks at tanks. I saw a 60 minutes show a few years back about the despair the Palestinian youth live with-how they feel they have no future. The cartoons and comments you see about the Palestinians show a lot of racism against them and their religion. I certainly am not justifying their tactics but I really don't see they have any other option because they have no power except in terrorism. Just because someone rejects a peace plan really means nothing if the plan did not give equally to both sides. Emotions run strong on this issue here on DU-imagine how they feel over there....

I think that's just about enough. Maybe one more...

Supporters of this Assassination are in Moral Peril

Old time Catholics would call it a mortal sin.
A Buddhist would call it Bad Karma.

It is morally wrong to approve of these extra-judicial killings.

It is even worse to assist in them. As the supplier of over 100 billion dollars of military hardware to Israel, every single US taxpayer is indirectly responsible for this immoral action. Bush as our president is directly responsible. Sharon and the Israelis who gave Sharon power are most complicit in these murders. How can justice ever prevail?

I despair.

Me too. I despair that people like this actually exist, and they have an entire website devoted to their lunacy.

I'm depressed now.

Posted by CD at 07:30 PM | Comments (3)


I don't really like to plug my own writing, but with all the anti-American protests that went on over the weekend, and the many blog posts about them, I think my old post, The True Fan, will express my feelings on the subject better than another stream of consciousness rant.

When do we get to call them traitors, anyway?

Posted by CD at 05:07 PM | Comments (2)

I Can't Believe These People Are Real

This is unbelievable:

SMASH: I want to talk about what you were saying up on stage. You had some ideas about how to fight the war in Iraq, or how to resist it. Could you sum those up for me?

REBECCA: OK. So, the main three points that I was talking about were, supporting Iraqi Resistance. I think that we need to see ourselves as allied with Iraqis who are opposing the war…

SMASH: Specifically, the armed Resistance, or…

REBECCA: Any, any resistance that’s occurring to the Occupation...

Just go read it. I'm going to sit here and try to resist the urge to break something.

Posted by CD at 02:22 PM | Comments (7)

Begala on Bush

I mentioned on Saturday that Paul Begala gave a speech here. Today, I'll look at the DO review, which shows us that he tends to say stupid things in places other than the Crossfire studio. I'll try to dissect the stuff he said:

Crossfire' commentator criticizes Bush

Criticizing Bush? WOW! No liberal has tried that yet!!!

President George W. Bush is a good candidate, a good politician and a good person - but he's a bad president, said Paul Begala, co-host of CNN's "Crossfire," to less than 100 people attending his lecture at Goldstein Auditorium Saturday night.

"Less than 100 people." Bwahaha.

In his speech sponsored by the Syracuse University College Democrats, Begala gave the audience a crash course on how politics works, how politicians think and how Republicans view Bush.

This is the best the College Democrats could do? Combine this with Paul Krugman and Molly Ivins, the other liberal speakers who have been here or have been scheduled to appear recently, and you get a pretty good idea of how credible they are. Heh.

"I like the hell out of George W. He's a friend of mine," said the Democrat, dressed in a navy blue suit, with a powder blue shirt and pinstripe royal blue tie. "He likes to curse like me - He knows a lot about baseball but not too much about the economy."

Classic. "Bush is a great friend, a great politician, and a great person, BUT...He's evil!!!"

"Republicans talk like he's Kim Jong," Begala said, referring to the popular dictator of North Korea. "They pretend he's 10 feet tall, perfect and we must worship him.

This guy must hang around with some really dumb Republicans. Personally, I support Bush because he's about the best we can do until a real conservative runs for office. I don't friggin' "worship" the guy.

He didn't even win the election. We have a right to criticize him."

I also have a right to criticize you because you're still parroting the asinine "Gore won" meme. Get. Over. It.

At the same time as the SU men's basketball team was defeating Maryland to advance to the Sweet 16 in the NCAA Tournament, Begala outlined how John Kerry could defeat Bush in the upcoming election.

"He's gotta start saying 'f**k' more often!!!"

"Bush already has his slogan in the campaign: 'I'm a war president, stay the course. Don't change now,'" Begala said. "What Kerry should say is, 'If you want to keep an economy with people out of work, vote for Bush. But if you want change, vote for me. If you want to keep your troops in Iraq without allies and enough armor, vote for Bush.'"

Translation: "If you want to punish rich people for being successful, vote for Kerry. If you want to beg terrorists for forgiveness and let the UN control our army, vote for Kerry. If you're NOT a braindead lunatic, vote for Bush."

Begala believes Kerry has a stronger case to argue on issues like Iraq and the economy, Begala said, but it won't be an easy fight for him.

He has a stronger case because he can argue for both sides at the same time. How do you win a debate against that?

"This will be the most vicious and nasty campaign we've ever had," Begala said. "Bush will do or say anything to win this election.

"The Republican Smear Machine™ is coming to question our patriotism!!!"

He said in 2000 he would be a uniter, not a divider. But he's the most divisive president we've ever had.

And I'm sure that's all his fault, not the fault of people who still think he didn't win the f**king election.

This nice, pleasant guy from Texas is more divisive than Nixon, Clinton and Reagan."

"If I say it, it must be true!"

"He's not conservative - he's radical," Begala continued.

If by "radical," you mean "one gay marriage away from being liberal," you're on the right track.

"I'm conservative because I want to conserve the Constitution."

"Except that mean, nasty electoral college!"

Begala also criticized Bush for attempting to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriages while ignoring other current issues.

I love how he assumes that Bush is ignoring other issues just because the media decided to focus on same-sex marriage.

"The thing has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights, and he already has seven amendments for us," Begala said.

Do you think they had this same discussion before the other 17?

"He says don't pay attention to health care costs rising, the jobless economy, lobbyists writing environmental laws. But be scared of two guys making out in Massachusetts.

They can make out until their friggin' tongues fall off, for all we care. They just shouldn't expect the government to give them a certificate of approval for it. What happened to "stay out of our bedrooms?"

The gay issue will not change the direction of this country. Seven-trillion-dollar debt and a war in Iraq will."

"Maybe he'll find some more countries to invade," Begala added.

Good. North Korea would be a good start.

Begala compared running against an incumbent to a job interview. Whether the job is up for bid is the first question asked, he said. It's not which candidate is better, but how the president is doing.

So, does this mean we can't question Kerry without questioning Bush as well? I believe this warrants an HFC.

"When you think about the direction of the country, is it going in the right direction or have things gotten off the right track?" Begala asked, explaining the original question posed by Gallup Polls in 1948. "So where are we now? The New York Times said 38 percent think we're going in the right direction. It's not 14 percent - a terrible job - or 55 percent - an easy re-election. The job is up for bid. Now he'll have to earn it. And hopefully more than a 5-4 decision."

"Electoral votes? What are those? I only care about getting my guy in office!"

Organizers believe the lower than expected attendance to the event was partially because Begala's speech started during the Syracuse basketball game.

You think? They're only the defending national champions.

Jessica Klos, president of the College Democrats, said she almost had a nervous breakdown when she found out about the game overlapping in time with the event.

"The VRWC has taken over the NCAA!!!"

"I'm still happy people came out," Klos said. "I was very impressed."

Josh Chambers, a senior political science and information management major, said that he thought Begala would be more hard-nosed.

"It wasn't what I expected," said Chambers, a member of the College Democrats. "He said Bush was a good guy. I expected him to be harder on Bush."

This says a lot about what kind of people we're dealing with here. "Bush is a good guy? LIAR! He's the devil!!!!!!"

Begala urged the audience to participate in this year's election regardless of who they vote for because there are many important decisions to be made about pressing issues and only a small number of students participate in elections.

Hopefully, those who participate aren't members of the College Democrats.

"Me no vote Bush! Bush big meanie!"

"The biggest threat to our future and life is not terrorism. It's my colleagues telling you to stay home and watch American Idol," Begala said. "Monarchies don't start revolutions. People in Washington are fine with that because they can run things. I want you to run things. That's why I'm here."

Did that make sense to anyone? He completely lost me.

Jennifer Clark, a freshman civil engineering major and long-time supporter of Begala, said his speech helped her understand Bush as a man and not just as a president.

"I got a better insight into how politicians think," Clark said. "This got me more into learning about the election. I'm more interested than I was before. It was really amazing to hear him speak."

If Paul Begala's views inform hers, I'm afraid for the future of this country. In response to him and his little speech, I'd like to offer a quote from the SNL version of Chris Matthews:

"Shut up, Begala! You look like a defective Pez dispenser!"

Posted by CD at 12:42 PM | Comments (3)

March 21, 2004


Wow. I just got back from production of the new "Syracuse Live." A TV studio is a very intense place indeed. Fortunately, everything worked out. I even got to do a countdown at the beginning of the show. Hooray.

Anyway, we did this one live to tape/internet, which means the sketch I blogged about yesterday is now online. If your computer can play WMV files, you can check it out.

Go to this page, and under the heading "SU Live 02-29-2004," click the "view entire episode" window. The very first pre-credits sketch is the one I helped with, and if you read yesterday's post, it should be fairly obvious which one I am.

Keep in mind that those tiny shots took 4 hours to put together. Oh, yeah, they DID actually use the "WHY??!!" shot in the Wyoming one. Heh heh.

This stuff is hard work.

I just remembered something I can brag about. You know the part at the end of the sketch where the "he's just dead" guy pops up from behind the couch? I came up with that. He was originally just going to walk in from the side, but that's not funny enough.

The cinder block thing wasn't mine, although you can hear me laughing off camera after "his name is Balthasar."

If you don't know what I'm talking about, you REALLY need to watch this. The funniest parts are the ones we shot in the studio.

Posted by CD at 03:44 PM | Comments (2)

March 20, 2004

Acting is Hard

Okay, like I said before, I had kind of a long day today, but it was pretty interesting, so I'll do one of my stream of consciousness (read: long and disorganized) posts and go through it.

Today, I helped shoot a sketch for the next episode of Syracuse Live, the HillTV show I've mentioned a couple times before.

First of all, I had to get to the studio at 11:30 AM. That's not right. It's against the College Code™ to get up before noon on Saturday for anything other than a football game or a fire drill. Apparently, our producer agrees, because she didn't get there until frickin' 12:05 or so, even though it was HER IDEA to meet at 11:30. Fortunately, the day got better.

The sketch we shot today is the opener for the next show, which we're putting together tomorrow. The basic idea is that Josh, our head writer/co-host, is missing, and the cast comes up with a bunch of bizarre theories about where he could be. Then, we show a dramatized version of their ideas. Why does this warrant a blog post, you ask?

Well, the reason we did this sketch is because Josh is actually in New York City right now, so he can't participate in this week's opener. Obviously, he also can't participate in the little vignettes we created to illustrate the theories, so we had to get a "stunt double" to take his place.

Guess what I did all afternoon?

That's right: They decided that I should be Josh's "stunt double" in the sketch (actually, they decided that "this guy" should do it, because they apparently can't take the time to learn that my name is Chris), so I got to do a bunch of really weird acting all day. I may have mentioned before that I wanted to be an actor until I was about 15, so I figured I could handle it, but this was still one of the strangest days I've had in a while.

(NOTE: If you don't want to read about all this now, I will be linking to the sketch when they put it online, and you can see it then...if you have a Windows Media Player, that is. Anti-Mac wankers...)

The first theory was that Josh got "deported to Wyoming." To represent this, we went to a park right off campus, found the most pathetic tree we'd ever seen, and shot. Did I mention it was cold and rainy this afternoon? It was.

The joke is that there's nothing in Wyoming except this one tree, so my part was basically walking around in front it, looking confused, and occasionally saying "hello" or "anybody here?" I also did a really dramatic part where I spread my arms, looked up at the sky, and yelled "WHY??!!!" at the top of my lungs, but we probably aren't using it (I think we should use it).

Yeah. So, that was the first theory. The next was that Josh was going cross-country following the band "Hanson." I don't even know if they're still recording, but I guess it's a funny idea nonetheless.

For this shot, I got behind the wheel of a car (which was technically illegal, since I don't have a license) with a big photo of Hanson and lip-synced "Mmm-bop" a bunch of times while I drove through a parking lot. That actually wasn't the most ridiculous thing I had to do today, but it was close.

Yet another theory was that Josh just went through a really bad break-up, and he had to leave and try to get her back. We decided to show this by re-enacting the boombox scene from "Say Anything" (yeah, this one), so I had to stand in the rain holding a boombox over my head for about 5 minutes while literally biting my lip to avoid laughing at the sheer absurdity of the situation (they're adding the Peter Gabriel song in editing).

Of course, I tried to make it completely authentic with the whole "open trenchcoat" thing, but the best I had was my nylon jacket, and of course, the zipper got stuck so I couldn't even get the "open" part, but they tell me I looked kind of like Cusack. They might have just been trying to make me feel better about standing in friggin' freezing rain for 5 minutes though.

The next one was definitely the most ridiculous. The theory is that Josh was abducted by pirates, but he eventually learned to love their lifestyle. To illustrate this, they had me put on an eye patch and bandana and carry a plastic sword. Of course, that's not funny enough, so I also had to jump around on a bunch of tables in a dorm lounge while shouting "Yarr!!! Shiver me timbers!!!"

I dare you to picture that without laughing. Seriously. Try it.

The guy who was shooting made it even worse, because he kept saying "one more time," but then he took more and more shots from different angles. I was ready to stab him with my plastic pirate sword by the end. Luckily, I did coin a new phrase while shooting this: "Lounge pirate." Heh.

The final theory was that Josh went to compete in a Pokemon tournament. I don't know why they came up with this, but we had to find a way to show it. We couldn't find a pokeball (which I guess is a good thing on a college campus), so we had to use a beach ball instead. I basically just had to say "Jigglypuff, I choose you," and throw the ball toward the camera.

That was pretty embarrassing too, but it was hilarious because I couldn't actually hit the camera, so the camera operator kept saying "aim for my crotch." Payback for the multiple pirate shots! HA!

...Get your minds out of the gutter, people.

So, that's how I spent my day today. The sketch should be online within the next week, so you'll get to see the result of my crazy day (again, you need to be able to play streaming Windows Media). I'm sure you're all looking forward to that.

...As if you managed to read all the way through this.

Posted by CD at 11:26 PM | Comments (3)

News Flash

I've had a very long day (in a good way), and I'll probably be writing about it later.

Until then, you may be interested to know that Paul Begala is giving a speech at the Syracuse student center as I type this.

I should've gone down to laugh at him...

Posted by CD at 07:09 PM | Comments (1)

March 19, 2004

Good Point

There's a great line in this string of Fark comments:

...can we finally put the term "hate crime" to rest? It's not like when one white guy attacks another it's a love crime.

I should use Fark as a source more often!

Posted by CD at 07:28 PM | Comments (1)

Safety is Offensive!

I've gotta stop reading Tongue Tied. Every time I find a story like this, it brings me closer to dying of a combined heart attack and aneurysm. Look at this:

Corrections Canada won't let guards at maximum security prisons...

There are prisons in Canada? GASP! But I thought only America had Bad People™!

...wear stab-proof vests because it sends a confrontational "signal" to prisoners.

I can't believe this is real. What sick logic dictates that it's more important to make prisoners feel safe than prison guards? THEY'RE IN A F**KING MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON!

"If you have that kind of presence symbolized by (a stab-proof vest), you're sending a signal to the prisoner that you consider him to be a dangerous person," said Tim Krause.


Does this guy realize the slippery slope his justification leads to? It follows from his original argument that you can't have prisons at all, because putting someone in prison suggests that they're dangerous.

I will AGAIN stress my belief that critical thinking should be a requirement in all schools, but since this is Canada, I'll let it go for now.

"It interferes with what we call 'dynamic security.' We want staff to talk to prisoners, to see how they're doing."

"You have to respect their precious FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS!!!!!"

This is what frickin' feel-good, self-esteem, morally relativistic bullsh*t policies do to people. PRISONERS. NEED. TO. BE. PUNISHED. "Dynamic security" should include ACTUAL F**KIN' SECURITY!!!!

Last month, Sun Media reported a guard at the Edmonton Institution was threatened with disciplinary action several times by prison brass for wearing a self-purchased stab-proof vest on the job.

They threatened him? B-b-b-b-b-b-but that sends a "confrontational signal" that they consider him to be a dangerous person! How could they do that to him? Do they care more about the prisoners' feelings than his? I'm getting visions of the Monty Python "Church Police" sketch:

"It's a fair cop, but society is to blame!"

"Right! We'll arrest them instead!"


The guard, who asked not to be named, said he intends to keep wearing the Kevlar vest.

"Yes, I'm violating the rules. But management is stepping on my right to defend myself," he said.

"Defend yourself? From what? The prisoners have learned their lesson! Look at these big, scary bars they're behind! Don't you trust them?"

Kevin Grabowsky, of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, said the notion that inmates might be "offended" is a "complete crock."

And the winner of the "Most Intelligent Man In Canada Award" for March 2004 is...

Kevin Grabowsky!!!! Congratulations, Kevin! You win...well, the knowledge that you live in a country full of buffoons.


Posted by CD at 05:51 PM | Comments (4)

Question of the Day

This is a really short one, but it's gotten me thinking lately:

Henry David Thoreau said "Simplify, simplify."

If he really believed that, shouldn't he have just said "Simplify?"

...I think it's a good question.

Posted by CD at 02:28 PM | Comments (0)

March 18, 2004

Now, Back to Your Regularly Scheduled Dowd Fiskings...

Seriously. Maureen Dowd is getting even more pathetic these days. In her latest column, she tries to compare Bush and Kerry with characters in "Pride and Prejudice," among other things.

Incidentally, "Pride and Prejudice" is the worst book I ever read in my life, so just thinking about it is making me extra snarky. We'll see if that affects the fisking:

Pride and Prejudice By MAUREEN DOWD

House Republicans haven't suggested an embargo on olives and paella yet, but it's probably just pocos minutos away.

Does she think that by pretending to know Spanish, it will magically validate her claim that we place embargoes on food from countries we disagree with? I still can't believe anyone on either side took that "Freedom Fries" thing seriously.

Maureen, tu cabeza es vacía.

By the time these guys are through, it will be unpatriotic to consume any ethnic food but fish and chips and kielbasa, washed down with a fine Bulgarian wine.

And there's the "unpatriotic" thing again! So original...

Republicans like Dennis Hastert were ranting yesterday about the Spaniards.

Remember, in Dowdland, any time a Republican speaks for any reason other than to apologize, it's a rant.

"Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country," Mr. Hastert said, "and they chose to change their government to, in a sense, appease terrorists."

What's untrue about that statement? The terrorists got what they wanted, didn't they?

The Republicans prefer to paint our old ally as craven...

The craven ones weren't our allies; The old government was.

...rather than accept the Spanish people's judgment — which most had held since before the war — that the Iraq takeover had nothing to do with the war on terror.

If terrorists don't care about Iraq, why are you linking it to the terror attack, MoDo?

The Spanish were also angry at José María Aznar because they felt he had misled them about the bombings, trying to throw guilt on ETA and away from Al Qaeda.

"¡Aznar mintió! ¡Gente murieron!"

The Republicans certainly don't want anyone here to think about throwing somebody out of office because he was misleading about Al Qaeda.

"Misleading" is not grounds for throwing people out of office, even if your accusations are true.

During a photo-op with Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands on Tuesday...

Is anything he does in public not a photo-op to you people?

Mr. Bush did his "Beavis and Butthead" snigger...

Such professionalism, Mauron... a Dutch reporter noted that most of his countrymen want to withdraw Dutch troops from Iraq because they think the conflict "has little to do with the war against terrorism, and may actually encourage terrorism." (Uh-oh, looks like no tulips on the Capitol grounds this spring.)

Tulips? Wow. She's almost as paranoid as the DU freaks.

"I would ask them," the president replied, "to think about the Iraqi citizens who don't want people to withdraw because they want to be free."

WHAT? I thought they LOVED Saddam! He protected them from the eeeeevil Americimperialists who were coming to bomb them and convert their ashes into ooooooooooooooiiiiiil!

Now that he hasn't found any weapons, Mr. Bush says the war was worth it so Iraqis could experience democracy. But when our allies engage in democracy, some Republicans mock them as lily-livered.

Just because they engaged in democracy doesn't mean they made the right decision. After all, you're criticizing president Bush. Should we make you stop because America engaged in democracy?

Oh, right; Bush stole the election. Silly me.

The Republicans treat John Kerry as disdainfully as they do the European allies who have disappointed the White House, painting him as a French-looking dude who went to a Swiss boarding school...

He IS as French-looking dude who went to a Swiss boarding school. We're treating him like a flip-flopping, hypocritical, backstabbing loon. And that's just when we're being nice. an effete Brahmin who would rather cut intelligence and military spending than face down terrorists.

I believe Kerry's voting record says more than any rebuttal I could put here.

The election is shaping up as a contest between Pride and Prejudice.

Watch this. She's about to portray Kerry in exactly the way she says Republicans portray him. So, is it good or bad to treat him this way? Let's see:

Mr. Kerry is Pride.

He has a tendency toward striped-trouser smugness that led him to stupidly boast that he was more popular with leaders abroad than President Bush — playing into the Republican strategy to depict him as one of those "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

That's another good one. Even when Kerry makes himself look dumb, it's the Republicans' fault.

Even when he puts on that barn jacket over his expensive suit to look less lockjaw — and says things like, "Who among us doesn't like Nascar?" — he can come across like Mr. Collins, Elizabeth Bennet's pretentious cousin in "Pride and Prejudice." Mr. Collins always prattles on about how lucky people would be to be rewarded by his patron, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, with "some portion of her notice" and to receive dollops of her "condescension."

Speaking to Chicago union workers last week, Mr. Kerry happily informed them that on the ride over, his wife, Teresa, had said she could live in Chicago. What affability, as Mr. Collins would say, what condescension.

Like I said, she just portrayed him the way she says Republicans do. Also, I like how she goes for his personality and completely ignores...uh...POLITICAL stuff. Very informative.

Mr. Bush is Prejudice.

That bigoted Republicanazi!!!

Like Miss Bennet, who irrationally arranged the facts to fit her initial negative assessment of Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bush irrationally arranges the facts to fit his initial assessment that 9/11 justified blowing off the U.N. and some close allies to invade Iraq.

How exactly is it irrational to take action instead of doing the same thing that's failed for 12 years? Sounds like Bush was more rational than everyone else. By the way, those "close allies?" They were also "allies" of Iraq. Interesting, isn't it?

The president and vice president seem incapable of admitting any error...

When people "irrationally arrange the facts" to make it look like Bush and Cheney were personally responsible for the intelligence failures, it's hard for them to apologize. Why don't you just tell yourself they did? It seems to work for everything else.

...especially that their experienced foreign policy team did not see through Saddam's tricks.

Shouldn't the team apologize then?

As Hans Blix told a reporter, Saddam had put up a "Beware of Dog" sign, so he didn't bother with the dog. How can they recalibrate the game plan when they won't concede that they called the wrong game plan to start?

Recalibrate? We already frickin' took Saddam out. I think the "conservative" and "progressive" labels are on the wrong sides of the spectrum.

When he challenged Mr. Kerry to put up or shut up on his claim of support from foreign leaders, Mr. Bush said, "If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you've got to back it up with facts."

Facts? Kerry's a Democrat! All he needs to do is say whatever's on his mind, and then blame the Republican Attack Machine™ when he gets called on it.

If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidency, you've got to back it up with facts, too.

Remember, fact≠evidence. Fact=anything that proves Republicans wrong.

Such wonderful logic. How do they do it?

Posted by CD at 10:56 PM | Comments (0)

Idiots Shouldn't Argue Semantics

DU has some pretty funny articles occasionally that further add to the moonbattery of the site. For example, in this one, an author named "punpirate" argues that the Bush administration repeatedly called Iraq an "imminent threat."

To back up that assertion, they quote Condoleeza Rice calling it an "urgent threat." This just shows how dumb they are. "Urgent threat" means we had to take care of Iraq as soon as possible. "Imminent threat" means Iraq was actually about to attack us. There is a difference.

Just thinking ahead in case any moonbats try to use this against us in the near future.

Posted by CD at 09:47 PM | Comments (0)

Dubya's My Neighbor!

I've got another MoDo fisking coming up, but until then, I will once again jump on the bandwagon and post my results for the Politopia quiz:


I probably would've been closer to Rush Limbaugh if there hadn't been so many questions about things I don't fully understand. I've gotta take an economics class.

Posted by CD at 09:38 PM | Comments (1)

Housing Humor

I may have mentioned this earlier, but I'm currently going through the craptastic process of finding housing for next year. Syracuse has a 2-year "you have to live in the dorms" policy, so my choices are kind of limited.

I think I also mentioned that I don't have anybody to room with at the moment, which severely decreases my chances of getting my first choice (Or, the liberal version of that sentence: "Their policy is biased against introverts!!!").

Luckily, the school has a name for situations like this: "Roommate dilemmas." Outside the housing office, there's a board where you can post a card stating your "dilemma" and what kind of room/roommate you're looking for. Thanks to this, I have some brief anecdotes to share.

First of all, the fun began as soon as I saw the board. The message at the top was something like this:

"Looking for the perfect roommate? Need to find someone to complete a group? Trying to squat your room, but can't fill it to capacity? These all sound like...

Yes, that apostrophe was intentional. Somebody actually took the time to put an apostrophe IN A WORD WHERE IT DIDN'T BELONG! Whatever happened to "higher education?" Shouldn't someone have noticed this by now? Someone with the authority to take out an unnecessary apostrophe?

...Don't worry, that was the least funny of the stories. The rest will be better. BUT...You have to go to the extended entry to read them! Bwahahaha!!!

After I contained my urge to kick somebody in the head for apostrophe abuse, I actually started looking at the various cards, hoping that one of them would reflect what I was looking for. However, I forgot that this is college, and there's about a -75% chance that nobody will abuse any method of message posting.

Anyway, the first card I read said something like:

"I'm looking for two hot roommates who like to take showers together."

Who takes the time to write these stupid things?

I almost gave up after seeing that, but fortunately, the rest of them were real. I wrote down the information from a couple, but I also decided to put up my own just in case someone else was looking for a roommate. Mine was something like:

"I need someone to fill a split double. I'm fairly quiet and can keep my side clean if I have to. My reservation # is in the sophomore range."

I also included my name and e-mail address so people could contact me. Sounds pretty simple, right?

Well, today, I checked my e-mail, and there was one entitled Housing. The guy who wrote it was looking for one more person to fill a 4-room suite. I was kind of interested, but then this line jumped out at me:

"We like to keep things pretty clean, but still partake in the weed and booze activities."

At least he's honest. Here's the response I just sent him about half an hour ago:

" I think I'm going to pass on this one (I try to stay away from "weed and booze activities"), but thanks for the offer."

Why is the one person who contacted me a frickin' drug user?! Dang it.

All hope is not lost, though. I also got in contact with another person trying to fill a split double, and that might work out, but I'm not positive. However, there's a catch.

When I first saw his name on the card, it sounded a bit familiar. Eventually, I realized that I recognized him from my math class. Great! I can talk to him in person!

...But wait! I'm pretty sure I recognize him as the guy I like to call "Annoying Voice Dude." Why? Because he has a REALLY annoying voice. He pronounces the word "two" like "tee-ooo." WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN TO ME?

...Oh, well. I'd be willing to put up with him if it gets me out of the dorm I'm in now. Know why they call it "the highest hall on campus?" Because you have to climb 100 FRIGGIN' STAIRS to get up here! Do you have any idea what it's like being an overweight asthmatic in a cold climate and having to walk up 100 stairs 3 times a day? DO YOU?!

...I think I'm done now.

Posted by CD at 07:05 PM | Comments (4)

Question of the Day

This one's not philosophical or anything. I just want to know:

Why is it that, when you take an exam in college, at least one person in the room always seems to be coughing up one of their lungs?

Come on. Anybody who's spent time in college has had this experience. Why does it happen? I'm just a freshman, so I haven't had enough time to analyze it yet. Help me out here!

Posted by CD at 04:54 PM | Comments (5)

Semi-Coherent Update

CD busy. Need study film. Tonight, CD fisk Maureen Dowd and share funny college housing anecdotes. CD need go now eat lunch. CD hope you have good day.

...Don't ask. 8:30 AM classes screw up my brain.

Posted by CD at 11:26 AM | Comments (2)

March 17, 2004

Fun Fact

If you Google the word "rascist," you get 11,000 results.

...I'm supposed to be studying film directing right now.

Posted by CD at 08:57 PM | Comments (2)

DU Post of the Day: "There Won't be an Election in 2004"

(DISCLAIMER: As usual, all DU posts are for comic relief and do not represent the majority of the American left. I hope.)

With all the talk lately about the elections in Spain, the posters on Democratic Underground are thinking about how our election will go. Will Bush lose support because people blame him for the attacks? Will Kerry stand a chance?

Well, according to some people in a thread entitled Bush cannot allow the election in 2004, we won't have to worry about that, because there's no way Dubya will give up his "throne!" Let's take a look:

Bush cannot allow the election in 2004. I just don't see how he can allow it. With all the fecal matter coming down on his adminstration his only hope for survival is to stay in power.

The bombing in Spain had the opposite effect expected. >

Only last week several senior members of the administration said they fully expected that his conservatives would emerge victorious . In fact, months ago a senior adviser to Mr. Bush predicted that should a terrorist attack occur in Europe, it would probably drive the Europeans closer to the United States and its approach to the campaign against terror, not away from it.

If you remember Wolfowitz had a similar take on the UN's reaction to the bombing in Baghdad in ~August 2003, he was wrong too. The Bali bombing had the desired of effect of bringing the Aussies on board.

Unifying people in fear was the primary goal of Operation Northwoods. Poppy even tried restarting hostilities with Hussein as he declined in the polls in August or so of '92.

Now Hannity is talking about the possibility of stopping the elections if the US is attacked.

The end game attitude of Bush indicated by the blatant disregard for the law and public will with his unilateral attack on Iraq is anothe indicator that he intends to end democracy. He doesn't care about winning that war or any other war, just in starting them and being a "Chaos Capitalist" both in the fighting and in the aftermath. Then we have Cheney saying to Sect. Treasury O'Neill "deficits dont' matter". The seeming agenda is to bankrupt the US government and let the Biblical Reconstructionists, who coincidently are involved in ownership of the voting machine industry (google ahmanson+chalcedon+voting), work their majic on turning the country into a fascist theocracy (redundant).

I like how they refer to Bush's "unilateral" war while simultaneously blaming the war for the terror attacks in Spain. Isn't cognitive dissonance entertaining? I also like how they think "fascist theocracy" is redundant, even though fascists have a rather...uh...murderous policy toward religion. Very nice. What else do we have?

You can get in trouble for stealing, but not stopping. IMO What Bush has been able to do is hide who is responsible for terrorist attacks. There is a growing body of evidence to show the Al Qaeda link to the Intelligence Community but it still is not near mainstream in the US. So any attack will still be largely considered to be by Al Qaeda without people knowing Al Qaeda's links to the US Intelligence Community. If he can declare Martial Law then he will be able to ratchet down inquiring minds and eyes even further and call a halt to the election process.

Just some thoughts.

Oh, so that's what all this "bin Laden worked for the CIA" talk was about.

Bush will not relinquish the throne. They have any number of ways and will use all of them. Unless there is a revolution, Bush will remain in power.

How do they expect to revolt when they're afraid of guns and war?

I try not to be too cynical but I feel the same way. He wont give up the throne that easily. He/PNAC have too much invested in his reign. They rigged an election to get their boy there and I cant see them going quietly. It'll be either Diebold, an attack that would win him the election, or an attack and a suspension of election/martial law. John Kerry is poised to win this one, possibly by a landslide and Poppy and his facist PNAC buddies will do all they can to make sure junior doesnt go down like he did.

I should keep a running count of how many times I see the word "facist." What does it mean?!

I try very hard not to be too cynical but reality is reality. They will attack this election from all fronts. With so many methods we won't be able to cover everything.

We will be watching Florida but my Mom says, watch California (and elsewhere). There was much more to that recall than just getting Davis out and a repug in as governor. Recently Arnold has been spouting how he can really see California going to Bush in this election. Planting seeds so when it "happens" it's not unexpected.

Add all the dirty tricks from 2000:
absentee ballot fraud.
voter purges - yes they're still doing them in Florida.
now electronic voting with no paper receipt- no chance for manual recounts this time.
Etc., etc.

3 October (or sooner) Surprises - finding WMD's in Iraq, catching Bin Laden, another terrorist attack on US soil.

Supreme Court - nuff said

Majority in Congress & Senate if it gets to a dispute over the electors

Is there any conspiracy theory not covered in that last one?

this is getting serious I myself dont think Bush and his SS soldiers are beyond all this--- I wrote to Will Pitt months ago about this and asked him to get something out on this-----This needs to be brought to the front in the press so that this administration would automatically cancel any plans to take over----Hey they had PNAC---whats to say they dont have some other organization making studies about taking over with martial law if they have too-----why wait until its too late!!!!"

Heh heh. "SS soldiers." I didn't know Bush had a personal army. In case you didn't know, Will Pitt runs Truthout, the paranoid lefty site that, among other things, helped circulate a letter that outlined, in detail, why Bush is like Hitler. Incidentally, I gave that letter an especially "profane" fisking in January.

Let's move on to another really hysterical poster:

chaos capitalists I think describes it best Iraq is in chaos--but nevermind, Halliburton is firmly ensconced and is makiing billions. Bush and his cronies could care less--as long as they have secured the oil fields, all over Iraqk including the lucrative fields in the Kurdish territories.

This is all it was for--all the hubris and Bush posturing--why should he care? He can suspend elections next time around if he sees himself losing to Kerry --all it would take is the declaration that we are under some sort of possible seige or possibly under attack by a possible terrorist. That is all it would take, He will lie about it over and over -- no one whill challenge.

If necessary he will reinforce that lie innumerable times as will Powell, Rice and others attached to him with an unbilical cord enforce the lie. These people are evil.

He is the president and he can do what he wants and what he likes and does not have to explain to anyone, so he has most proudly said. And it is a proven that NO ONE will challenge him or accuse him of being a fascist prick who lied to his own people and invaded a country in their name on lies. They will shut up and do his bidding out of fear, I fear.

Do these people things watch the news, because people have accused Dubya of a lot worse than being a "fascist prick."

My predictions on how it might play out starting October. This election's October Surprise will hardly be a surprise to anyone here. Homeland Security will discover a "terrorist threat" pinned to "specific chatter from Al Qaeda". We will spend the entire month in code orange and perhaps even code red if the threat is deemed "imminent". Rove will have his eyes on the polls to see if the fearmongering is working. If public opinion swings wildly in support of Bush, the threat will be reported "vanquished" by our Fearless Leader and the coronation will commence. If the polls are tight, it could go either way, although with Diebold in place, they will be probably want the illusion of a fair election maintained. But if the effect of five weeks of unproven scare tactics result in a wild swing against the ruling party, a la Spain, there will be a terrorist attack and the election will be suspended. I can't think of any other time since the Civil War that there has been a greater threat to our country.

Wouldn't it be funny if it happened exactly as this poster described it? Well, I think it would be funny. Also, since I'm not going to bother fisking these (DU posts are what we call "reflexive fiskings"), I'll point out something else that popped into my head:

If a poster on...let's say, Free Republic, wrote "I can't think of any other time since the Civil War that there has been a greater threat to our country," DU would use it as an example of "Repug" bigotry, because the Civil War freed the slaves, and those evil racists see it as a threat!

This next one is something I've actually seen in other places:

and Ronald Reagan will die the day before Bush declares Martial law.

That Republican Attack Machine™ has everything figured out, doesn't it?

How they will defuse the revolution that cancelling elections causes, easy

They started that today too. There are already separate threads on here. One thread is headlined that MSNBC has a poll today showing Bush winning handily. Another thread has a headline that AOL has a poll today showing Bush winning handily over Kerry.

Funny how these 'handily winning' polls both come out same day Hannity ponders death to elections.

They have already begun defusing the uproar over a cancelled election. Bogus and numerous push polls showing Bush way ahead (anyway) add to that a terrorist attack and a Red Alert, during the red alert they amazingly FIND the WMD and kill Osama....Well it won't hurt to cancel this election, Bush is way ahead and we need to mourn our dead and celebrate the successes in the Middle East.

Welcome the American Dictatorship of Bush.

I think it's funny that when polls show declining support for Bush, DU uses it as proof that the people are turning against him, but when they go above 50%, they're "bogus."

Just a couple more. You have to go read this thread for yourself.

They've exposed themselves for the fascists they are. Now the public knows for real. The BFEE exists. And they are completely un-American. Only gangsters talk about suspending elections in a democracy. Bush and the people he works for are traitors to the Constitution, the American people, and to the nation.

Certainly, they'll do everything they can to stay in power. The thing is, the government — that is the Pentagon, the CIA, FBI, 50 statehouses, thousands of city halls, hundreds of millions living rooms where the real power in a democracy lies, the People.

They're on the run, 9215! The BFEE is scared. And they fear most the Truth! Let 'em have it. Bush is a CROOK!

What's "BFEE?" Bush Fascists Evading Elections?

By the way, before I stop, let's look at a couple more that have decided to blame Bush directly for the attacks in Madrid:

this stuff is hard to follow sometimes. I keep going back to the psychology of these fascists: what do they think will sway public opinion. IMO, the Bushies thought Spain needed its public opinion swayed to fall in line with the Bushies and Aznar's position. IMO this "Pearl Harbor like attack" was a last ditch attempt by the Bushies to sway public opinion. Now, as you can see in my "OH BOY...." post, since that didn't work the fascist slime have tried to paint the attacks as an attempt by Al Qaeda to divide the people from the "pro-US government". This is an indirect attack on Zapatoro before his first night in office. It is also an indirect way of accusing the Spanish people that they have been duped. And, a big maybe, setting the stage for a California or Venezuela style recall vote.

Hilarious. And the fun doesn't stop there:

I think the bombing was done to drive the dissenting majority in Spain to support Aznar and if Aznar had not sided with the US on Iraq its hard to tell, but I think yes because Aznar would still be the best thing the Bushies could hope for and his not siding with the US would be viewed by the US as he merely defering to a political reality: most of the people didn't want the war. So the need to bring the population "in line" would be the same whether or not Aznar supported the war.

So yea, I think the bombing would have happened in any case where the people were not in support of US policy. IMO all of these acts are done to sway public opinion.

I think of what Brezizinski and PNAC said about the need for a "Pearl Harbor like attack" to galvanize public support for an otherwise unpopular use of military force. It seems to be conventional wisdom among the conservatives that these kinds of actions will unite the people behind the current leader. But things are obviously not as simple as that. It looks like the free Press in Europe makes it more difficult for the Captains of Consciousness to bamboozle the public.

I love the conflicting tinfoil hattery here: "Bush is evil, and he attacked Spain to make them support him, but he's so dumb that he didn't realize it would turn people against him, but he's such an evil genius that he made it look like Al Qaeda or ETA..." Wow.

Just one more, I promise! I'm getting sick of typing the word "blockquote" every 30 seconds.

convenient cars and vans Isn't it funny how they always find something with maps and directions and Arabic writing near these attacks? Why not just a big flashing arrow saying this way to the big attack. On one hand they are telling us this is a worldwide sophisticated network and on the other hand we are to believe they are leaving incriminating evidence all over the place.

"Muslims are so much more devout and sophisticated than you Xtian cowboys, so they would NEVER leave evidence behind! Allahu Akbar!!!!!!"

I'm still having trouble believing that DU's posters are real people. It's best not to think about the fact that a couple dozen of them are old enough to vote.

Posted by CD at 08:40 PM | Comments (3)

Of Course We Love America, You Flag Waving Imperialist!

Thanks to Insignificant Thoughts, I found this interesting story:

For years, Georgia has raised money for wildlife protection by selling custom license plates with wildlife scenes. Sales skyrocketed this year for new tags featuring the bald eagle and the American flag.

But some environmentalists say they do not want to contribute to the state's wildlife protection fund through a flag-waving symbol they believe will be seen as being linked to President Bush.

Is "environmentalist" now synonymous with "hippy?" I can't believe this is a real news article.

"The tag to me said politics, and the wildlife tag shouldn't be. It should be above the fray. It should be Republican. It should be Democrat. Everyone should be for the environment, and that tag doesn't say that," said environmentalist Michael Moody.

"It should be above the fray. It should be Republican. It should be Democrat."

I just thought I'd let you read that twice and think about it. According to Michael Moody, the American flag does not represent all Americans. Fascinating.

While a handful of liberal environmentalists claim the bald eagle and Old Glory together implies support for President Bush, big business and the war in Iraq...

I didn't realize the symbols of our nation were corporate logos now.

...state wildlife officials say when they test-marketed several license plate designs, the eagle and flag tag came in first.

"The Sheeple™! The Sheeple™ blindly support Bushchimpler!!!"

"We understand the conservationists or environmentalists may have preferred to see a more habitat-oriented design on this tag. However, we are trying to appeal to a broader market to support wildlife funding in Georgia," said Beth Brown of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

Which leads me to my next question: If they can't stand to see the American flag, why are they interested in protecting America's environment?

That strategy appears to be working. In January, the eagle and flag plate outsold Georgia's other wildlife tag, which features deer and quail, by a margin of two to one.


...Yeah. Remember, just because some liberals are offended by the American flag, there's no reason to question their patriotism.


Posted by CD at 06:41 PM | Comments (1)

I'm Suing!

Look at this banner ad that's occasionally popping up on my Sitemeter pages.

"AIDS is preventable. Apathy is lethal."

Sounds a lot like "Dissent is healthy; Stupidity is deadly," doesn't it?


Posted by CD at 06:26 PM | Comments (1)


I think this may be the first time I'm posting about the Daily Orange for some reason other than making fun of it. There's a great full-page ad near the back. Here's the text of it, with fonts and things edited to resemble its actual appearance:

What COLOR is a Conservative?
The College Republicans and the Young Americans Foundation proudly present

Former U.S. Congressman
Aide to George W. Bush
Former Oklahoma Sooners Quarterback & Grey Cup MVP

What Color is a Conservative?

March 23, 2004
8:00 p.m.
Goldstein Auditorium
Question & Answer session at 9:00 p.m.

This is a good sign. And I'm NOT being sarcastic. I may have to check this out.

Posted by CD at 05:18 PM | Comments (2)

March 16, 2004

Media Bias? NO!!!

You know what's really interesting? When a seven year-old boy corrected President Bush, it was big news. When President Bush accidentally included a man in a list of influential women, it was big news. When it was revealed that President Bush didn't serve the same turkey to troops in Iraq that he was holding in photos, it was big news. When a whole 60 people marched on the White House to protest the war, it was the biggest story of the day.

On the other hand, if there's a revolt in Iran, you have to go here for information. When people are killed and rounded up in Syria, you hear about it here. When about 10,000 people march in support of the War on Terror in Iraq, it gets virtually no coverage.

Oh. That liberal media.

Posted by CD at 10:59 PM | Comments (2)


Don't ask. Anyway, if I don't blog much in the next couple days, it'll probably be because I'm studying one of these books:

On Directing Film, by David Mamet

The Innocence of the Eye, by Ed Spiegel

On Writing Well, by William Zinsser

Why my TV/Radio/Film professor decided to have the midterm after spring break
is beyond me, but there's not much I can do.

Posted by CD at 08:37 PM | Comments (1)

Does This Count As 2000 Words?

I thought I'd post a couple pictures for no particular reason. First of all, here's a picture of the view out my window right now. I think I'll call it...

Spring is in the air!

Also, as long as I had the camera out, I figured I'd jump on the bandwagon and post a picture of the area where I do my blogging. Check it out:

CD's blogspace

In case you weren't sure, that is SIT on the computer screen. I'm so egotistical sometimes...

Posted by CD at 02:32 PM | Comments (4)

Another Question of the Day

I should make this a regular feature. It's kind of different and...interactive.

Anyway, today's question is something else I've been thinking about for a while, and it has to do with drugs. I bet you're all paying attention now.

Question: Some people say that it's hypocritical to make alcohol legal while making drugs like marijuana illegal because they're all mind-altering substances, but does it make any difference that alcohol can be consumed in moderation or used for social purposes without causing serious problems, while the only real purpose of smoking marijuana, shooting heroin, etc. is to get high?

In other words, if you drink beer, you might not be doing it to get drunk. You might just like beer. However, if you smoke marijuana, you're most likely doing it because you enjoy being high on marijuana. Should that make a difference in legislation?

What do you think?

(NOTE: I'm personally opposed to drug legalization, but I'm not necessarily trying to argue for or against that position by pointing out this difference. I just think it's an interesting question.)

Posted by CD at 12:27 PM | Comments (5)

How Does This Help Me Learn the Language?

Okay, this is stupid. I'm studying for a Spanish test right now. A few of the subjects on the test include:

-The history of Spain, including various groups that have occupied it over the centuries
-Ancient Mayan civilization
-The culture of indigenous groups in Central America
-Indigenous religious practices as described by Rigoberta Menchú
-A short story by Bernardo Atxaga



¡Idiotas! ¡Sus lecturas sobre cultura y historia no me ayudan hablar la idioma español! No voy a visitar estos países o encontrar estas personas, ¿pero ustedes piensan que yo doy un mierda sobre ellos? ¡Esta clase es un chiste!

...Okay, I feel better now. Back to studying...

Posted by CD at 01:41 AM | Comments (4)

March 15, 2004

Brief Theory

After reading a few comments over at Calpundit, along with months of DU and similar sites, I've come up with a theory. It's not really original, but it's still a theory:

If we catch Osama bin Laden any time within the next 12 months, the moonbat left will call it a conspiracy.

Think about it. If we catch him in the next couple months, they'll say that we did it to make Bush look stronger on defense than Kerry and draw attention away from the bombings in Spain. If we catch him near the election, it will be an "October surprise" meant to make us think the War on Terror is a success.

If we catch him after the election (assuming Bush wins), they'll say that Bush purposely waited to reveal it so all the Sheeple™ would vote to keep him in office until he could finish the job he started.

In any case, they know that Osama's been caught already, and some even think he's been working with us. We did arm him in the first place (supposedly)!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Posted by CD at 05:27 PM | Comments (3)

Question of the Day

Okay, I've got work piling up on me by the second, so I'm not sure how much blogging I'll be able to do for the next couple days, but we'll see about that.

Anyway, I want to change the tone here a little today and bring up something I haven't really covered for a while. I used to write a lot more posts on a moral/philosophical/ethical level, but lately, everything has been purely political. Where's the fun in that? I may be a TV/Radio/Film major, but I also love moral philosophy and related topics (including those related to terminology, as you'll see in a second).

Yeah. So, in accordance with my desire to get back to these kinds of posts, here's something I brought up a while back, but never got an answer to, and it's in the form of a hypothetical question:

Mr. X and Mr. Y are friends. Both of them have certain beliefs about the world, including the morality of various sexual behavior. For example, Mr. X believes that it's immoral to have sexual relations outside of marriage. Mr. Y believes that it's immoral to have sexual relations with a member of your own gender.

So, here's the question: Based on that information, and that information alone (nothing about unions, marriage, equality, or anything, but just the behavior itself), why is it that society can, at worst, call Mr. X a "prude" or "old-fashioned," but it can call Mr. Y a hateful, homophobic, intolerant bigot?


Posted by CD at 11:41 AM | Comments (7)

March 14, 2004

The Politics of Poodle Projection

Maureen Dowd just keeps getting more pathetic. Her latest column, entitled The Politics of Self-Pity, seems to suggest that since President Bush doesn't take the blame for every bad thing that happens, they all must be his fault. Check it out:

The Politics of Self-Pity By MAUREEN DOWD


Republicans relished their philosophy of personal responsibility last week with John Belushi's famous mantra: Cheeseburgercheeseburgercheeseburger.

It's always good to start off an NYT opinion piece with a John Belushi reference. This should be entertaining.

When the House passed the "cheeseburger bill" to bar people from suing fast food joints for making them obese, Republican backers of the legislation scolded Americans, saying the fault lies not in their fries, but in themselves.

Worst. Shakespeare allusion. EVER.

"Look in the mirror, because you're the one to blame," said F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, home of brats and beer bellies.

I'm sure they'll appreciate your giving them that reputation.

So it comes as something of a disappointment that the leader of the Republican Party, the man who epitomizes the conservative ideal...

You must not know a lot of conservatives, Mauron. playing the victim. President Bush has made the theme of his re-election campaign a whiny "not my fault."

Really? I thought it was "Steady leadership in times of change." If you hear "not my fault" somewhere in there, you may want to see a psychiatrist.

His ads, pilloried for the crass use of the images of a flag-draped body carried from ground zero...

Pilloried in 57 ways, if you get my drift...

...and an Arab-looking everyman with the message, "We can fight against terrorists..."

"You racists! How dare you suggest that Islamic terrorists are Arabs!"

...actually have a more fundamental problem.

I'm thinking the problem is your inability to see the surface value of anything, but I could be wrong.

They try to push off blame for anything that's gone wrong during Mr. Bush's tenure on bigger forces, supposedly beyond his control.

You're not one of those LIHOP (Let [9/11] Happen On Purpose) people, are you?

One ad cites "an economy in recession. A stock market in decline. A dot-com boom gone bust. Then a day of tragedy. A test for all Americans."

And how exactly was Bush responsible for 9/11, a dot-com bust, and an economic/stock market recession largely caused by those 2 things?

Mr. Bush's subtext is clear: If it weren't for all these awful things that happened, most of them hangovers from the Clinton era, I definitely could have fulfilled all my promises. I'm still great, but none of my programs worked because, well, stuff happens."

None of his programs worked? I'm sure the liberated people of Iraq and Afghanistan would appreciate hearing that they're part of a failure. As for the economy, if someone like you still has a job, I'd say it's doing pretty well.

It's as if his inner fat boy is complaining that a classic triple cheeseburger from Wendy's (940 calories and 56 grams of fat, 25 of them saturated, and 2,140 milligrams of sodium) jumped out of its wrapper and forced its way down his unwilling throat, topped off by a pushy Frosty (540 calories and 13 grams of fat, 8 of them saturated).

Are you saying that he screwed up on purpose?

Mr. Bush has been in office over three years. It's time to start accepting some responsibility.

I'm willing to bet that you won't be happy until he apologizes for every problem in the world, right down to that guy who cut you off in traffic on the way to work.

Republicans have a bad habit of laying down rules for other people to follow while excluding themselves. Look how they beat up Bill Clinton for messing around with a young woman, while many top Republicans were doing the very same thing.

Let's see many of them lied under oath about it? How many of them accepted a job where they were expected to represent the entire United States with honor and integrity, then debated the meaning of the word "is?" Oh, right: Just Clinton. Idiot.

Mr. Bush's whingeing was infectious.

"Whingeing?" That's a new one. I wonder if it's even a word. Hmmm...Nope. That's really sad. (UPDATE: Apparently, "whingeing" is a British word for "whining." Still, why switch to European spellings for no reason...?)

The very House Republicans who greased the skids for the cheeseburger bill got in a huff over John Kerry's overheard comment to some supporters in Chicago that his Republican critics were "the most crooked, you know, lying group" he'd ever seen.

How are those two things even remotely analogous? I can't see a real parallel between telling people to take responsibility for their actions and getting upset over being called crooked liars. Care to elaborate?

These tough-guy Republicans, who rule the House with an iron fist, were suddenly squealing like schoolgirls at being victimized by big, bad John Kerry.

How come only lefties get to use that Get Out of Criticism Free Card™ they always seem to have up their sleeves? Notice how nobody claimed that their patriotism was being questioned, and nobody mentioned squashing of dissent? It's called "asking for clarification."

I know that in your mind, it's a fact that the Republicans are crooked liars, but some of us like "proof." Do you know what proof is? It's not a[n] pretend obscure word like "whingeing."

J. Dennis Hastert, the House speaker, said Mr. Kerry would have his "upcomeance coming." Tom DeLay sulked that the public was getting "a glimpse of the real John Kerry." The Hammer was talking like a nail.

"The Democrats can say nasty things about the Republicans, but the Republicans aren't allowed to fight back! That would be mean!!!"

Marc Racicot, Mr. Bush's campaign chairman, accused Mr. Kerry of "unbecoming" conduct and called on him to apologize.

Is there something wrong with that? When was the last time Bush made a sweeping generalization of his entire opposition?

Oh, the poor dears. The very Bush crowd that savaged John McCain in South Carolina, that bullied and antagonized the allies we need in the real war on terror...

What f**king universe are you living in? We practically frickin' begged them to help us for years. Does that count as bullying now?

...that is spending a hundred million dollars on ads that will turn Mr. Kerry into something akin to the Boston Strangler;

The ads say that Kerry is "wrong." I don't know how you get "John Kerry is a murderer" out of that. Did you make an appointment with that psychiatrist yet?

...these guys are suddenly such delicate flowers, such big bawling babies, that they can't bear to hear Mr. Kerry speak of them harshly.

And yet, you seem to be spontaneously combusting because Bush dared to suggest that Kerry (not the entire Democrat Party, but ONLY John Kerry) is wrong. HFC: Hooray. For. Consistency.

Mr. Bush is not believable in the victim's role.

Probably because you're the only one trying to cast him there. There is a gray area in between "responsible for everything" and "victimized by everything."

He and Dick Cheney have audaciously imposed their will on Washington and the world.

How dare they! You'd think they were some kinda leaders or sumthin'!

We are not yet sure who is behind the horrendous bombings in Spain, but they have already underscored how vulnerable our trains and subways are.

"Our trains and subways?" They attacked Spain, MoDo, not America.

"All your train are belong to U.S.!"

And they have reminded us that the administration diverted resources from the war on terror and the search for Osama to settle old scores in Iraq, building a case for war with hyped and phony claims on weapons.

Why doesn't she just say "Bush lied, people died" or "Junior had to impress Daddy?" She could've saved a ton of valuable newsprint.

In an interview with The Guardian, the weapons sleuth David Kay said it's time for Mr. Bush to take personal responsibility: "It's about confronting and coming clean with the American people. . . . He should say: `We were mistaken and I am determined to find out why.' "

Is the investigation of our intelligence failures a figment of my imagination?

In other words, Mr. Bush, look in the mirror.

Sure. Then you'll probably remind him that he looks like a chimp. That's on about the same intellectual level as the rest of your tinfoil hatted Bush-bashing.

Why does she still have a job?

Posted by CD at 08:28 PM | Comments (6)

Back to School...Back to School...

Okay, I'm heading back up to SU, so I probably won't post again until at least Sunday night, if anyone cares. Just a couple quick things to cover:

- If you want to ask me any questions for the upcoming "interview," send them to Jennifer as soon as possible.

- I managed to get an endorsement from another presidential candidate. Just thought I'd point that out.

-...That's it, I guess.

I'll be fisking Maureen Dowd's latest column at some point today, just so you know. Crap, that woman is dumb...

Posted by CD at 12:11 AM | Comments (1)

March 13, 2004

Lib Satire

Don't ask how I found this. Seriously. I'm not going to tell you.

Anyway, some of the stuff they use on these cards reinforces a point somebody made in the comments of this IMAO post post a couple days ago: Liberals like to make fun of conservatives by satirizing their own wild conspiracy theories instead of actually looking at what they do.

For example, Dick Cheney is identified as the president, Karl Rove is identified as a puppeteer, John Ashcroft is called the "Head of Secret Police," etc. Compare that to the Deck of Weasels cards, which simply show a picture of the person (albeit with a Saddam-esque beret) and a quotation from that person. The idiocy speaks for itself. No tinfoil hat required.

Do you get the feeling the left doesn't have a lot of real material to work with?

Posted by CD at 09:46 PM | Comments (3)

Lefties and Debate

I usually don't post much on Saturday, but I want to cover something today that I've touched on before. There's a discussion going on right now over at Spatula City BBS about the difference between liberals and conservatives in an argument. Here's an excerpt:

Conservatives seem to have no trouble with the very Jeffersonian idea that someone can disagree with you, and he can still be a good person with good motives who simply has reached different conclusions about a specific topic. To libs, OTOH, that sentence seems to be utterly inconceivable - and I chose that word with care because that's exactly what it is, they literally CANNOT conceive of it, the concept is unable to enter their consciousness.

I've been in very few debates with actual liberals (although I did know a self-proclaimed socialist in high school who liked to tell me that "conservatives eat babies"), but in the blogosphere and in news/editorials, etc., I've definitely noticed this difference. I've written about it a few times before in relation to elitism and the childish mental characteristic of not being able to recognize different beliefs. However, I realized something else about this yesterday, and I'll explain that here.

I was doing my usual blog surfing yesterday, and this post at Conservative English Major got my attention. Check out the end:

...I said that basically 100% of the faculty in our program: 1 - hate Bush, 2 - think socialism is a great idea, 3 - think religion is for unthinking dupes and 4 - want more affirmative action, not less. I was informed those last four positions were NOT opinions, but facts (or truisms) about the world.

THAT is the problem with liberal thought. To them, opinions=facts. If you disagree with them, you must be evil, because the truth should be so obvious that you don't actually need to debate. I've said this several times before.

For example, if a liberal is trying to promote affirmative action, it's usually because they KNOW that racism is rampant among caucasian males, and they have to do something to stop it. If you suggest that affirmative action is racist because it discriminates on the basis of race, all they can think about is the "fact" that white people are racists, so they call you a racist for wanting to hold back minorities. If you try to debate, you're an evil, racist bigot, because obviously, there's racism everywhere, and only a racist wouldn't be able to see it.

Socialism causes similar problems. To the liberal, most people are basically good and want to help out the group, but a small percentage of mean, greedy, evil people have always caused socialism to fail by taking the resources for themselves. If you try to explain that people generally are greedy and self-centered, you must BE one of the evil people, or else you would want to help out your fellow man like everyone else.

It also seems to work this way with same-sex marriage. Since gays should obviously have the right to marry, the only people who could possibly be against it are homophobic religious zealots who hate gay people. If you try to explain that marriage is meant to benefit children and give us a structure for society, they won't listen, because they know that "gay families" are 100% equal to normal ones.

I especially like how they always say that the "religious right" is single-handedly trying to stop gay marriage from happening. Never mind the fact that a decent percentage of non-religious people oppose it. They're just pretending not to be religious so they can continue their bigotry!!!

Anyway, back to my main point. I've talked about the above points before, but something else hit me yesterday: Why are liberals constantly accusing conservatives of "lying?"

Answer: Because disagreeing with them, in their minds, is the equivalent of lying! Think about it. Since they "know" or "feel" the truth, any opinion they have is truthful by default. For example, the things I mentioned above: White people are racists even if they don't know it, gay and straight marriages are perfectly equal, most people are altruists at heart, etc.

Therefore, they don't think that debate should be necessary, because any good, honest person would already know the "truth" like they do. Since liberal opinion=fact, conservative opinion=lies. I don't know why I never thought about this before, but it makes sense.

This can be applied to the War on Terror in particular. Why are we constantly hearing the "Bush lied, people died" meme? Because to the left, it's OBVIOUS that Bush lied. In fact, it's the TRUTH that Bush lied, and anyone who disagrees is either a VRWC operative or one of the many "sheeple" who were fooled into thinking that Iraq was a theat.

An IMMINENT threat, in fact. Remember that? Bush told us that Iraq was an imminent threat, right? Well, no. But since liberals believe it, it MUST be true, and if you try to explain what he said in the SOTU, you're a liar!

Bush also said that Iraq had WMD, but since he said that to convince us that war was necessary, he must have been lying! War is evil, so any honest person wouldn't want war! The only way you can convince people to go to war is LYING!!! Since liberals "know" that Iraq had no WMD, they also "know" that Bush lied, and he is therefore evil.

This can be applied to a lot of other things, but you probably get the point by now. To a lot of liberals, there is no difference between a fact and an opinion, and that's why they don't like debate. When you argue with them, you're not trying to explain why your opinion is better than theirs; You're trying to fool them into thinking that the truth isn't true!

Unfortunately, it's also "true" to a lot of them that conservatives are evil liars, so they use emotional arguments to try and change our minds, because they can't see any real value in our opinions. How can you argue for a lie?


Posted by CD at 04:13 PM | Comments (4)

March 12, 2004

It's About Freakin' Time!

Court Orders San Francisco Officials to Halt Gay Marriages

Why did this take so friggin' long? They should've arrested Newsom the moment he broke the friggin' law! Let's look at the story:

The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered city officials here to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, bringing at least a temporary end to a monthlong experiment that had thrust San Francisco to the forefront of a national debate on gay marriage.

"Experiment?" It was a violation of state law, you idiots!

"Effective immediately, we are stopping the issuance and recordation of same-sex marriage licenses," the city's assessor-recorder, Mabel S. Teng, announced at a news conference after receiving word of the court's unanimous decision.

The court did not rule on the legality of the marriages, nor did it address the constitutional issues raised by city officials in defense of them. It also left open the possibility that the city could issue the licenses again after further review of two lawsuits on the matter.

The marriages are illegal, dang it! Why is this so hard to understand? If you want to make them legal, go through the right process instead of complaining that existing laws are mean.

"The people who were seeking to stop the marriages prevailed for the time being," said Jesse H. Choper, professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Berkeley. "The only question was who would win for the time being, and they won for the time being."

The ruling came as Massachusetts legislators moved a step closer to amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. [Page A12.]

If the frickin' social activists masquerading as politicians won't follow the law, I say go for it.

Opponents of the marriages, stymied in several efforts to block them in the lower courts, declared a long-awaited victory.

"It is an overdue day, but a good day," said State Senator William J. Knight, a Palmdale Republican who was the author of a successful ballot measure in 2000 opposing same-sex marriages. "Finally the courts have taken action to put an end to the anarchy in San Francisco."

I'm surprised they didn't call him a "religious extremist" or something.

The ruling came as a shock to city officials and groups who support same-sex marriages despite a state ban in state law.

"I'm shocked! What right do those bigots have to enforce the law?!"

The advocacy group Marriage Equality California organized a march from the Castro District to the Supreme Court building for a rally.

Don't you people have f**king jobs?

Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city would continue to challenge the constitutionality of the state's ban in court. The city filed a lawsuit Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court raising some of its concerns.

Why is this @sshat not in prison yet? He. Broke. The. Law.

"I believe confidently that when we get to the constitutional question, I will prevail," Mr. Newsom said at a news conference. "But I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other setbacks in this process. This is the beginning of a struggle, hardly the end."

You just keep pretending that you're the victim here, moron. Your Quixotic little quest against an invented enemy is going down the crapper at this point anyway.

The Supreme Court said it would consider in May or June whether city officials, under Mr. Newsom's direction, acted beyond their authority "in refusing to enforce the provisions" of the state's family code that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Did they act beyond their authority? Let's see here...YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the meantime, the justices directed San Francisco officials "to enforce and apply the provisions" of the family code without regard to their "personal view of the constitutionality" of the laws. In allowing the licenses to be issued, Mayor Newsom had argued that the State Constitution's guarantee of equal protection took precedence.

If you could point out what part of the Constitution specifies that equal protection allows the creation of new privileges, that might help your cause just a bit.

The court issued the ruling in two separate cases. One was brought by the California attorney general, Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, at the urging of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. The other was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a religious group based in Arizona.

"I am pleased to learn the justices of the California Supreme Court determined this matter to be an issue of fundamental statewide importance," Mr. Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

Well, when state laws are violated by the people who were hired to uphold them, you usually want to put a stop to it as quickly as possible.

Erwin Chemerinsky, professor of public interest law at the University of Southern California, said the court's ruling amounted to "a freezing of the status quo," as it existed before the first license was issued to a same-sex couple on Feb. 12.

Um, no, it amounts to a proper application of the frickin' law.

Professor Chemerinsky, who had predicted that the court would not get involved in the matter, described the ruling as "extraordinary" and said it offered hints about the justices' thinking about the legality of the marriages.

"I think what we know at this stage is it means they are troubled with what San Francisco is doing," he said.

Truly brilliant deduction. Them professors sure is smart.

Several couples who were waiting at City Hall for appointments to receive licenses were turned away, some of them in tears.

Sucks to be them.

"They were heartbroken," said the county clerk, Nancy Alfaro, whose office issues marriage licenses. "It was very sudden."

Boo. Frickity. Hoo.

At last count, Mr. Newsom said that more than 4,100 licenses had been issued to same-sex couples. An additional 2,600 couples had made appointments for a license.

And a whopping 0 of them are valid.

Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and among the witnesses at the first same-sex marriage ceremony, said proponents were disappointed but not deterred. Ms. Kendell warned against reading too much into the court's order.

"They don't really want to put a stop to gay marriage! They were just coerced by the hatemongers!"

"I think the California Supreme Court has signaled one thing and one thing only," she said, "and that is a desire to approach this historic moment cautiously, deliberately and slowly. We consider this to be simply a pause."

You just keep telling yourself that.

The reaction among some couples at City Hall was more emotional. Patricia Egan, 46, a real estate agent, and Meghan Wharton, 29, a lawyer, were among the first would-be newlyweds who were turned away from the county clerk's office.

The two women had flown to San Francisco in the morning from Phoenix for a 2:30 p.m. appointment. They had filled out the proper paperwork for the license, but when they approached the counter for their appointment they learned that they were two minutes too late.

Actually, they were about a generation too early.

"I thought they were kidding," Ms. Wharton said. " I didn't think it was possible, and certainly it wasn't possible to happen to me. I started crying. I'm devastated."

One final question, then: Why is it so horrible that they were denied something they never even needed until now? What difference does it make?

Good old "tolerance."

Posted by CD at 05:44 PM | Comments (2)

More DU Comedy

This is just funny. Check out what happens to the profiles of people who are banned from DU:

T3h T0mb5t0n3

Want to know the best part? The name of that graphic is "dead_freeper.jpg"

(Hat tip: The comments to this post.)

Posted by CD at 03:33 AM | Comments (2)

March 11, 2004

Sample Audio

Okay, I managed to work out a very complicated process that lets me upload small audio files to the blog, so I figured I'd put one here just because I can.

Among other things, I recorded a sample of the drum part I came up with for "Ransom," the judicial activism song I posted earlier. This is a 50 second mp3 taken from the full recording, which is about 5 minutes long. It's not perfect, but it's close enough to what I wanted.

I'm not doing this for any particular reason, by the way. I just think it's cool that I can upload sound now. Anyway, here's the clip (the hi-hat part is the verse, and the chorus starts when the crash ride comes in):

Ransom drums

...Yeah. I know this is technically a political blog, so I won't be posting a lot of music stuff, but let me know if you want to hear more. I've got a couple solos that I could post in 1 minute increments if necessary.

Posted by CD at 10:48 PM | Comments (1)

Terrorism is Never the Work of Terrorists!

I'm sure that by now, most of you have heard about the terror attack in Spain. Al Qaeda has allegedly claimed responsibility. Makes sense, right?

Well, not to DU. They're actually being a little less crazy than I expected, but you can tell that they're just looking for a way to blame the attacks on Bush and/or the Spanish government. For example, here are some responses from a thread entitled In the Last Half Hour, I Think the Attacks Have Begun!!:

NOTE: Just to be fair, these don't represent the majority of responses, but they are real responses. Thank you.

In Madrid they are now reporting finding van that has a bunch of detonators in it and a Koran tape. Thus, they are now looking at the bombings as possible bin Laden boys rather than Basque faction. But, get this, the van was located from a "tip" and the tape is the kind of Koran readings you can buy in any store. The French have joined in and now gone to a high terrorist alert. Now, tell me, who the hell benefits from making it sound like the Evil doers are on the march and we could get hit at any moment, too??? In fact, was the orginal bombings done by any of these groups and when the Spanish just didn't get it and blamed it on the Basque, they had to be pointed in a desired direction?? Then came the arrest of US spy just in to the newsrooms.

They arrested a woman who was a aide to two Democratic (emphasize Democratic) congresspeople in the past (Mosley-Braun--as in presidential candidate) one of them. She was seen being taken away yelling that she is an anti-war activist!! Let see: a spying Dem, anti-war unpatriotic Democrat working for Sadaam---can't trust those stinkin' Dems you know to fight terror.

Finally, even though they've been talking about Kerry's off mike remarks today, they suddenly have burst forth as if they just discovered that this just shows the terrible real character of Kerry. Apparently, they weren't pumping it hard enough so it was juiced up for the evening crowd as they come home.

And, just coincidentally, tonight Bush launches his ads against Kerry. Dear God I smell something.......this isn't just coincidental.

Emphasis added, by the way. I just find it amazing that they somehow connect a terror attack with Bush's campaign and his alleged quest to call Democrats unpatriotic. Again, there isn't as much tinfoil-hattery as I expected, but some of these responses are too good to ignore:

It's one thing to criticize Kerry and another to have a "backdrop" when announcing. This uping of terror, terrorism, spies, etc. is a beautiful frame for this evenings launch of those ads. I wondered for weeks what they were going to do to kick off the ads because simply airing ads wasn't enough. There had to be some boosting up of scare of terror in order to get the people in "no mood" for people that Pres. Bush says guts budgets to fight terror, etc.

Just give them a little time, and they'll be screaming "Reichstag." Trust me. What else do they have to say?

I had the feeling at 3:00 that the windup for the change was just given the go ahead so that we can be blasted with terror images and arrested spy Dems (why do they have to emphasize she worked for Dems?) so that the commercials that will air this evening give the old one, two punch. Bush needs a little help from his friends---and friends like these intend to give him the moon.

That was about all I could find blaming Bush directly for the attacks, but in the extended entry, we'll see how they managed to blame him indirectly for making conditions right for terror. This is a bit more interesting.

First, we'll look at this thread, entitled Report: Al-Qaida claims Madrid attack that kills 190. Of course, DU can't accept that Al Qaeda would actually attack someone other than the evil, Muslim-hating United States, so let's see what they came up with.

Our first hilarious post is a reaction to a line in the cited article saying that "The London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi said Thursday it had received a claim of responsibility issued by The Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri in the name of Al-Qaida for the Madrid terrorist attacks that killed at least 190 people and wounded 1,247."

Isn't Abu Hafs al-Masri arabic for Karl Rove?

I can't make this stuff up. Now, let's look at the general responses:

...remember that unemployment figures...and eventually inflation figures are to be released here in the States. Either way, its an attempted manipulation of the events in order to keep the sheeple scared.

That wretched fearmongering!

Chimpy took his eyes off the ball to chase pipeline dreams...

We could have spent the last 2 and a half years engaging al-Queda, but Chimpy HAD to have that oil and his PNAC puppetmasters HAD to have those bases.

So instead, we got distracted by Iraq, suffered thousands of casualties, poured recruits into Al Queda's ranks and this is the result.

Four more years of Chimpy and we'll see Osama sitting in the Oval Office accepting America's surrender. We have GOT to get someone in there who knows what they're doing!

There we go! So, it WAS Al Qaeda, but it was Dubya's fault!

Just two weeks back...remember...that there were rumors (quickly dispelled) by the Pakistanis andthe US that Osama had "been caught"... There were also reports that increased military actions were expected in order to capture Osama because "he was surrounded".

Its just Goldstein of Orwellian fame...

They're so freakin' predictable! They've already blamed the attack on scare tactics, oil, failed foreign policy, and Orwellian enemy creation, but notice that it's always AMERICA'S FAULT!

Once again, I couldn't find as much material as I wanted, but let's look at one more thread where they manage to blame Bush for the attacks. This one is called Explosion at Atocha Railway Station in Madrid
Check it out:

Blood on their hands For the Spanish government that decided to align itself with the American Terrorist President, in spite of the fact that 90% of Spain's citizens opposed the war.

Yep, Bush is the terrorist, not Al Qaeda. Nice.

It makes no sense for Al Queda to attack Spain 90% of the Spanish people oppose involvement in Iraq or Bush's "war on terra". Why attack them then? It would be counterproductive.

Once again, we see that terror attacks are all the result of Bush's policies.

This next one is pretty long, so I'll bold the best parts:

Spain's GOVERNMENT supports the war...and BUSH

That's why it makes PERFECT sense.. It's a message.. Side with the US and you are never going to be safe..

What we are attempting to engage in is a war of attrition.. The "terrah-ists" will always win.. We have to thwart them 100% of the time to win.. They only have to succeed 1% of the time to "win".. They know that militarily, they could never defeat us, but by threatening disruptive violence against supporters of BUSH , and the US , through him, they win every time..

It's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to live in a "free society" and also be "safe" from people who are willing to blow themselves up , in order to kill more of us than theirs..

The time has come for "advanced" countries to just plain BACK OFF.. Get our troops off of foreign soil.. If these people truly have the support of their people, we certainly do not need to waste our time trying to "christian-ize" them and make them watch MTV and Brittney.. Their own people will deal with them when they become too oppressive..

We are modern... they claim to want no part of it.. Leave them alone..

If they oppress their own people, and yet the people love them for it, and support them, who are WE to tell the rest of the world that they MUST be removed??

Radical Islam is a dangerous force, but poverty is what fuels it.. Instead of blowing stuff up and killing people, why not approach it from a humanitarian angle..

Tourism, trade, and humanitarian aid should be the "three legs of the stool"....instead of bombs, bullets & bases....

How would we feel if the situation were reversed?? Would we appreciate foreigners coming to the US and setting up bases?? What if they disagreed with OUR religion?

Our adventurism is causing a lot of the discord ..and it's spreading..

I know that was a lot, but I had to include the whole thing. Isn't it good to know that hippies are still literate?, it isn't.

I hope that it was ETA (the Basques) and not something Bush* can blame on Al Qaeda. I think that he and his crew have promoted Osama as the Uber-Bogeyman and made it seem that terrorism is some new enemy we must fight...

Terrorism isn't the enemy? What were we thinking?!

What this attack says loud and clear is that the world IS NOT safer since Bush launched his war on terror. On the contrary, the world and the US is much worse off because the terrorists, once disperse groups with individual agendas, have now come together in an organized way against the US and its allies. We may be feared but we are no longer respected, trusted, or admired. Fear only makes you strike back and the terrorists could say that they are launching their own brand of "pre-emption" in response to an all out declaration of war by the Bush regime.

Howard Dean?!! You post on DU?

Who Benefits From This Attack? Will It be used as a campaign prop as AWOL uses 9/11?

if it was A.Q., who hired them?

Now they're afraid that the Spanish government will exploit the attacks. Gotta love that classic liberal empathy.

perfect timing

"131 dead, 400 wounded"
"...leader of the Basque movement Batasuna connected to ETA says the purpatrators must be sought in muslim circles.."
"... in recent years attacks by ETA have been directed primarily at officials..."

"... next sunday there are elections in Spain.."

(source: local teletext, Netherlands)

So there's a few hints this may not be the work of ETA.

Current Spanish govt is in favor of Bush's various wars, however millions of voters took to the streets in protest.

tinfoil: this is a false-flag operation to coherce Spanish voters to choose for a hard crackdown wrt "the war on terror"; please hand over your civil rights etc.

At least they'll admit when they're wearing the hats occasionally.

In elections next week, to whom are jittery voters likely to turn?

The right.

Italy's fascist P2 Lodge - to which Silvio Berlusconi was a member, and George HW Bush an honorary member - engineered similar feats attributed to "the Red Brigade" to discredit the Italian left in the 1970s.

The same thing will happen in Canada before our general election. Until now I'd feared it; now I'm resigned to it. And what will happen to the left vote? It will flee to the right's message of heightened "security."

Go ahead, call me crazy. Just wait for it.


Today's the day Bush* breaks ground on the 9/11 memorial

Just announced on CNN.

I'm just throwing this out there.

Back to blaming Bush.

I guess it will give the rotten *sob something to talk about. It would be very easy to mimic Al Queda since their hallmarks are well know. This was a professional job. I am breaking out the 'value pack' of reynolds wrap as we speak.

Now we're back to normal. They're blaming Dubya for the attacks. Beautiful.

Reichstag Fire Just read "best of friends," and it sure will put the tinfoil hat on you.


Man, this is getting too easy. I need to stop now.

Once again, draw your own conclusions.

Posted by CD at 05:08 PM | Comments (2)

New Song Lyrics

All right, beal struck yet again, and I couldn't think of anything to write about on Wednesday. Fortunately, I have been working on some new song lyrics, as I said a couple days ago. The two I mentioned are now finished, so I'll put them here.

The lyrics are also posted on my SongBlog, along with the non-political songs I've written, so you can check that out too if you want. Including these newest two, I've written a total of 12 songs, and number 13 (a non-political one) is almost done. Now all I need is a band to play them...

Anyway, I'll put the introductions here, and then I'll put the lyrics themselves in the extended entry. The first song is called "Choice," and it's about abortion. I don't think I really need to explain anything else, but in case you didn't know, I'll remind you that I'm EXTREMELY pro-life. Baby killin' isn't a good thing.

I actually have the music for that one pretty much worked out. I think it would sound best as a death metal song, since it is about death. In my head, it sounds a lot like "Disposable Heroes" by Metallica, so if you've heard that one, just stick these lyrics into it and you'll get the idea. I can't actually play it right now because I don't have a double bass, so I can only imagine it at the moment.

The other song is called "Ransom," and it's about the recent judicial activism, as well as abuse of power in general. Again, that's pretty self-explanatory. I also have music for this one worked out, and I might record the drums later this week (I can't play guitar, so that's the best I can do). All I have to do is figure out how to upload mp3 files. In any case, I think it would sound best as kind of a slow, heavy song. If you've heard "Throw Yourself Away" by Nickelback (and you probably haven't), it's very similar to that.

Anyway, here are the lyrics themselves. Sorry about being so long-winded there:

You don't want to take responsibility
For the things you do
You just want to live your life conveniently
Without thinking things through
Now you want to rewrite your own history
Erase the mistake you made
But an innocent life for nine months of security
Isn't a fair trade


You didn't think about what you were doing
Until it was too late
And now instead of dealing with the consequences
You've sealed another's fate
So you walk in and you have them rip it out
Saving your pride by force
You say you have a right to control your own body
But this body isn't yours


Did you think you were doing him a favor
Were you just not ready to deal with the labor
Are you even sorry for what you've done
Or will you just go make another one
Open your eyes and maybe you'll see
All this senseless death will never set you free


Is this your only choice?
To take away a life
That never had a voice

What did the people say?
You act like you didn't hear them
You've thrown aside the rules so you can get your way
When you should fear them
And now you've left everyone behind
While you try to be the judge of it all
But soon you'll discover that the higher you climb
The harder you're going to fall


You claim it's civil disobedience
But it's your job to set an example
No matter how you twist the meaning of this
You can't deny that you've trampled
All over the process that's meant to ensure
That every voice is heard
You can try to blame it on the culture war
But you're really just stealing words


If you want to be a hero and do what's right
Step down from your throne and join in the fight
But where you are you can't just change what's set in stone
Embracing a lie and making it your own
In your little world they might all agree with you
Too bad this is reality and none of your delusions are true


You try to go above the system
Like you're the only one with wisdom
But you're not the ruler of a kingdom
So don't hold democracy for ransom
The people spoke but you act like they never said it
You're winning now but soon you're going to regret it
So why don't you give back everything you've taken away
You may not like it but you have to respect what they say

Posted by CD at 12:41 AM | Comments (7)

March 09, 2004

Dubya's Campaign Ads

All right, I finally got around to watching President Bush's campaign ads. And...I really wasn't impressed. It's almost like he's trying not to offend anyone, but how do you change people's minds if you sugarcoat your message?

Also I've said this before, but Dubya makes me uncomfortable when he talks. I just keep thinking about "sublimnable" and "nucular." Fortunately, the message usually makes sense.

I wasn't at all offended by the use of 9/11 images, by the way. Anyone bothered by that really needs to lighten up.

...That's enough commentary on this one. I know that as a TV/Film student, I should probably offer a detailed critique of how the advertisers utilized the visual language and the "Narrative Model," but I'm on spring break, dang it.

Posted by CD at 07:11 PM | Comments (2)

How Can She Be THAT Ignorant?

I really shouldn't even waste my time on this, but it's just too entertaining to ignore. Thanks to Insignificant Thoughts, I found this load of pure, unadulterated idiocy from Barbara Streisand.

Things like this are part of the reason I want to be a screenwriter/director: Celebrities. Are. Dumb. But unfortunately, people listen to them, and that's why we need some balance on the Left Coast.

Anyway, let's take a look at her latest thoughts on "equal rights" and the current administration's policies:

"How can anyone legislate who you can love?..."

Wow! Strike one! And on the very first pitch of the game, too! Since when can you not love someone unless you're married, idiot?


Man marries woman. Woman marries man. Where is the inequality?

Remarks by Barbra Streisand Upon Her receipt of The Human Rights Campaign Humanitarian Award, March 6, 2004

That^ is why things like this need to be covered. People. Actually. LISTEN.

I have been fortunate to receive a few awards in my lifetime, and I always appreciate them, but I must say that this is a very special one because the gay community has supported me from the very beginning.

There's one stereotype proven true...

I know that this is a challenging moment in your history. So I am very proud to accept this award from the Human Rights Campaign at this time.

Why are they called the "Human Rights Campaign," anyway? Are homosexuals the only humans now?

You are on the frontlines in the struggle for equal rights, even as continued prejudice stands in the way.

See previous comment on equality. Laugh at stupid celebrity. If necessary, rinse and repeat. Now, let's move on:

The American Constitution is a magical document that has evolved over 200 plus years.

Wow. Let's analyze that statement: The Constitution is a "magical document," despite the fact that magic isn't real. Interesting. It's also apparently an evolving document, despite the fact that evolution=change, not addition. Wow.

While we revere it, it did not start out as a perfect document. This Republic was founded with a Constitution that counted slaves as three-fifths human. It took decades and a Civil War, the deadliest in U.S. history, to erase that stain upon our country. It took over 100 years to bring women into the political system by giving them the right to vote. Interracial marriage was illegal in some states until 1967.

Aaaaaaaand drum roll please...CUE THE MORAL EQUIVALENCY!!!!!

Now the Bush Administration wants to change the positive inclusive direction of our Constitution by calling for an amendment that authorizes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The amendment would not say "gays and lesbians cannot marry." It will say "marriage is between one man and one woman." Sorry, no sexual orientation included. Nimrod.

Well, I say, no way.

Well, if you say so, I guess the legislative process can go f**k itself (does the Constitution give it the right to do that?). Singers always know what's best!

Dr. Martin Luther King taught us that the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.

Of course. You liberals ALWAYS fight for justice against the eeeeeeeevil conservatives, right?

We must always go forward, towards greater liberty and greater equality, not backward.

Never mind the fact that this is leading toward personal and religious expression being considered "hate speech" like in Canada. "Bigots" don't count in the human rights equation!

You know, for me, the realization that two people should have the right to form a sacred union regardless of their gender was strengthened when I saw a performance of the play The Normal Heart in 1985.

If they want a sacred union, they can find an Episcopalian church, dang it. This is about a LEGAL union.

After feeling the love those two men had for each other, I dare anybody not to want them to get married by the end.

I'll take you up on that. What do I get if I win? Is it money? I hope it's money.

The law cannot dictate matters of the heart.

The law DOESN'T dictate matters of the heart.

When two people form a deep bond, there is usually a soul connection, and the soul has no gender.

She's a metaphysician now, too? Impressive.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights in this country.

What if exceeding the speed limit makes me feel free and happy? Should I be allowed to drive 100 miles an hour in a 25 zone?

Happiness can be many things - a good meal, a good friend, a warm puppy...

Punching stupid celebrities in the face...

...and How can anyone legislate who you can love?

Has anyone ever done that? I don't think so.

That is a human right, the right to love and be loved.

I can't remember where I saw this argument (UPDATE: now I can), but I'll put it here anyway: If love and marriage are fundamental human rights, shouldn't the government appoint a spouse to those who can't find one on their own?

And when you love someone, whether you're in a heterosexual or same-gender relationship, shouldn't you be able to visit them in the hospital when they're sick or dying?

I'm pretty sure there are ways of doing that.

Shouldn't everyone have the right to enter into a loving, legally binding, committed relationship that takes on special responsibilities and obligations?

Loving, yes. Legally binding, no. Does that answer your question?

Current civil union legislation doesn't go far enough in protecting equal rights. We must not deny gay families many of the benefits that help keep families security, pensions, veteran's support, inheritance, the right to take unpaid leave to care for a spouse...the list goes on and on.

"Gay families" aren't equal, because gender isn't equal. How hard is this to understand?

Instead of helping families, this president wants to spend a billion and a half dollars to bolster marriage. Turning government into a marriage counselor is a joke...a waste of time and money. It's not a policy; it's a diversion.

Why don't we get government out of marriage entirely, then? It seems you're on both sides of this one.

But this administration regularly uses the politics of diversion to their advantage. They cleverly use divisive cultural issues to avoid talking about other serious problems, such as unemployment and healthcare.

I didn't know Gavin Newsom and George W. Bush were the same person, because that's the only way you could blame Dubya for "divisive cultural issues." By the way, healthcare and unemployment have been discussed A LOT. Were you too busy signing autographs to notice?

They go after Saddam because they can't find bin Ladin...

Holy crap, she misspelled bin Laden (actually, she probably isn't literate enough to have typed this herself). AND she still thinks she can read the president's mind. I think I'm losing brain cells from reading this. Wait, what me say?

...They want to send missions to Mars instead of protecting the Earth... Tax cuts for the wealthy instead of assisting the poor...

Last time I checked, creating jobs did a lot more for assisting the poor than throwing government checks at them and leaving them in the gutter.

You have to look at what Bush does, not what he says.

"Bush lied! Rights were denied!"

Talk is cheap.

"That's why I sing!"

He expresses empathy for military families and then cuts their benefits...He names a proposal "The Clear Skies Initiative" that pollutes the planet...

On purpose, I'm sure. He is evil, right?

He says he'll be a uniter and then drives us apart...He steals the slogan "No Child Left Behind" and then breaks his promise to fund his reforms.

She's accusing him of driving us apart even as she contributes to the divide by pretending to know what she's talking about. Nice.

Truly, I stand here flabbergasted at what is going on in today's world.

"It's so big and confusing and shiny and colorful! What ever shall I do with my tiny mind? I'd better let the government spoon-feed life to me, because I can't handle myself!""

Never in my life have I witnessed a president and an administration that is so out of step with the needs of the country, so threatening to our future and so abusive in its use of power.

You probably weren't paying attention until now, or you would've "witnessed" a lot.

The Clinton administration left this country with a budget surplus, and also a surplus in the goodwill we shared with our allies.

"Here, China, have some missiles."

Now we have a deficit in both.

Oh no! People don't like us! We're not the warm and cuddly America the rest of the world felt so good about F**KIN' ATTACKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Before the war in Iraq, I went to hear Scott Ritter speak - he had been a weapons inspector for seven years. He told us there was no imminent threat to the United States...

Interestingly, that's also what Bush told us.

...that the program to develop nuclear weapons had been dormant since 1998.

"The Saddamster said so!"

There was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda (one is a secular society and the other fundamentalist), that chemical weapons have a short shelf life and wouldn't be usable short, everything Scott Ritter told us has turned out to be the truth.

"What do you mean they need more time? Time is irrelevant when dealing with Republicans, because you know they're lying even before the war has started!"

But this president (the only one to cut taxes during a war) made terrorism a partisan cause.

It couldn't have anything to do with the Democrats who would rather kiss the @ss of terrorism and hope they'll forgive us for existing.

He charged Democrats with being soft on terror, a lie.

Yeah, that is practically a lie with some Democrats who might as well have been frickin' sympathetic to it.

He appointed John Ashcroft to trample our civil liberties as Attorney General...

He's done a pretty crappy job, because my civil liberties are still fine. Pick up the slack, Ashcroft!

...and, from a human rights point of view, his use of Guantanamo Bay has roused international protest.

Read this. Thank you.

Now as the president gears up for his re-election campaign, the right wing propaganda machine is ready to take the skin off of John Kerry, the Democratic Party's nominee.

"He was in Vietnam! You can't criticize him! HE WAS IN VIETNAM!!!"

I've never seen anything as ruthless or as relentless as this.

You must lead a very sheltered existence then.

They can take a slur hatched at the Republican National Committee or a lie huckstered by the Heritage Foundation, repeat it on Fox, hit it on Limbaugh, print it in the Wall Street Journal, until it's coming out of every media outlet imaginable.

"The eeeeeeeevil Republicans control the free press! CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING?!"

My one acronym answer to her charge: AWOL. I guess it's fine for the media to repeat lies directed at Bush.

Repeating lies over and over...

It sounds so childish. "LIAR, LIAR, IRAQ ON FIRE!!!!"

...doesn't make them any more true.

You've demonstrated that quite effectively.

But it does make people believe the lies a little more until finally they stop demanding the truth.

"And I'm testing that theory here tonight!"

I've seen their ferocity up close, as I witnessed the astounding assault on the CBS movie about Ronald Reagan, in which my husband starred and Craig and Neil produced.

Nope, no bias here. Tell me, when did the administration attack the Reagan movie?

They attacked that movie and drove it off network television before any of them had ever seen it.

How dare consumers dictate what they want to see! Those monsters!

The Right Wing is very well-organized.

...And that's a bad thing?

They fight dirty.

Not like those squeaky-clean Democrats!

They project their own nastiness onto their opposition.

"Much like I'm doing now!"

Remember how they accused the Democrats of stealing the election in Florida, while they themselves were doing just that!

Thank you for fisking yourself there, Babs. You just saved me 30 seconds.

We're now in a period that whenever you say something that's critical of the government, you are accused of being unpatriotic.

So where are the Ashcroft Dissent Crushing Squads™? Shouldn't they be dragging you off to the gulags for giving this speech? How did you publish it on your website without having to put a disclaimer on it saying "The following speech has been declared unpatriotic by Big Brother Johnny?"

Could it be that YOU are the liar, Ms. Streisand?

Bush even lent himself to an utterly despicable campaign in Georgia that impugned the patriotism of Senator Max Cleland, who had sacrificed three limbs in the same Vietnam War that the president ducked.

Them unattended grenades is dangerous.

Talking about patriotism, let's never forget Bush's fellow Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who in 1918 said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Give me ONE example of the administration saying that criticism is no longer allowed, and I'll purchase not one, but TWO of your albums. Come on.

Indeed, this country now faces a fundamental choice. Multilateral security or pre-emptive wars.

Assuming that "multilateral security" means "painful, fiery death."

Closing or widening the gaps between the haves and the have nots.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..."

Facing the truth or accepting the lies.

They're listening to you, aren't they?

The public taking an interest or tuning out. Extending our rights or turning them back.

Was that a complete thought?

Mr. Bush will dress himself up as a compassionate conservative once more for the election, but he has embraced a remarkably radical policy, which I pray the public finally sees.

"Their eyes must be opened to the TRUTH! They've all been tricked!"

The mishandling of national and economic security.

"I never feel safe in my limo with my millions of dollars! What if the paparazzi find me?"

The shameless politics of special interests and crony capitalists.

"Those greedy corporate profitmongers! What gives them the right to keep what they've earned?"

(And when you talk about special interests it's important to differentiate between public interests that benefit the larger good of the people, like protecting the environment or finding a cure for cancer, versus the special interests that are limited to a particular industry or corporation, like Enron or Halliburton).

Heh. She said "larger good of the people." That's classic leftism. By the way, I've said this before, but I'm willing to bet that if Bush found a cure for cancer, the left would accuse him of doing it to benefit corporate drug companies.

Bush recently pushed through a prescription drug bill that actually gives a better deal to the drug companies than to the seniors who need the drugs.

What did I JUST say, children? I have to admit that I hadn't even read that last sentence before I wrote the cancer one (I fisk on the fly). Are they predictable or what?

And what about the new energy plan that actually increases our dependence on Persian Gulf oil (even though he recently said just the opposite in his State of the Union speech).

That should make perfect sense! If we don't depend on the Middle East for oil, we'll have no excuse to go to war and build our AmeriKKKan empire!

The Republicans...

She forgot to spit.

...will try to win the election by convincing the American public that they are the father figures who can keep us safe.

"Let's support the Democrats so we can suckle at the government mother figure's teat!"

But the facts contradict the myth.

You're referring to people who think that you have talent, right?

Two and a half years after the largest attack on American soil, our borders remain easily penetrable. We have the capacity to inspect only 2% of cargo containers coming into our country. Local law enforcement has been weakened by spending cuts, and our intelligence lacks manpower and updated technology. And which party's budget provides the most for homeland security? The Democrats!

BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! I thought the Democrats wanted to spend all the money on "universal health care!"

This president is so transparent. The only way he would agree to investigations of the mishandling of intelligence leading up to the Iraqi war, is if we wait until after the election to get the reports.

I'm pretty sure that if we get the reports BEFORE the election, and they prove that Bush wasn't responsible for the failures, you'll accuse him of using it as a partisan issue and/or forging evidence that clears him. Who's transparent now?

Has this administration no shame? What job are we not doing that has allowed them to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people?

"I don't understand politics, but I DO know that I'm right! After all, I'm famous!"

But...there is hope. It's starting to turn. I can feel it.

If Barbara Streisand feels it, it MUST be true! Save us, Babs, save us!

The media is finally asking the president and his staff the tougher questions, and looking into the issues that should have been investigated years ago. The people are speaking out at all levels from the grassroots to Washington. All of the good work so many people are doing is finally making a dent. We won't be scared into submission.

Didn't you just say that people aren't allowed to do these things anymore? Crap, the guy in Memento had better memory than you.

What should scare us is that we have no checks and balances on this administration. They control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court.

Soooo...There are still 3 branches of government, but no checks and balances? Care to explain your cognitive dissonance?

All we have is each other.

AWWWWWWW! Let's all hold hands around the campfire!

So each of us must do what we can to create positive change in November. I know the Human Rights Campaign will be at the center of the struggle for equality.

Sure. When you create the struggle, how can you not be at the center?

And let's be smart...Let's be pragmatic...Let's not allow the Republicans to use gay marriage as a political tool in this election year.

"Since they don't agree with me, they MUST only be against gay marriage because their fundamentalist base is against it! How could any sane person actually be AGAINST LOVE?"

Truth and justice eventually wins out.

That's why Republicans are in control, genius.

I am proud to stand with you tonight as the recipient of this prestigious award. Together we can and we will win the fight.

This really makes me sad, but it also inspires me to continue my quest in life. As a future member of the media, I am dedicated to beating talking sense into people like this for the good of humanity (not to be confused with "the larger good of the people").

The battle continues.

Posted by CD at 05:21 PM | Comments (6)

There is Some Justice in the World

Older of Washington-Area Snipers Is Sentenced to Death

A Virginia judge today upheld the recommendation of a jury and sentenced John A. Muhammad to death for his role in the Washington-region sniper attacks that left 10 people dead and terrorized millions of people.

Good. Kill the b@stard.

No further comments necessary.

Posted by CD at 03:31 PM | Comments (0)

March 08, 2004

Flash Games R Kewl

Dang it, I've got beal again! Well, until I think of something to write about, I'll keep the music theme going and link to the Punk-O-Matic, which is a music making Flash game that I've been messing with for the past couple days. It's REALLY addictive.

Seriously, if you like rock music, you've gotta check this thing out! It's got kind of a limited selection of melodies and rhythms to choose from, but it still has a ton of replay value.

Just thought I'd share that. If you're interested, I'll stick some of my creations in the extended entry. To play them, copy the entire line of numbers, then paste it into the text box at the bottom of the "LOAD" window. You'll understand when you see it.

...I really need to get a life. And a real rock band.

Here's a good show opener:


This one's more of a closer:


This is the closest to "light rock" that you're going to get:


Here's a faster one:


And here's one that I put a drum solo into for no particular reason:


...There's more, but I think that's enough for now. Like I said, I really need to get a life.

Posted by CD at 11:31 PM | Comments (0)

Here's a Thought...

I just clicked on a DU thread (what? Is there something wrong with reading DU every day for laughs?) called "If Bush Loses In November What Will Your First Reaction Be?" Before I could read it, something occurred to me:

What if Bush does lose? What will most of us on the right cite as the reason(s)? Personally, I'd probably blame the same-sex marriage amendment, appeasing illegal aliens, and generally not being conservative enough for a Bush loss.

On the other hand, if Bush wins, who will the left blame? Will they blame Kerry for not campaigning effectively, or will they also blame Bush for either rigging the election or brainwashing people into supporting him?

Basically, I doubt Kerry will be held accountable on the left for any of his failures, but Bush will be blamed by one or both sides no matter how the election turns out. Just a thought.

Posted by CD at 05:46 PM | Comments (3)

Updates & Music Commentary

WARNING: The following post contains nothing even remotely political. Thank you.

Okay, break's over! SIT is once again coming to you from Plum Borough, Pennsylvania, the most cow-tastic suburb in Pittsburgh.

First of all, thanks to everyone who participated in my little "survey" over the weekend (especially those of you who added some sort of compliment). I was just curious about how the F people actually found my blog (evidently, IMAO brought a relatively large number of you here) and how many were actually here as compared to the number of people who comment regularly. Again, your help is appreciated.

Also, here's a tip for certain individuals: If you're going to troll my blog, at least have the balls to troll the front f**kin' page, all right? I just had my third or fourth incident of someone trolling a post I wrote months ago. Do you really think I care about that crap anymore? Morons.

Anyway, I have some brief commentary on a non-political subject. I'm a drummer, in case you didn't know, and as such, I'm pretty much a part of an oppressed group. We don't get the attention, we don't get a lot of women (Tommy Lee doesn't count), and we have to deal with all the stereotypes (drummers are dumb, drummers have no musical talent, etc.) that people perpetuate.

However, we really get screwed in one department: Music videos. I was watching "Insomniac Music Theater" on VH1 last night (which is apparently the only thing on that channel now besides "I Love the 80s"), and it just hit me all of a sudden that drummers always have the most boring parts in videos.

Think about it. Whether it's a pure performance video or one where the band is playing their song during some kind of adventure, the drummer basically sits in the back while everyone else is doing...well, something!

Of course, it's the lead singer's job to carry the video most of the time, but the guitar player usually gets some sort of supporting role as well. Even the bassist occasionally manages to be featured, but the whole time, the drummer just sits there and drums. I know that we're at a disadvantage because we can't move around while we play, but come on! It's like they don't even try to give us an interesting part!

The only time the drummer gets to do something is when the video features the band without instruments, and in that case, you sometimes don't even know who the drummer is because he was in the back of all the other videos while the rest of the band was jumping around and playing solos and things.

You could probably say the same about live performances, but even then, at least they're limited to a stage. In videos, the entire world is available for performance, but the drummer still just SITS THERE! I want to see a music video featuring the drummer for once.

...Sorry about that. I had to get it off my chest.

Speaking of music, I'm writing a couple new songs at the moment. One is about abortion, and the other is about judicial tyranny. I'll post the lyrics here when they're finished.

Too bad I don't have a band. Then I'd show them how music videos should be done...

Posted by CD at 05:19 PM | Comments (6)

March 06, 2004

Break Time!

Hello, SIT readers. I'm going back to Pittsburgh for spring break, and I've also decided to take this weekend off unless something really important happens, so there will probably be nothing new here until Monday.

Two orders of business before I go. First: If you want to ask me any questions for the upcoming interview, send them to Jennifer as soon as possible. See her site for more details if you don't know how the blogger interviews work.

Second: For the regular readers (I think there are about 10 of you now), I was hoping you could help me out by answering a couple really quick questions. You don't have to, but it won't take that long, so...yeah. Answer in the comments, if you decide to participate:

1. Do you remember how you found SIT? (if you don't, just skip this question or say "no")

2. Are you a "lurker" (someone who reads the blog but rarely or never comments)? Now's your chance to be recognized!

...Okay, that's it. Happy Spring Break, everyone! Even those of you who aren't in college and don't get a break right now.


Posted by CD at 03:16 AM | Comments (11)

March 05, 2004

It's Quiet...Too Quiet...

Wow. Everyone disappeared (in real life, not on the blog). It's like some magical Spring Break Beams just came by and transported everyone. There were only about 7 people in the dining hall...there was nobody at the front floor is totally silent right now...

...And I'm not leaving until tomorrow afternoon.

Dang it.

Posted by CD at 06:29 PM | Comments (1)

Frnak is Amazing

You have to read this! Especially the song at the end!

How can one person be THAT funny???

Posted by CD at 04:33 PM | Comments (1)

DU Shows Their Compassion

Okay, you may have heard by now that John Ashcroft has been hospitalized for gallstone pancreatitis. When I saw this headline, I thought, "I wonder how DU is reacting." Let's take a look:

(DU DISCLAIMER: Democratic Underground threads are meant for entertainment purposes only and do not represent the American left as a whole; also, each quoted block of text represents a different person, in case you didn't know. Thank you.)

Pray for him. Silent prayer, please. 'Nuff said.

WHA?! The first post on a Democratic Underground thread is asking people to pray for JOHN ASHCROFT?!!! (insert "cats and dogs living together" joke here)

...I'm shocked. This has to be a fluke! What else are they saying?

Yes, Pray for Pain. We need to let the AG know what pain I and others have everyday and the pain killers we need that he makes hard for our docs to write. So let us pray his doc will not give him the pain killers he needs until he begs for them. Then let us pray the doc tells him what he put doctors through.

Ah, that's more like it! I can't believe they didn't ban that first poster. Continuing the discussion...

I'll pray that he dies!

Short and sweet.

Would I be completely evil if I stated what we're all thinking at the moment. Let the bastard die. Ok, 'nough said.

Okay, I guess they are still as crazy as always. I'm putting the rest in the extended entry for the sake of The Children™. Feel free to join me if, like me, you've already lost all faith in humanity. Otherwise, I suggest you leave now so DU doesn't burst your bubble.

I do not disagree with the sentiment. He's been a meanspirited guy for too long. Maybe he'll have a change of heart after all of this.....Naaaaaaaah!

I love how "mean" is the ultimate bad quality with people like this.

Go ahead! It feels good.

Just deserts, I say.

I will never wish this SOB well.

I will wish him 10 times what he's done to others happens to him.

What exactly do they think he's done, anyway? Is this about Gitmo? Incidentally, I'm amazed that someone dumb enough to post on DU knew how to spell "just deserts." Weird.

Nope - I'm thinking it too. I think the majority of us here are, too. Sorry, I can't be as noble and forgiving as you with all the pain and suffering he has directly caused by his butting his nose in "States Rights" to disallow medical marijuana use.

It's like the IMAO version. "John Ashcroft stole my bong!"

...Let's cleanse the palate with another semi-rational response:

You know I get absolutely savaged by people here for supporting the Democratic nominee and criticizing Ralph Nader and the Greens, yet some people here feel free to to cheer for the deaths of our political enemies, or even cheer for the deaths of American soldiers. Amazing. I seek Mr. Ashcroft's political defeat, perhaps even his impeachment, but not his death. Jeez.

It's good to know that they're not all praying for the attorney general to die, but I don't think that's the common sentiment...

schadenfreude is what i feel- suffer you nazi bastard!

They even spelled "schadenfreude" right (I think)! (speaking of which, did you hear that Ted Rall was dropped from the New York Times? Bwahaha.)

Let's see another one:

Suffer......@sshole. Lets all hope for the worst

That poster^ also has a picture of President Bush saluting a swastika as their signature line, if you were wondering.

Yep,,, getting eaten away by his own all those ****heads suffer from their outrageous behavior and unbridled greed.

Only Georgie is blissfully unaware of the suffering he is causing. The rest of them think happiness is the fleeting moment of righteous indignation they feel when bad things happen to others.

I'm not positive, but I THINK he/she/it just managed to blame all human suffering on President Bush. Wow.

Here's another of the better ones:

...he is getting what he deserves. Personally, I could give a damn about how much pain he's in or whether he pulls through. Do you think he, or any of his kind, give a damn about any of the lives lost in this ridiculous war?? Does he care about how average americans are getting by without jobs and decreased benefits?? Do you think he loses a moment's sleep over people who die every day because they can't afford proper medical care. I have no pity for him. The world will be a much better place with him gone.

The preceding rant was presented without comment for your nausea inducement. Let's move on to a couple more...

man some of you are pretty cold hearted. I mean he is a fricking human being ya know. Have at least some compassion, I'm not saying that you have to cry and pray for the guy, but I don't think we should all be saying that this is a great thing to happen. Half of you are the same ones that bitch and whine when we put a comvicted murderer to death.

Another sane one! Why are these people on DU when they could be doing useful things with their IQ that managed to climb into the double digit range? Any more like this?

Nope - he's the scum of the earth.

Would you pray for Goebles, or Hitler?

Same thing.

He is not a human being. Don't put him in the same category as me.

Reap what you sow, asscrap.

Sorry, no pity here. He's caused so much suffering to others.


...Wow. I guess there aren't many more like that. Although I give them some credit for using the word "asscrap." I haven't heard that one yet.


The major causes are long-standing alcohol consumption and biliary stone disease. In developed countries, the most common cause of acute pancreatitis is alcohol abuse.

Could it be ??

This must have been written by a freeper doctor. Only a freeper would come up with something called 'Billary stone disease'.

Oh, man, I don't believe it! Even the doctors are part of the VRWC in DU World! (UPDATE: I just realized that they misread "biliary" as "billary." That's even funnier.) I can't take many more of these, but let's look at...I don't know, two more.

I would be a hypocrite If I expressed any sympathy or good wishes for that fascist anti-American bastard. So I won't. I hope he is forced to resign because of bad health. No I take that back, we need him to stay on as yet another reason for people to vote ABB in November.

I really didn't even need to go to DU to get these. I could've made them up myself and they would've been pretty close to the real thing.

He's earned every pain over a long career built on the suffering of those different from jonny crisco, I hope he recovers, slowly and painfully. While he recovers I hope that investigations reveal the evilness of this shithead and land him in prison for the rest of his existance.

Okay, that's enough. I can't take any more.

I don't even want to think about how they'd react if it was Dubya instead of Ashcroft.


Posted by CD at 02:54 PM | Comments (1)

March 04, 2004

MoDo Makes it So Easy...

"CD's Theory of Exponentially Increasing Dowdian Idiocy" has been proven correct for the time being. Maureen Dowd's latest column is one of the most asinine things I've seen in a while. Let's take a look:


You've got to admire the Bush re-election ads being rolled out today. With up to $60 million to spend by convention time, the campaign is plotting the most expensive political advertising seduction in history...

She didn't even try to conceal the elitism.

"If Americans could think for themselves, they'd NEVER vote for Bush, so they have to be seduced!"

...and you can see the money on the screen.

Of course, if he hadn't spent a lot of money, you'd blame it on the poor economy and use it as proof that the administration is bankrupt.

In scary/gauzy images...

Keep in mind that her standards of scariness are probably a bit different, since she considers anything above a loud whisper to be a "testosterone-infused performance" (see her column on the SOTU).

...the president does his best to shift the blame, take the credit and transmit concern about regular folks — waitresses, welders, firefighters, black children, black seniors, middle-class families — when he really spends more time helping his fat-cat corporate friends.

I'm still convinced that she just has a random liberal epithet generator writing these columns for her. Why is she writing for the NYT when the best she can come up with is the classic "only rich white men vote Republican" crap?

Mr. Bush continues to imply that we should be scared because we're not safe, so we need to keep him to protect our national security. Which seems like a weird contradiction. If he's so good at protecting us, why aren't we safe?

Obviously, it's because there are still terrorists who haven't been annihilated.

...But wait! You're against military action! You should be happy we're not totally safe, because to be safe, we'd have to hurt the poow, defenseless widdle Awabs! AWWWWWWW....

The president doesn't hesitate to exploit 9/11 in his ads, even as he tries to keep 9/11 orphans and widows in the dark about what really happened.

Anyone who is still "in the dark" about 9/11 has been living either under a rock or in Palestine.

Mr. Bush's ad flashes a shot of firefighters removing some flag-draped remains of a victim from the wreckage at ground zero even as he prohibits the filming of flag-draped remains of soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't Dubya's policy, idiot.

You might call the Bush ads, an homage to Ronald Reagan's famous ads, "Mourning in America."


Nothing like hypocrisy with high production values.

Notice how she hasn't actually pointed out any hypocrisy? She should write a song with Alanis Morisette!

"It's like a cam-pay-eeee-aaaaaaaign, on Election Day..."

Sorry about that (especially if you didn't get the joke). I couldn't resist. Let's move on:

I'm assuming that the second phase of the ad blitz will highlight the man with the plan: Dick Cheney.

Uh...what plan? Disclosing the Undisclosed Location™?

The Cheney ads could appeal to the base, featuring rich white men in the back seats of limos, showing how hard it is to make the tough decisions for you.

My originality detector is actually in negative numbers. I didn't know that was possible.

...What? It could be real!

Consider the possibilities:

I don't want to nitpick, but as an aspiring screenwriter, I HAVE to point out that Dowd doesn't use the right format for this next part. Screen descriptions should be italicized, not indicated by the words "ON THE SCREEN." Also, narration should say NARRATOR, not THE SCRIPT. Thank you.

ON THE SCREEN The spot lingers on a shot of the vice president's office door, closed and padlocked.

THE SCRIPT: "Big enough to tell you to butt out. Sensitive enough to know that special interests are truly special."

I can't believe she managed not to write "HALLIBURTON IS THE DEVIL" in size 36 letters.

ON THE SCREEN The spot opens with a tightly focused shot of a headless pheasant, then dissolves into a shot of a big Dick Cheney putting a miniature Antonin Scalia into the pocket of his Elmer Fudd hunting jacket.

Which leads me to my public service announcement of the day: Don't. Do. Shrooms.

THE SCRIPT "Man enough to hunt with all the big dogs."

ON THE SCREEN The spot opens with Mr. Cheney checking his mailbox on Massachusetts Avenue to see whether he's received his annual deferred compensation check for $150,000 from Halliburton.

Oh. There's the Halliburton thing. If you didn't see that coming, please shoot yourself in the head and raise the collective IQ of the gene pool.

THE SCRIPT "Bighearted enough to forgive and forget Halliburton's pesky overcharges in Iraq for oil, and food for American troops."

Weren't they prosecuted for that?

ON THE SCREEN A picture of Mr. Cheney beaming at his family.

THE SCRIPT "Strong enough to put his base above his daughter and support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage."

It's not his job to appease the gay lobby just because his daughter is a lesbian. He's the VP, not the Minister for Making People Feel Good.

ON THE SCREEN A close-up of Mr. Cheney accepting a huge N.R.A. check in his spider hole.

Wonderful! Let's compare Dick Cheney to Saddam Hussein, and the NRA to Al Qaeda! What a stupid poodle. I almost feel sorry for her.


THE SCRIPT "Protective enough to safeguard the firearms industry from liberal potshots."

"Those nasty, bad, evil gun makers! They TELL people to misuse their products!"

ON THE SCREEN While the "Pink Panther" music plays, we see a cartoon of the vice president, dressed in an Inspector Clouseau trenchcoat and a false mustache, wandering the desert with a spyglass.

See my previous PSA about shrooms. Those things'll screw up your brain.

THE SCRIPT "Steely enough to ignore the administration's own intelligence on the absence of W.M.D. and an Al Qaeda connection to Saddam.

"...Because weapons inspectors, England, and the U.N. don't count as credible sources anymore!"

Farsighted enough to know that one of these decades, the rocks and trash that Iraqis are throwing at American forces will be replaced by flowers and palm fronds."

"They may have pulled down a statue of Saddam, but it was only because it reminded them of George W. Bush, the fascimperijingonaziwarmonger!!!"

ON THE SCREEN A doctored photo of John Kerry, his war medals airbrushed out, canoodling with Jane Fonda at an antiwar rally.

You don't need a doctored photo, because there are real ones. Also, Kerry shouldn't even HAVE those medals, because if he was consistent, he would've thrown them away instead of being a hippie-crit and using someone else's. I wonder if he likes ketchup on his waffles...

THE SCRIPT "After getting four student deferments himself during Vietnam so he could attend to `other priorities,' he's still gritty enough to paint John Kerry as a spineless wimp on Vietnam and Iraq."

No, Kerry's not a spineless wimp. He's just a brainless, anti-American lunatic.

ON THE SCREEN A shot of Mr. Cheney driving the Nascar Viagra race car.

I think you have him confused with Bob Dole.

...Oh, that's right; All of the old, rich, white Republicans look alike! Isn't that right, Rep. Brown?

THE SCRIPT "Audacious enough to shred the American Constitution, even while he imposes one on Iraq."

Now she has him confused with Ashcroft, AND she used the word "imposed," which would imply that a constitution is a BAD thing, which would also make shredding ours a GOOD thing, which would....which....w....hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

...Oh, sorry. I must've passed out on the "H" key after thinking about that too much. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

Instead of speaking at the end to say he approved the message, as Mr. Bush does in his, Mr. Cheney comes on at the end of his spots with a paper bag over his head and says, "It's none of your beeswax who approved this message."

...That's just too dumb to comment on, MoDo. I'm disappointed.

Except in one, where a rotund man comes on and says, "I am Ahmad Chalabi, and I approved this message."

Anyone care to explain what the frick that means? I can't find much info.

...Hmmm. Kind of a crappy note to go out on...

...Hey! Look over there!

*runs away*

Posted by CD at 08:37 PM | Comments (3)

Eco-Update (+link blegging)

According to The Ecosystem, I only need 4 more unique links before I move up to the "Large Mammal" category! Can anyone help me out?

Posted by CD at 07:37 PM | Comments (5)

College Anecdotes

All right, I'm still preparing to fisk Maureen Dowd, but I want to share a couple experiences I had today.

First of all, someone built an igloo on the SU quad a few weeks ago, but this week's warm weather reduced it to a patch of snow in an otherwise grassy area (you can kind of see it on this webcam, if you look between the second and third sidewalks from the right).

I was walking by there around 2:15 today, and I noticed that the former igloo had a bunch of cardboard "tombstones" sticking out of it. One of them had "No war with Iraq" written on it. I didn't catch the other ones. I guess it was some sort of really late protest, even though there didn't seem to be any people around.

Now, here's the great part: I went through the quad again around 5:15, and the cardboard thingies were all gone. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Here's another good story: I was sitting in my TRF class today, and a couple guys behind me were talking about political correctness. One of them said something like, "If you're an American, white, upper or middle class Christian male, pretty much all you're allowed to do is self-deprecate." The others agreed with him.

Keep in mind that TRF=Television, radio, and film. These are future members of the media, and they realize how dumb political correctness can be. I hope this is a sign of change in my generation.

Speaking of TRF, I'll finish with something I should've mentioned a while ago. My professor, an experienced documentarian, told us once that it's okay to fabricate scenes for a documentary in some situations, as long as they help move the story along.

Maybe he's worked with Michael Moore...

Posted by CD at 07:27 PM | Comments (0)

DO Semi-Fisking

Okay, I'm about to get to work on MoDoPoodle, but just so I can get some new friggin' content, I'll briefly go into today's Daily Orange. They're a bit of an easier target.

The main feature of today's DO is a two page article about anal sex. According to the article, the Bible supposedly says gay sex isn't a sin, and exposure to different sexual practices and ideas in college helps build tolerance and acceptance. It also includes some helpful information on the anatomy of the anus and why it's easier to get STDs through anal intercourse. (also, if you have the Dead Tree edition, the continuation thingy says see ANAL, page 6. That's just hilarious)

Don't worry; I'm not even touching that one, but you can read it for yourself if you're looking for a reason to bang your head against a wall until you lose consciousness.

Fortunately, there's also a political opinion column that I can make fun of. I won't do a full fisking because most of it is boring, but some of it is worth a look, particularly the last two paragraphs, which compare President Bush and John Kerry. Let's see what they have to say:

...In one corner, we find the former Texas oilman and former governor. A social conservative as firmly committed to the safety of the bedroom as to our nation's shores.

He's already playing "I don't know the difference between private behavior and government approval." Good way to start any comparison.

He supports family values, but opposes one form of family creation - gay marriage.

That's because two unrelated people of the same gender who just happen to be living together aren't a family, moron.

He claims to fight a fierce war on terror, but has surely recruited as many terrorists as he has seized due to his arrogant use of military might.

I see what's going on here. We can talk about attacking other countries, but if we actually ACT, it's arrogant. I believe Kim du Toit calls this attitude "pussification."

He praises the free market, but watched three million jobs melt away before even mentioning the problem publicly.

"9/11 had NO economic effects, and the recession was all Bush's fault, even though the economy works in cycles AND Clinton's policies were still in effect half the time!"

Incidentally, I've said before that I know nothing about economics, but I think it's odd that the same people who are prone to calling Bush a fascist want him to control corporations and production. Isn't state control of private industries a defining characteristic of fascism? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, what about John F**kin' Kerry?

In the other corner, we see the son of a diplomat, a career politician born to moderate riches and married to even greater ones.

Interesting how those are suddenly inconsequential/good things just because of a (D) next to the guy's name, isn't it?

Yet he will take on Bush with a platform aimed at replacing America's lost jobs through greater investment in clean energy, subsidies to the manufacturing sector, and funding for schools to halt widespread layoffs.

When did he say this? All I ever remember is "Vietnam," "don't question my patriotism," and "tax cuts for the wealthy."

Put simply, Kerry offers hope and progress - two qualities Bush has continually struggled to maintain.

Any proof of this? I didn't think so. If your idea of "hope and progress" is letting the "International Community" control America, I'd say you might be right. Otherwise, I'd say you might be legally retarded (/shameless SNL ripoff).

Thus the choice is blindingly clear.

No, the blindness is just what happens when your optic nerves have no brain to connect with.

We can vote for America in November - or we can vote for Bush.

Wow. That statement really jumped out at me. According to this guy, the candidate who, willingly or accidentally, aided the enemy during the Vietnam war and voted against defense funding is more American than the candidate who brought down the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.


Posted by CD at 06:46 PM | Comments (1)

March 03, 2004

Any Questions?

I just thought I'd mention that I volunteered to do an interview for Jennifer's History and Stuff.

If, for some reason, you want to submit questions for me to answer, you have to send them to Jennifer, which you can do by going to her site and clicking on "Questions being accepted" in the "You Ask- They Answer" sidebar (I could just give you the e-mail address, but I'd rather send some traffic over there. Heh heh).

If you send questions, feel free to ask anything you want. Except for those "If you were stranded on a desert island and you could only (insert activity here)" ones. If I see any of those, I'm calling the whole thing off.

Also, if you're asking for information about me (as opposed to "quiz" questions), you may want to read "105 Things About CD" to make sure I haven't answered your question already.

...Yes, pretending that people care about me is fun. I could get used to this...

Posted by CD at 09:41 PM | Comments (1)

More on "Transgenders"

Hey, I found the cure for beal: Liberal college newspapers! There's a ton of stuff to write about in the DO today. The thing that really stood out is another story about "transgenders" (I refuse to take that term totally seriously). Let's see what it says:

Transgendered meet obstacles

Okay, before I even start, here's an interesting fact: They changed that title for the online version. I have the Dead Tree edition of the DO right in front of me, and this story is entitled "Gender norms stifle tolerance." Bit of a different meaning, don't you think? Let's see what it's all about:

Thunderous applause and cheers enveloped her as she took the stage.

Her skirt, only several inches long, precariously straddled her hips as she danced. She swayed and swiveled, mouthing the words to Beyonce's "Crazy in Love" as it blasted from the nearby speakers.

The crowd loved her, mainly because this washboard-abbed performer was really a man - Justin Welch, a junior public relations major.

I already mentioned the "drag show" that the university had a couple weeks ago. Good ol' academia, coming to the aid of "tolerance" and "diversity" once again.

Welch, his short skirt and the other drag kings and queens of the Totally Fabulous Drag Show on Feb. 19 shimmied transgender issues into the mind of the Syracuse University community.

"Transgender issues?" I think if the university is putting on a friggin' show for 'em, their problems probably aren't very serious.

The Transgender Teach-In on Feb. 23 and a lecture and workshop by transgender activist Michelle O'Brian Feb. 28 and 29 worked to further educate participants about these issues.

All this to legitimize confusion (I'll explain later in a mini-rant™).

But members of the university community say people still have difficulty understanding how to approach transgender students - those who identify with a sex other than the one they were born as - and do not realize that transgender issues affect everyone.

Considering they don't even know what gender they are, why should they expect people to understand them? I don't get it.

SU students who may not consider themselves part of the LGBT community, they say, must also conform to strict gender categories.

And here comes the relativism!

"Gender is a social construct, you patriarchs! Men and women are only different because society is retrogressive and wants to oppress people!"

While many students may love the drag show performers, a transgender person cannot put on a wig and lipstick every day and expect the same acceptance, said Rob Pusch, an instructional technology analyst at SU who began his transition from female to male 10 years ago.

Wow. I can't believe we're living in a society where it's considered a BAD thing that men can't walk around in a wig and lipstick. I'm so sorry that I'm not accepting of frickin' cross-dressers! How will I ever make it up to you???

"I can't imagine someone would say, 'Oh, Syracuse, that'd be a great place to transition,'" Pusch said.


GOOD!!!!!!!! I don't want my school to be the capital of collegiate gender-bending, thank you very much.

If a person dressed in drag each day, others would most likely criticize or harass him or her because society does not consider that behavior normal, he added.

Brilliant deduction! Society doesn't consider cross-dressing normal? Who knew?!

Welch, who won first place in the drag-queen portion of the show, said that he enjoyed being female for a night but could not imagine dressing in drag every day.

Oh no! How dare society have norms and restrictions! What kind of sick world are we living in?!

"People would think there was something seriously wrong with me, or I was some kind of freak," Welch said.

Never mind that they'd be CORRECT. It's more important that we protect your precious feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings!

This reaction toward dressing in drag, being transgender or acting like the a typical member of opposite sex may be due to the idea that these concepts question masculinity and femininity, not just sexual orientation, said Adrea Jaehnig, director of the LBGT Resource Center.

Who are the people taking time to figure this crap out when any idiot could deduce it in about 8 seconds? They act like it's big news that gender contributes to behavior and identity.

...Actually, as we'll see, they act like it's a big lie.

"Even when lesbian, gay or bisexual people are harassed, it's not really about sexuality but because they're transgressing gender norms," Jaehnig said.

See previous comments.

Transgender students, especially those who are transitioning from one sex to another, may also face more difficulties than gay or lesbian students.

"With lesbian, gay or bisexual, you can choose if you let anybody else know. Nobody in your daily life really has to know anything," Jaehnig said. "But with being transgender, it's a public transition, as well as something personal, and that's poorly understood by most people."

I'll cover why this is idiotic in my rant later. For now, I'll just ask why they think they're being forced into transgenderism.

Transition, which may involve a name and pronoun change, hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery, becomes especially troublesome when others have difficulty adjusting to the student's change in gender identity.

"It's all YOUR fault! My sex change has nothing to do with it! YOU have to change your views so I feel comfortable with myself!!!"

"Imagine if you suddenly changed your name, changed your pronoun," Pusch said. "People find it very disconcerting."

REALLY? I can't imagine why!

No one can say exactly how many students identify as transgender on the SU and ESF campuses because the term applies to many people who may not feel comfortable with the label, Jaehnig said. they wouldn't really count as transgender, would they? Since it's a self-applied label in the first place, you can't just throw random people into this category.

But transgender students find themselves in awkward situations in making everyday decisions, such as selecting a men's or women's bathroom.

If I can get a bit technical for a second...


When students choose a certain bathroom or check the "male" or "female" box on surveys or evaluation forms, they place themselves into society's gender categories.

No, they indicate what set of genitalia they have. That's what gender means. If they don't "feel" male or female, that's their problem, not society's.

"People respond to you differently depending on what your gender is," Pusch said.

*GASP* NO! I can't believe it!

"If you look male and you go into a female bathroom, people's assumption is that you're male, then they assume you're in the wrong."

Getting technical once again...

Sit. Or. Stand. That's about the only thing you have to think about when you make that choice. Have you SEEN the symbols? They're quite helpful.

"Transgender issues resonate because they're really gender issues, and we're all trapped by gender ideologies," said Margaret Himley, an associate professor in the writing program and member of the University Senate Committee of LGBT Concerns. "Nobody ever really fits perfectly."

That's why we have certain guidelines that cover the entire range of human behavior. The rest is based on biology, which you seem to loathe so much.

Nearly every decision a person makes depends on society's ideas of gender, from deciding what to wear, what sports or games to play or what to watch on TV, said Kathleen Farrell, a part-time instructor of sociology.

It's so comforting to know that sociologists have decided to stop classifying gender as a valid natural characteristic. This is a lot like Bush=Hitler, except now, it's biology=pseudoscience.

Within the SU campus environment, students face a greater pressure to conform to rigid gender roles, perhaps more so than at other campuses, Himley said.

Bring on the victimization! You people are so friggin' predictable, it makes me want to vomit.

"We definitely have a lot of value placed in traditional, gendered institutions on this campus, such as sports, fashion, fraternities and sororities," Farrell said. "I'm sure it's very hard to be anything outside of the mainstream."

And yet, the campus community seems to have no problem with a F**KING DRAG SHOW!

Students try to achieve specific masculine and feminine looks on the SU campus, said Patricia Vann, a freshman in The College of Arts and Sciences.

How horrible! It must be due to the conservative cultures they grew up in! After all, only college campuses are liberal!

"Everyone here is so into their appearance and looking a certain way," Vann said. "That's what seems normal."

Tell that to the people who show up at the dining hall at 12:30 in the afternoon wearing shower shoes and pajamas. I'm sure they're real concerned about appearances.

Some students may not have considered how their gender may or may not affect their everyday lives if they have been socialized to look and act as only male or female.

Is there a third category we've been missing?

"It's never been brought to my attention, and I don't think about it," said Wes Miles, a sophomore linguistics and physics major.

Probably because you're NOT SUPPOSED TO! Gender is something we're supposed to just accept, but I guess the "progressives" don't like absolutes.

But the LGBT Resource Center's education efforts about transgender issues may teach all students about the strict gender roles on campus and make the campus a safer place for those who bend the norms, Farrell said.

So much for simple tolerance.

"We're not taught or trained to recognize our societal roles, and we're all perpetuating it," Farrell said.

Do you know why? BECAUSE SOCIETAL ROLES ARE LEARNED FROM NATURAL BEHAVIOR AND INTERACTION!!!!!!!!!!!! If women and men weren't meant to act like women and men, they wouldn't. Did you ever wonder why "transgenders" are such a small group?

"It's about educating everyone of gender issues, not just transgender issues."

No. It's. Not. It's about forcing abnormal behavior on society and demonizing anyone who dares to stand up for reality.

...And on that note, let's enter Rant Mode™:

What is up with this "transgender" crap? Seriously. I want to know who decided that gender is just a social construct, and by recognizing this so-called fact, we'll magically be able to do anything we want.

As I understand it, transgenders basically feel like they should be the opposite sex. I don't know how they can tell, but that's what they say. My problem is the way that they're now forcing this onto people without respect for...uh...REALITY.

Think about it. They're worried about choosing a bathroom, wearing the right clothes, etc. All based on how they FEEL. They don't even seem to realize that there's a very easy way to determine your gender. Heck, even that kid in "Kindergarten Cop" understands it:

Penis=male; Vagina=female.

Why is that so freaking hard to accept? I don't care how you FEEL, because that doesn't change how you ARE. I understand homosexuality, where they may feel attracted to the same sex, but I really don't understand how they can decide that they're supposed to be the opposite sex. They can't just accept what they have and deal with it accordingly.

Instead, they resort to cross-dressing and things like that, and they also have hormone therapy and surgery. Think about THAT. They're undergoing voluntary procedures, and then trying to tell society that they were meant to be that way. Does that make sense to anyone?

If you have to have your gender surgically altered, you're not "transgendered," you're just confused about how nature works. They even expect people to just accept this as completely normal. Some even want healthcare to cover it!

This brings me to the main point of my rant. The whole "transgender" thing highlights one of the major problems with liberalism: They want to create reality rather than accepting it, all in the name of feelings. We're at the point where ELECTIVE surgery and hormone therapy are treated as necessities. They're all part of the transgender package, I guess.

Let's think a bit more about this: In a rational situation, people who don't know what gender they are, despite physical evidence being available to them 24/7, would be properly identified as abnormal. If you're a man who feels like a woman, you have a psychological problem.

However, since they feel that way, they assume that they're supposed to be that way. After all, what could be more important than feelings?

Based on this, they think that they're meant to be however they feel, and then they act like it's totally normal! They want people to simply accept any manipulation of gender they can come up with and disregard any actual truth.

Liberalism causes things like this, I believe. This is an effort to legitimize a disorder as just another "lifestyle choice," and it's an example of what happens when you rely on relativism and feel-good interpretations of everyday life. Why accept reality when you can have surgery?!

What's worse, people who are against calling a disorder an alternative lifestyle are portrayed as intolerant, bigoted, anachronistic, and that oh-so-forbidden characteristic: MEAN!

"Why can't you mean people see that gender should be a choice? You have to tolerate us, or else we'll demonize you for the rest of your life!"

Hypocrites. All of 'em. Don't force your twisted reality down the throat of society. We don't have to friggin' accept every asinine idea you crap out.

/Rant Mode™.

Posted by CD at 05:39 PM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2004

News Flash

Hey, in case you haven't noticed...


Absolutamente nada. No ideas. No interesting topics. I've covered everything. I need a break.

I won't be blogging much this week unless some incredible inspiration brings me back.

I'm going home for spring break on Saturday. Hopefully, normal posting can resume soon after that (I have an essay in mind about liberal philosophy, but there's no time for that right now). Until then, I really don't know.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep checking back. I might find something else to write about before the end of the week.

...No guarantees, though.

Posted by CD at 09:20 PM | Comments (2)

The System Works...

Here's a fun fact: My roommate has to write a speech about same-sex marriage for one of his classes. He's personally opposed to same-sex marriage, but he's afraid to talk about that in his speech because it might make people think he's homophobic.

Thanks to this, in his words, he's going to give a whole speech about how "gay marriage is the greatest thing since sliced bread," and he's basically taking his ideas from a paper written by one of his friends who knows a lot of gay people.

Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by CD at 01:00 AM | Comments (6)

March 01, 2004

Intolerance Will Not Be Tolerated

This is almost too idiotic to be true, but keep in mind that we're dealing with leftist PC fanatics in training. Thanks to Tongue Tied, I found a very disturbing story. Here are some excerpts from the original article:

A provocative speech about racial injustice prompted dozens of white students at West Haven High School to walk out of the assembly in protest Thursday.

But the majority of juniors and seniors who stayed in the auditorium stood and cheered speaker Jeffrey Johnson, saying he told the unpleasant truth.

And what "unpleasant truth" did he tell? Let's find out:

...The 30-year-old national activist sparked jeers by some students when he talked about "the system" that sends young black men into prison and special-education classes rather than to college.

Oh no! "The System!" I guess young black men NEVER commit crimes! That would require them to oppress someone, and only the Evil White Majority can oppress!

"Young black boys are targeted by these systems," he said, citing the "systematic racism in place."

"Look! There's a young black male! Arrest him!"

Do they seriously think that the police say things like that?

(to be fair, I realize that blacks are stereotyped as criminals sometimes and are targeted unfairly by stupid people, but it sure isn't "The System" making them do that)

The tension hit its high point when Johnson said that black boys are often suspended and expelled from school for breaking rules, while "white boys go back to class."

Okay, so we know why this guy was controversial. Based on that, I can understand the following:

The comments brought thunderous applause from black students, but an almost all-white group of students walked out of the auditorium. Many of the remaining students showered their classmates with boos and taunts.

Freedom of speech includes freedom not to listen, right? Even the speaker understood their discomfort:

Johnson continued to talk over the pandemonium.

"If people want to walk out — peace," he said. "I’m not here to down anybody. I’m here to be honest. This is time for us to learn together. This isn’t about offending anyone."

Interesting. The guy who thinks that the system targets young black men is fine with people leaving his speech, but the people listening to his speech resorted to booing. Wonderful.

All right, now that we've got the background, we'll move to the extended entry to see why I named this post "Intolerance Will Not Be Tolerated." After quoting a few dissenting students, the article gives us some views from those who agree with Johnson:

"I think he was great," said Ulesha Howard, 17. "To me, he was saying stuff no one else wanted to say. He was educating us."

Melvin Campbell, 17, said Johnson’s speech was "empowering" and that those who walked out showed intolerance.

"Some people who walked out were my friends," he said. "My friends who did stay, I look up to them a lot more."

Apparently, "intolerance" means "not agreeing with me" in the mind of this student. Let's see what else people think:

Sara Hicks, a sophomore, drew up a petition stating that the walkout was disrespectful and that administrators were wrong not to punish those involved. One hundred students signed the document, she said.

This is what inspired the title of the post, as well as an urge. to. KILL.

How can you possibly think that there's nothing wrong with punishing people for exercising their freedom to leave a speech like this? Is it wrong to resist indoctrination now? Here's another fun quote:

"We disagree with what our teachers say and we just can’t get up and walk out of class," she said.

I find two things wrong with that statement. First of all, there's a HUGE difference between walking out of class and walking out of a semi-racist assembly. Second, what are teachers telling these students that they disagree with? Shouldn't they be teaching...uh...FACTS?! How can you learn if you disagree with what your teachers say?

This story really makes me angry. These are high school students, and they're already swallowing the lie that "tolerance" means you're not allowed to have an opinion that the higher-ups don't like. It seems to me that they're the ones being intolerant, since they want their classmates PUNISHED for disagreeing with the speaker.

They'll fit right in once they get to college.

Posted by CD at 01:05 PM | Comments (0)


Real quick: If I use "heh" more than twice per day, please tell me to stop. I don't want to sound too much like Hamster Shocker.


Posted by CD at 01:34 AM | Comments (1)

DU Post of the Day: "Was bin Laden REALLY Behind 9/11?"

Okay, that's enough of the unannounced hiatus. Back to moonbat bashing! We begin the month of March with one of the crazier Democratic Underground threads I've seen. It's called Was Bin Laden truly behind 911?

(NOTE: As always, DU threads are for entertainment purposes only, and are not meant to represent the American left as a whole. Thank you.)

Here's the original (it's actually a poll):

Poll question: Was Bin Laden truly behind 911? Or did he finally claim responsibility to further his own cause.

Bush said Bin Laden was behind the attacks almost immediately after they occured. I think that's why patriots like Cynthia McKinney asked Bush "what he knew and when" regarding the September 11th attacks.

In the beginning, Bin Laden denied it--which is strange, since most terrorist groups have no problem claiming responsibility for such acts.

Here are the poll results:

Yes (52 votes, 32%)
No (33 votes, 20%)
I don't know (79 votes, 48%)

So, the winner is: "I don't know!" Let's see what they have to say about their choices:

Covert CIA Operation To Give The NEOCONS Their New Pearl Harbor

They're so predictable...Of course, there has to be SOME disagreement, right?

i hope you're kidding. I'd like to think that even a man as evil as Mr. Bush would not stoop that low.

Charles Krauthammer would be proud.

not necessarily shrub himself...if some truly evil people (cheney? perle? wolfowitz?) engineered it, what would they need to inform shrub for?

on the other hand, i certainly can see him agreeing that those 3,000 lives would be 'acceptable' losses....

Beautiful! Cheney, Perle, and Wolfowitz are ALL evil! And even if it wasn't Dubya, he probably wouldn't have a problem with it anyway! Such enlightenment!

Oh please. Bush has no conscience, I'm sure he could not care less if it cost three thousand lives to further his political career by making lots of dough for his wealthy friends in trumped up wars. You act as though this has never happened before in our country. I'm certain he has been in on the planning and execution. Why else would they desparately hide the energy discussions and battle so hard to keep 9-11 uninvestigated. These are NOT nice people.

Oh no! They're not "nice people!" I'm scared!!!

...the Reichstag fire in 1933, Pearl Harbor in 41, the Tonkin Gulf attack... 9/11 is not the first bogus attack done for propaganda purposes.

edit: actually I wouldn't call Pearl Habor entirely bogus, but I seriously doubt that the government didn't know it was going to happen.

Wow! The U.S. knows about ALL attacks on its soil! In fact, it CAUSED all attacks on its soil! We're such an eeeeeeeeeeeevil nation, it's no wonder the world hates us! We won't even give them the satisfaction of killing us, because we kill our own people first!

The sad part is that if /when Bin Laden is captured Americans will rejoice thinking that we are once again safe. Most people take for granted the idea that Bin Laden was responsible.

Of course they do! They're not "open-minded" enough to accept crackpot theories like the intellectual heavyweights at DU!

But wait! Remember the tape where bin Laden admitted it was him?

He admitted it...Bin Laden admitted he did it on tape!!! Isn't that enough for you?

ISN'T IT??? Well, no:

That was the "fat" Bin Laden on that tape. It doesn't appear to be him but it sure feels good to think it is. Right?

ppppphhhhttt....BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Fat Bin Laden! Oh, man, I love these people!

You may find this hard to believe, but I think the next one is the funniest thing I've EVER seen on DU. Ever. It's either a joke post written by a lurking right-winger, or proof that humanity is doomed. Look at this:

Fat Bin Laden is really Cheney dressed in Afghani garb. That alone proves Bush did it.

So THAT'S where the "undisclosed location" is! Afghanistan!

I. Can't. Believe. Someone. Wrote. That.

PLEASE tell me it's a joke. PLEASE!!!!

It gets even better. I know I'm posting more responses than usual, but I really don't want to let any of these go, and I don't want to force my loyal readers to actually look on Democratic Underground for the rest. I respect you more than that. Here's some more of teh DU funnay:

The tapes??? Do you know that some of those have been debunked? Do you know that there is NO tape in which OBL admits he did it? CNN and Faux said he did it, but the tapes did not.

Funny, I seem to remember him saying something along the lines of "it was even better than we planned." I guess "we" means "Bush" now. But could there be another explanation?

They can do a lot of things on film these days...most of it is called special effects.

Okay, as a TV, radio, and film student, I have to admit that I have NEVER seen anything or anyone capable of producing special effects like that. Maybe the planes themselves were special effects to cover up the BushCo demolition of the towers! Maybe the entire world, crap, I don't feel right...

*loses consciousness*

...Where am I? Oh, yeah, at my computer making fun of idiots. Let's see even more:

How many lies and devious tricks do they need to pull off before you realize they are ruthless thugs. How many times do they need to try to overthrow Chavez before you realize they are playing hardball? What is it with Americans that they cannot believe this man and his band of thugs are capable of this. They are going for world control, for God's sake....MANY people will die, what's a mere 3000? 3000 will be a spit in the bucket by the time these evil people are through. Already they have murdered 22000 Iraqis and Iraq didn't do one damn thing to us. What will it take to open people's eyes?

I think Frnak needs to start running some of these quotes at the top of his page instead of stuff from "In My World." They're almost as funny as the stuff he writes.

..All right, I can't take any more of that. I really hope I don't personally know any of these people...although I can think of a couple professors I had last semester who would fit right in...especially the one who told us that Rumsfeld started planning the war in Iraq 3 hours after the WTC attacks. Hmmm....

Posted by CD at 01:13 AM | Comments (4)