May 31, 2004

Random Blog Endorsement

I've been checking out some posts over at BlameBush, and I just have one thing to say:

If I'd known back in January that Liberal Larry of BlameBush was the king of pretend moonbattery, I probably wouldn't have embarrassed myself with Larry the Liberal (who was named before I knew of BlameBush, just so you know). My pathetic attempts at satire don't even come close to this guy. He's good.

For those of you who started reading SIT after Larry's departure, I'll provide a list of his posts here. I figure you might want to see why BlameBush is superior in every way. And for those of you who remember Larry the DO know that he wasn't real, right? Because a couple commenters on his posts seemed a bit confused about his identity. You'll see what I mean if you read them. Anyway...

Larry the Liberal's posts:

State of the Union Commentary
Roundup #1
Roundup #2
Larry's Reaction to the Super Bowl
Larry on tree marriage
Roundup #3

Posted by CD at 12:45 AM | Comments (0)

May 30, 2004


Check out this excerpt from a lefty blog that just linked me:

...the right side of the Blogosphere was pretty much in lock-step with the RNC talking points: He's lost it. He was anti-American and full of rage. He was frothing-at-the-mouth. He was crazy. And (this is getting so original) he has officially lost it. He has careened off the rails. In other words, they had nothing to say.

It links to part 3 of my fisking with the word "crazy." Heh heh. Nothing to say, huh? I guess that's why I spent several hours researching and dissecting the entire thing.

Nice dodge.

If you're thinking of trolling this post, you should probably think twice. Maybe you just need to calm down a little. Here, have some Kool-Aid:

Abu Grape.jpg Moorange.jpg KerryCherry.jpg

I know you libs love this stuff.

Posted by CD at 09:20 PM | Comments (10)

May 29, 2004

Holy Crap, We're Doomed

You know those crazy Democratic Underground posters? Apparently people trust at least one of them with their children.

I'm scared.

Posted by CD at 08:18 PM | Comments (2)

May 28, 2004

Fisking the Gorebot: Part 4

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

It's time for the final section of Al Gore's speech! YAY! This is the grand finale, people. I'll try to make it good (especially since it's probably the last major thing I'll post until next week):

It is now clear that their obscene abuses of the truth and their unforgivable abuse of the trust placed in them after 9/11 by the American people led directly to the abuses of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison...

Let's break down this logic: Bush allegedly lied and abused his power, which somehow led to a confirmed case of prisoner abuse. I don't get how you can decide that something that probably didn't happen is the direct cause of something that definitely did happen, but maybe I'm just not nuanced in my thinking.

...and, we are now learning, in many other similar facilities constructed as part of Bush's Gulag...

You know, a gulag is usually defined as "a forced labor camp," not "a place where some prisoners are stacked naked." which, according to the Red Cross, 70 to 90 percent of the victims are totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

Okay, first of all, there's a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty." If it hasn't yet been proven that they did something wrong, it doesn't make them innocent. And second, how would the Red Cross even know? Did they talk to the prisoners? Because I'm sure they always tell the truth.

The same dark spirit of domination has led them to - for the first time in American history - imprison American citizens with no charges, no right to see a lawyer, no right to notify their family, no right to know of what they are accused, and no right to gain access to any court to present an appeal of any sort.

Well, that's about 50% right. The problem is that those parts of the Act only apply to non-citizens who have been deemed a threat to national security. Be enlightened. (or, if you're really up to it, you can read the entire PATRIOT Act here. I haven't gotten around to it yet.)

The Bush Admistration has even acquired the power to compel librarians to tell them what any American is reading, and to compel them to keep silent about the request - or else the librarians themselves can also be imprisoned.

Oh no! How horrible! Look, if someone is reading books with titles like "How to Overthrow the Government" or "Dirty Bombs for Dummies," and they also happen to have terrorist connections, don't you think the government might want to do something about it?

They have launched an unprecedented assault on civil liberties, on the right of the courts to review their actions, on the right of the Congress to have information to how they are spending the public's money...

Way to not give a single example.

...and the right of the news media to have information about the policies they are pursuing.

When was the last time the news media used actual information for anything?

The same pattern characterizes virtually all of their policies. They resent any constraint as an insult to their will to dominate and exercise power.

Are they questioning your patriotism, Al? Awwwww.....

Their appetite for power is astonishing. It has led them to introduce a new level of viciousness in partisan politics.

Holy crap, the hypocrisy is incredible.

It is that viciousness that led them to attack as unpatriotic, Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in combat during the Vietnam War.

WRONG! They brought up Cleland's voting record on national defense issues, which showed that he voted against Bush's policies even while he claimed to support the fight against terrorism.

I find it interesting that "criticizing a person's voting record" is now equivalent to "attacking their patriotism," since Kerry used this same argument. It's almost as if they know that their votes are making us less safe, but they're too ashamed to admit it. Hmmm...

The president episodically poses as a healer and "uniter". If he president really has any desire to play that role, then I call upon him to condemn Rush Limbaugh - perhaps his strongest political supporter - who said that the torture in Abu Ghraib was a "brilliant maneuver" and that the photos were "good old American pornography," and that the actions portrayed were simply those of "people having a good time and needing to blow off steam."

See, there's another problem with you and your liberal ilk. Rush Limbaugh is not connected to the government. He is an American citizen enjoying his right to freedom of speech. If Bush were to condemn Air America, you'd be accusing him of censorship, but you somehow find nothing wrong with asking him to attack a talk radio host who said something you don't agree with. Hey, I've got an idea: Let's make the president condemn everyone who says something contrary to popular opinion! That's the real American way!


This new political viciousness by the President and his supporters is found not only on the campaign trail, but in the daily operations of our democracy.

The only "viciousness" I see is coming from your side, Gore. You know, like Ted Kennedy comparing Bush to Saddam Hussein, Congresspeople calling Republicans "chickenhawks," John "F**k Up" Kerry and his "crooked liars" comment, and a host of weird socialist moonbats calling the president and his administration un-American. Politician, heal thyself!

They have insisted that the leaders of their party in the Congress deny Democrats any meaningful role whatsoever in shaping legislation, debating the choices before us as a people, or even to attend the all-important conference committees that reconcile the differences between actions by the Senate and House of Representatives.

WHAT? You're talking about the Democrats who filibuster every single one of Bush's judicial nominees and hide out in another state when the Republicans disagree with them, right?

The same meanness of spirit...

It sounds so juvenile. I wonder if his lip was quivering when he said this.

...shows up in domestic policies as well. Under the Patriot Act, Muslims, innocent of any crime, were picked up, often physically abused, and held incommunicado indefinitely.

Yeah, just because they were Muslim, we rounded them up and threw them in "gulags." Come on, Al, are you really this ignorant? In case you haven't noticed, the situation we're in is "most terrorists are Muslims," not "most Muslims are terrorists." That's why it seems like they're arresting random people for their religion. But you'd have to be pretty dumb to think that's the real reason.

Oh, and I will once again point out that there is a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty."

What happened in Abu Ghraib was difference not of kind, but of degree.

Way to play the "racism" angle.

Differences of degree are important when the subject is torture. The apologists for what has happened do have points that should be heard and clearly understood. It is a fact that every culture and every politics sometimes expresses itself in cruelty.

Which is one of the reasons we're in Iraq in the first place, in case you forgot.

It is also undeniably true that other countries have and do torture more routinely, and far more brutally, than ours has. George Orwell once characterized life in Stalin's Russia as "a boot stamping on a human face forever." That was the ultimate culture of cruelty, so ingrained, so organic, so systematic that everyone in it lived in terror, even the terrorizers. And that was the nature and degree of state cruelty in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

About time you said something I can agree with.

We all know these things, and we need not reassure ourselves and should not congratulate ourselves that our society is less cruel than some others, although it is worth noting that there are many that are less cruel than ours.

Name one. Come on. Name one society with more freedom and respect for human rights than ours. I bet you can't. Oh, and Canada doesn't count, since they don't have freedom of speech.

And this searing revelation at Abu Ghraib should lead us to examine more thoroughly the routine horrors in our domestic prison system.

I bet you blame Bush for that, too, since he's created a culture of meanness.

But what we do now, in reaction to Abu Ghraib will determine a great deal about who we are at the beginning of the 21st century. It is important to note that just as the abuses of the prisoners flowed directly from the policies of the Bush White House, those policies flowed not only from the instincts of the president and his advisors, but found support in shifting attitudes on the part of some in our country in response to the outrage and fear generated by the attack of September 11th.

Here we go with "root causes."

The president exploited and fanned those fears, but some otherwise sensible and levelheaded Americans fed them as well.

Back up. He exploited our fears? WE WERE THE VICTIMS OF THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION, YOU IDIOT! WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? Bush's behavior after the attacks reassured us. It didn't make us more afraid. At least that's the effect it had on me. I'd be terrified if BJ Clinton was in the White House at the time. (Why does nobody ever point out that Clinton's first and middle initials spell BJ, anyway?)

I remember reading genteel-sounding essays asking publicly whether or not the prohibitions against torture were any longer relevant or desirable.

If the people who flew those planes were still alive, I wouldn't care what we did to 'em.

The same grotesque misunderstanding of what is really involved was responsible for the tone in the memo from the president's legal advisor, Alberto Gonzalez, who wrote on January 25, 2002, that 9/11 "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

That's true. The enemy we're fighting now has no respect for the Geneva Convention or "international law." They won't be satisfied until we're either dead or kneeling towards Mecca five times a day. I say we give them what they deserve.

We have seen the pictures.

Torture 24/7, on CNN!

We have learned the news. We cannot unlearn it; it is part of us. The important question now is, what will we do now about torture. Stop it? Yes, of course.

That's why it's been investigated already. Why is that so hard to understand?

But that means demanding all of the facts, not covering them up, as some now charge the administration is now doing.

How can you possibly say that unless you haven't turned on the TV for a month?

One of the whistleblowers at Abu Ghraib, Sergeant Samuel Provance, told ABC News a few days ago that he was being intimidated and punished for telling the truth. "There is definitely a coverup," Provance said. "I feel like I am being punished for being honest."

By whom? You can't say that Bush is responsible if you have no proof. Again, nice try.

The abhorrent acts in the prison were a direct consequence of the culture of impunity encouraged, authorized and instituted by Bush and Rumsfeld in their statements that the Geneva Conventions did not apply.

The Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists who aren't in uniform. It's an undeniable fact.

The apparent war crimes...

At least he's somewhat honest...

...that took place were the logical, inevitable outcome of policies and statements from the administration.

Yeah, because I remember Bush stating that "any Iraqis who resist our occupation will be stacked nekkid and photographed."

To me, as glaring as the evidence of this in the pictures themselves was the revelation that it was established practice for prisoners to be moved around during ICRC visits so that they would not be available for visits. That, no one can claim, was the act of individuals. That was policy set from above with the direct intention to violate US values it was to be upholding. It was the kind of policy we see - and criticize in places like China and Cuba.

Holy crap, you're an idiot. "Oh no! Suspected terrorists were denied visits! That's the equivalent of being thrown in a cell for the rest of your life because you criticized the government!"

Moreover, the administration has also set up the men and women of our own armed forces for payback the next time they are held as prisoners.

"Because American prisoners were treated with the utmost respect before Bush poisoned the well of human decency!!!" You know, you're just giving them an excuse, like the people who murdered Nick Berg. They know that you'll throw a tantrum if they say that they committed atrocities because of something we did. It's best to STFU and let the military deal with it.

And by the way, if you want a valid comparison of this war to Vietnam, look at the treatment of POWs by the enemy.

And for that, this administration should pay a very high price. One of the most tragic consequences of these official crimes is that it will be very hard for any of us as Americans - at least for a very long time - to effectively stand up for human rights elsewhere and criticize other governments, when our policies have resulted in our soldiers behaving so monstrously.

If they were monsters, their victims wouldn't be alive to tell about what happened. And guess what? We still have moral authority when it comes to human rights, because unlike Hussein, Castro, or Kim Jong Il, we actually punish the people who do these things. That's how we exercise that authority.

This administration has shamed America and deeply damaged the cause of freedom and human rights everywhere, thus undermining the core message of America to the world.

What message do you want to send the world? "America: We'll bend over and take it!"

President Bush offered a brief and half-hearted apology to the Arab world - but he should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions.


He also owes an apology to the U.S. Army for cavalierly sending them into harm's way while ignoring the best advice of their commanders.

You mean their retired commanders and two anonymous sources? How dare he actually send soldiers to do their job when a couple people might disagree with it!!!11oneone!!!

Perhaps most importantly of all, he should apologize to all those men and women throughout our world who have held the ideal of the United States of America as a shining goal, to inspire their hopeful efforts to bring about justice under a rule of law in their own lands.

I guess Ted Kennedy was sober enough to co-author this monstrosity of a speech.

Of course, the problem with all these legitimate requests is that a sincere apology requires an admission of error, a willingness to accept responsibility and to hold people accountable.

We're demolishing the frickin' prison, aren't we? That seems to be a pretty solid admission of error. However, it's pretty hard to admit that you're guilty of something YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH.

And President Bush is not only unwilling to acknowledge error.

I think I just covered that one.

He has thus far been unwilling to hold anyone in his administration accountable for the worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the history of the United States of America.

That was the biggest exaggeration since the Great Exaggeration Festival back in '87. Are you forgetting a little thing called "Vietnam," which you liberals seem obsessed with? Or the fact that we've lost fewer soldiers in this war than almost every other war in our history except Gulf War I? I really find it hard to believe that they don't know how outrageous these claims are.

He is willing only to apologize for the alleged erratic behavior of a few low-ranking enlisted people, who he is scapegoating for his policy fiasco.

Classic. "It's never the fault of the people who did it! Let's climb the blame tree!"

In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president.

Those "legally cast ballots" had already been counted. You just wanted to see if a miracle could somehow make a few more of them say "Gore/Lieberman."

I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability...

Again, the only people doing this are on your side. Bush hasn't done anywhere near enough to combat the violations of American government practices by the left. For example, the 9th Circuit Court still exists.

So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed...

I always think it's hilarious when people refer to "secrets" as if everyone knew about them, which would, of course, make them no longer secret. completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.

The fact that you're allowed to leak this verbal diarrhea into the ears of your moonbat minions proves that we're still honoring the principles of America.

I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable - and I believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, "We - even we here - hold the power, and bear the responsibility."

Unfortunately, when you attack the president with false accusations and pretend that he can see everything happening in Iraq, you lose a ton of credibility.

And one more thing: It's almost time for a new election. You can take the sour grapes out of your mouth now.

Posted by CD at 06:15 PM | Comments (4)

May 27, 2004


I think I'm spent for today. The fourth and final edition of "Fisking the Gorebot" will be posted sometime Friday afternoon. I'm on a fact-finding mission right now.

Posted by CD at 09:55 PM | Comments (0)

Fisking the Gorebot: Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

Continuing with the crazy Algore MoveOn speech, we have the beginning of his "everyone should resign" rant:

In my opinion, John Kerry is dealing with this unfolding tragedy in an impressive and extremely responsible way.

Wait a couple days, then see if you still think that.

Our nation's best interest lies in having a new president who can turn a new page, sweep clean with a new broom, and take office on January 20th of next year with the ability to make a fresh assessment of exactly what our nation's strategic position is as of the time the reigns of power are finally wrested from the group of incompetents that created this catastrophe.

Too bad Kerry wants to apologize for all the horrible tragedies we caused and then go back to treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Because that sure worked well in the past.

Kerry should not tie his own hands by offering overly specific, detailed proposals concerning a situation that is rapidly changing and unfortunately, rapidly deteriorating...

So why are you criticizing Bush for not having a plan?

...but should rather preserve his, and our country's, options, to retrieve our national honor as soon as this long national nightmare is over.

The nightmare will be over when the terrorists are dead.

Eisenhower did not propose a five-point plan for changing America's approach to the Korean War when he was running for president in 1952.

Neither did Bush. He proposed a five-point plan for finishing what we started.

When a business enterprise finds itself in deep trouble that is linked to the failed policies of the current CEO the board of directors and stockholders usually say to the failed CEO, "Thank you very much, but we're going to replace you now with a new CEO -- one less vested in a stubborn insistence on staying the course, even if that course is, in the words of General Zinni, "Headed over Niagara Falls."

Unfortunately, when a business enterprise encounters problems, its competitors don't blow up the building they're in. And I really don't think Kerry's plan of "using the same strategy that led to 9/11" is going to make us a whole lot safer.

One of the strengths of democracy is the ability of the people to regularly demand changes in leadership and to fire a failing leader and hire a new one with the promise of hopeful change.

Or, if the other option is a leader who has no idea how to handle terrorism, we can keep the current one.

That is the real solution to America's quagmire in Iraq.

Why am I not surprised that he used that word?

But, I am keenly aware that we have seven months and twenty five days remaining in this president's current term of office and that represents a time of dangerous vulnerability for our country because of the demonstrated incompetence and recklessness of the current administration.

I'd be more worried about Al Qaeda's "attack before an election" technique than Bush's supposed failures. But I guess that real threats aren't as important as political points.

It is therefore essential that even as we focus on the fateful choice, the voters must make this November that we simultaneously search for ways to sharply reduce the extraordinary danger that we face with the current leadership team in place.

And now, we reach the point where Gore totally loses it...

It is for that reason that I am calling today for Republicans as well as Democrats to join me in asking for the immediate resignations of those immediately below George Bush and Dick Cheney who are most responsible for creating the catastrophe that we are facing in Iraq.

Great! Let's completely dismantle the current administration before the election, rather than waiting to do it the American way. How patriotic.

We desperately need a national security team with at least minimal competence because the current team is making things worse with each passing day. They are endangering the lives of our soldiers, and sharply increasing the danger faced by American citizens everywhere in the world, including here at home.

I had no idea that killing terrorists transports them here.

They are enraging hundreds of millions of people and embittering an entire generation of anti-Americans whose rage is already near the boiling point.

You're talking about yourself, right?

We simply cannot afford to further increase the risk to our country with more blunders by this team. Donald Rumsfeld, as the chief architect of the war plan, should resign today.

Successful war plan=Bad Secretary of Defense. O...kay.

His deputies Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and his intelligence chief Stephen Cambone should also resign. The nation is especially at risk every single day that Rumsfeld remains as Secretary of Defense.

And who should take his place? I think we'd be in even more supposed danger with no secretary of defense, or with one that has little to no experience and has to take over in the middle of the war.

Condoleeza Rice, who has badly mishandled the coordination of national security policy, should also resign immediately.

Notice how he gives no examples, but expects people to accept this as fact. Baaah. Baaaah. Why do I suddenly have the urge to buy a sweater?

George Tenet should also resign. I want to offer a special word about George Tenet, because he is a personal friend and I know him to be a good and decent man. It is especially painful to call for his resignation, but I have regretfully concluded that it is extremely important that our country have new leadership at the CIA immediately.

Oh, so being a "good and decent man" is a sign of competence? Tell that to Jimmy Carter.

As a nation, our greatest export has always been hope: hope that through the rule of law people can be free to pursue their dreams, that democracy can supplant repression and that justice, not power, will be the guiding force in society.

And yet, you're against the spread of democracy because you think the president and his administration are evil.

Our moral authority in the world derived from the hope anchored in the rule of law. With this blatant failure of the rule of law from the very agents of our government, we face a great challenge in restoring our moral authority in the world and demonstrating our commitment to bringing a better life to our global neighbors.

Yeah, let's cave in to this nebulous international emotion. That'll give us a great image as a nation of weaklings. Terrorists would never attack a weak nation.

During Ronald Reagan's Presidency, Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan was accused of corruption, but eventually, after a lot of publicity, the indictment was thrown out by the Judge. Donovan asked the question, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" President Bush has now placed the United States of America in the same situation. Where do we go to get our good name back?

We never had a good name. When you're on top, people are jealous. Unless you want to sacrifice our authority to the "international community," you have to deal with the fact that some people hate us. I will once again use the analogy of "popular kids vs. nerds." Everyone hates the nerds, but they go on to be the influential ones, while popular people often end up in prison.

The answer is, we go where we always go when a dramatic change is needed. We go to the ballot box, and we make it clear to the rest of the world that what's been happening in America for the last four years, and what America has been doing in Iraq for the last two years, really is not who we are.

"But first, let's force everyone to resign so we can get a head start!"

We, as a people, at least the overwhelming majority of us, do not endorse the decision to dishonor the Geneva Convention and the Bill of Rights....

THE BILL OF RIGHTS?! Did you just pull that out of your @ss?

Make no mistake, the damage done at Abu Ghraib is not only to America's reputation and America's strategic interests, but also to America's spirit. It is also crucial for our nation to recognize - and to recognize quickly - that the damage our nation has suffered in the world is far, far more serious than President Bush's belated and tepid response would lead people to believe.

And you're really helping by blathering on about how horrible we are. It's almost as if you want people to hate us.

Remember how shocked each of us, individually, was when we first saw those hideous images. The natural tendency was to first recoil from the images, and then to assume that they represented a strange and rare aberration that resulted from a few twisted minds or, as the Pentagon assured us, "a few bad apples."

And everyone capable of independent thought realized that this was, indeed, the case, which is why the soldiers in question were reported by their peers and punished accordingly.

But as today's shocking news reaffirms yet again, this was not rare. It was not an aberration. Today's New York Times reports that an Army survey of prisoner deaths and mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanisatan "show a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known.'

Yeah, because I'm sure terrorists are always well-behaved and don't require any additional force to restrain them.

Nor did these abuses spring from a few twisted minds at the lowest ranks of our military enlisted personnel. No, it came from twisted values and atrocious policies at the highest levels of our government. This was done in our name, by our leaders.

Notice the jump from "this was done by the military" to "this was clearly done by Bush." Does Dubya practice some sort of astral projection now?

These horrors were the predictable consequence of policy choices that flowed directly from this administration's contempt for the rule of law.

...Said the guy who needed the Supreme Court to convince him that the Constitution is valid.

And the dominance they have been seeking is truly not simply unworthy of America - it is also an illusory goal in its own right.

What frickin' dominance is he talking about? We got rid of the frickin' dictator, in case you missed it.

Our world is unconquerable because the human spirit is unconquerable, and any national strategy based on pursuing the goal of domination is doomed to fail because it generates its own opposition, and in the process, creates enemies for the would-be dominator.

All right, that's it. WE'RE NOT DOMINATING ANYONE. We went into a country that was in the grip of a raping, murdering, fascist dictator, and now we're in the process of eliminating his brainwashed minions so the real Iraqis can govern themselves. We're only "dominating" people who wanted to continue the reign of terror. This "conqueror" crap makes me want to vomit.

A policy based on domination of the rest of the world...

Great, now Bush is a megalomaniacal James Bond villain who wants to take over the world. SHUT YOUR F**KING MOUTH, YOU F**KING LOON.

...not only creates enemies for the United States and creates recruits for Al Qaeda...

Al Qaeda recruits are created when women show their f**king ankles in public. also undermines the international cooperation that is essential to defeating the efforts of terrorists who wish harm and intimidate Americans.

Allow me to translate: "It's essential to combat terrorism, but we can't invade other countries or use force, because that might hurt their feelings. Therefore, we can only use diplomacy and make friends with the whole world if we want to be safe. Break out the marshmallows and firewood, because we're gonna sing 'Kumbaya!'"

Unilateralism, as we have painfully seen in Iraq...

I just realized that if we're really a global community like Gore says, any action is unilateral. Heh heh. What an idiot. its own reward. Going it alone may satisfy a political instinct but it is dangerous to our military, even without their Commander in Chief taunting terrorists to "bring it on."

WE DIDN'T GO IN UNILATERALLY. I think that everyone should've walked out on him the second he made that fantastically flawed claim, but I know that they all believe it too. That Kool-Aid must be friggin' delicious. Maybe they stir it in giant tinfoil bowls.

Our troops are stretched thin and exhausted not only because Secretary Rumsfeld contemptuously dismissed the advice of military leaders on the size of the needed force - but also because President Bush's contempt for traditional allies and international opinion left us without a real coalition to share the military and financial burden of the war and the occupation.

What exactly would a "real coalition" entail, anyway? I have a feeling that we could have the support of every single human being on the planet except the American left, and they would call it unilateral because they didn't like it.

Our future is dependent upon increasing cooperation and interdependence in a world tied ever more closely together by technologies of communications and travel.

That's why we're killing people who use communication and travel for evil. You know, like flying civilian airliners into buildings.

The emergence of a truly global civilization has been accompanied by the recognition of truly global challenges that require global responses that, as often as not, can only be led by the United States - and only if the United States restores and maintains its moral authority to lead.

F**K!!!! F**KITY F**K F**K F**K!!!!!! Now he thinks that we should lead?!!! Even after he just said that we can only act when the rest of the world gives us their approval? F*************************K!!!!!

Make no mistake, it is precisely our moral authority that is our greatest source of strength, and it is precisely our moral authority that has been recklessly put at risk by the cheap calculations and mean compromises of conscience wagered with history by this willful president.

Oh no! They're "mean!" Someone get little Albert his apple juice so he'll shut up.

Listen to the way Israel's highest court dealt with a similar question when, in 1999, it was asked to balance due process rights against dire threats to the security of its people:

"This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual's liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day they (add to) its strength."

What does that prove, except that we have the final decision in matters of fighting terror? We haven't resorted to purposely slaughtering non-combatants like our enemy, so I don't see the problem here.

The last and best description of America's meaning in the world is still the definitive formulation of Lincoln's annual message to Congress on December 1, 1862:

"The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise - with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history...the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation...We shall nobly save, or meanly lose the last best hope of earth...The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."

Well, you know what? For us, that "fiery trial" was 9/11. We're preventing it from happening again by wiping Al Qaeda off the face of the Earth. Some Americans will die in the process, but if they don't, millions more will.


Way to refute your own points.

Posted by CD at 09:15 PM | Comments (1)

Fisking the Gorebot: Part 2

Part 1 is here.

This next section is a bit beyond my area of expertise, so it's not going to be brilliant, but I have to get through it so I can return to the good stuff. Let's begin...

When a senior, respected military leader like Joe Hoar uses the word "abyss", then the rest of us damn well better listen. Here is what he means: more American soldiers dying, Iraq slipping into worse chaos and violence, no end in sight, with our influence and moral authority seriously damaged.

I guess that's why Iraqis are getting ready to take control of the government, hold national elections, and write a new constitution.

Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, who headed Central Command before becoming President Bush's personal emissary to the Middle East, said recently that our nation's current course is "headed over Niagara Falls."

Opinion, meet facts. Facts, beat the living crap out of opinion. Thank you.

The Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, Army Major General Charles H. Swannack, Jr., asked by the Washington Post whether he believes the United States is losing the war in Iraq, replied, "I think strategically, we are." Army Colonel Paul Hughes, who directed strategic planning for the US occupation authority in Baghdad, compared what he sees in Iraq to the Vietnam War, in which he lost his brother:

That's a shock. To some people, every war is Vietnam.

"I promised myself when I came on active duty that I would do everything in my power to prevent that ... from happening again."

It's not happening again. For one thing, we were fighting an organized army in Vietnam, not a "radical cleric" leading a bunch of "insurgents."

Noting that Vietnam featured a pattern of winning battles while losing the war, Hughes added "unless we ensure that we have coherence in our policy, we will lose strategically."

That's why we have a plan. As much as the media wants to pretend that there's no "exit strategy," it's just not valid.

The White House spokesman, Dan Bartlett was asked on live television about these scathing condemnations by Generals involved in the highest levels of Pentagon planning and he replied, "Well they're retired, and we take our advice from active duty officers."

Where's the problem? I think the people who are actually involved with the mission have a better idea of how it works.

But amazingly, even active duty military officers are speaking out against President Bush. For example, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior General at the Pentagon as saying, " the current OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) refused to listen or adhere to military advice." Rarely if ever in American history have uniformed commanders felt compelled to challenge their commander in chief in public.

Doesn't this go against your whole "abuse of power" screed? It seems like they should be silenced by the Ashcroft Dissent Crushing Squads™.

The Post also quoted an unnamed general as saying, "Like a lot of senior Army guys I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush Administration. He listed two reasons. "I think they are going to break the Army," he said, adding that what really incites him is "I don't think they care."

Wow. So two anonymous sources represent the entire military. Kind of like 7 prison guards.

In his upcoming book, Zinni blames the current catastrophe on the Bush team's incompetence early on. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war, and its later conduct," he writes, "I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption."

Wow, another book accusing Bush of being incompetent...*yawn*...

Zinni's book will join a growing library of volumes by former advisors to Bush -- including his principal advisor on terrorism, Richard Clarke; his principal economic policy advisor, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was honored by Bush's father for his service in Iraq, and his former Domestic Adviser on faith-based organizations, John Dilulio, who said, "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

What kind of "policy apparatus" would you suggest then? The Commander in Chief is supposed to make decisions occasionally.

Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." But because Rumsfeld and Bush did not want to hear disagreement with their view that Iraq could be invaded at a much lower cost, Shinseki was hushed and then forced out.

I'm sure it was really that simple.

And as a direct result of this incompetent plan and inadequate troop strength, young soldiers were put in an untenable position. For example, young reservists assigned to the Iraqi prisons were called up without training or adequate supervision, and were instructed by their superiors to "break down" prisoners in order to prepare them for interrogation.

Since when is that not standard procedure? The information we get from prisoners could save lives.

To make matters worse, they were placed in a confusing situation where the chain of command was criss-crossed between intelligence gathering and prison administration, and further confused by an unprecedented mixing of military and civilian contractor authority.

Those meddling mercenaries.

The soldiers who are accused of committing these atrocities are, of course, responsible for their own actions and if found guilty, must be severely and appropriately punished.

Oh, but that's not enough, is it? We have to pretend that the Bush administration personally ordered and observed every last abuse that took place.

But they are not the ones primarily responsible for the disgrace that has been brought upon the United States of America.


Private Lynndie England did not make the decision that the United States would not observe the Geneva Convention.

That's actually true. She did, however, make the decision to act like an idiot and then pose for pictures, which was 100% her fault.

Specialist Charles Graner was not the one who approved a policy of establishing an American Gulag...

Ooooooh, let's use Soviet terminology to demonize the eeeeevil Bush Regime. Scary.

...of dark rooms with naked prisoners...

Isn't that the kind of thing the left is in favor of? Maybe I'm just thinking of Massachusetts... be "stressed" and even - we must use the word - tortured - to force them to say things that legal procedures might not induce them to say.

Since "legal procedures" basically consist of begging them to divulge information that could cause their side to lose the war, I don't see why everyone is so upset. The actions at Abu Ghraib were unnecessary, but if those prisoners actually had valuable things to tell us, we should've done whatever was necessary to win. That's "overwhelming force" for you.

These policies were designed and insisted upon by the Bush White House.

Oh, is that why they're apologizing for it, instead of refusing to listen to dissent like you keep implying?

Indeed, the President's own legal counsel advised him specifically on the subject. His secretary of defense and his assistants pushed these cruel departures from historic American standards over the objections of the uniformed military, just as the Judge Advocates General within the Defense Department were so upset and opposed that they took the unprecedented step of seeking help from a private lawyer in this city who specializes in human rights and said to him, "There is a calculated effort to create an atmosphere of legal ambiguity" where the mistreatment of prisoners is concerned."

That was just a tangent. I can't figure out which part of it was actually useful.

Indeed, the secrecy of the program indicates an understanding that the regular military culture and mores would not support these activities and neither would the American public or the world community.


Another implicit acknowledgement of violations of accepted standards of behavior is the process of farming out prisoners to countries less averse to torture and giving assignments to private contractors.

Because contractors will never respect the rules, ever.

President Bush set the tone for our attitude for suspects in his State of the Union address. He noted that more than 3,000 "suspected terrorists" had been arrested in many countries and then he added, "and many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our allies."

That's a good thing. Unless you feel sorry for murderers.

George Bush promised to change the tone in Washington. And indeed he did. As many as 37 prisoners may have been murdered while in captivity, though the numbers are difficult to rely upon because in many cases involving violent death, there were no autopsies.

And I bet they were all innocent, and none of the perpetrators were punished, right?

How dare they blame their misdeeds on enlisted personnel from a Reserve unit in upstate New York.

How dare you pretend that they control everything the military does!

President Bush owes more than one apology. On the list of those he let down are the young soldiers who are themselves apparently culpable, but who were clearly put into a moral cesspool.

"Free will? Wasn't that a movie about a killer whale?"

The perpetrators as well as the victims were both placed in their relationship to one another by the policies of George W. Bush.

Brilliant deduction, Holmes. I'm so ashamed that you're not our president, because we need a superb mind like yours to tell us that when a president declares war, soldiers are sent there.

How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people.

They haven't dared to do that yet, because they didn't order the abuse.

How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison.

If the actions of those soldiers were really as bad as when Saddam was in power, they'd need to dig more mass graves. His prisoners didn't live to tell about what he did to them. And did I forget to mention that Hussein actually ordered those tortures, unlike Bush? In fact, he and his psychotic spawn actually participated in many executions. There's some perspective for ya.

David Kay concluded his search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq with the famous verdict: "we were all wrong."

Wow, out of context quotes prove so much. "We were all wrong" could mean anything, especially since our intelligence is quite clearly not perfect.

And for many Americans, Kay's statement seemed to symbolize the awful collision between Reality and all of the false and fading impressions President Bush had fostered in building support for his policy of going to war.

Now we're back to "Bush lied, there were no WMD!"

Now the White House has informed the American people that they were also "all wrong" about their decision to place their faith in Ahmed Chalabi, even though they have paid him 340,000 dollars per month. 33 million dollars (CHECK) and placed him adjacent to Laura Bush at the State of the Union address. Chalabi had been convicted of fraud and embezzling 70 million dollars in public funds from a Jordanian bank, and escaped prison by fleeing the country. But in spite of that record, he had become one of key advisors to the Bush Administration on planning and promoting the War against Iraq.

And now that they're re-evaluating that decision, you've suddenly decided that it's a sign of weakness to change course? Doesn't all that cognitive dissonance give you a headache?

And they repeatedly cited him as an authority, perhaps even a future president of Iraq. Incredibly, they even ferried him and his private army into Baghdad in advance of anyone else, and allowed him to seize control over Saddam's secret papers.

Now they are telling the American people that he is a spy for Iran who has been duping the President of the United States for all these years.

I think it's interesting how you accept the truth of that statement immediately, even after all the ranting about how Bush lies to us. Oh, wait, I forgot that if it's bad for America, it must be true.

One of the Generals in charge of this war policy went on a speaking tour in his spare time to declare before evangelical groups that the US is in a holy war as "Christian Nation battling Satan."

I'd believe that. Look at who we're fighting.

This same General Boykin was the person who ordered the officer who was in charge of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay to extend his methods to Iraq detainees, prisoners. ... The testimony from the prisoners is that they were forced to curse their religion Bush used the word "crusade" early on in the war against Iraq, and then commentators pointed out that it was singularly inappropriate because of the history and sensitivity of the Muslim world and then a few weeks later he used it again.

Oh no! We might hurt their precious feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings!!!!

"We are now being viewed as the modern Crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world," Zinni said.

That is utter bulls**t, all right? If we were colonizing, we wouldn't be turning over government power to the Iraqis; We'd be putting Bush in charge of the country and treating it like the 51st state.

What a terrible irony that our country, which was founded by refugees seeking religious freedom - coming to America to escape domineering leaders who tried to get them to renounce their religion - would now be responsible for this kind of abuse.

Yeah, telling prisoners to renounce their religion is equivalent to establishing a national church. Whatever you say, Gore-on.

Ameen Saeed al-Sheikh told the Washington Post that he was tortured and ordered to denounce Islam and after his leg was broken one of his torturers started hitting it while ordering him to curse Islam and then, " they ordered me to thank Jesus that I'm alive." Others reported that they were forced to eat pork and drink alcohol.

Horrible. I'm flabbergasted.

In my religious tradition, I have been taught that "ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Yes, and we now know that Lynndie England, Charles Graner, and the rest are f**king douchebags who should be court martialed.

The President convinced a majority of the country that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11th.

That's funny, because I distinctly remember him naming Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda whenever he referred to the attack, and I've never, in the nearly 3 years since then, heard anyone say that Saddam did it. Ever. In fact, the only time I hear that is when people like you claim that everyone believed it. That's odd...

But in truth he had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Nobody said that he did.

The President convinced the country with a mixture of forged documents and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, and that he was "indistinguishable" from Osama bin Laden.

Based on his statement that "We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them," he technically is indistinguishable from bin Laden. That's called consistency. Hooray.

He asked the nation , in his State of the Union address, to "imagine" how terrified we should be that Saddam was about to give nuclear weapons to terrorists and stated repeatedly that Iraq posed a grave and gathering threat to our nation.

As I pointed out in Part 1, you also said that. Are you going to go on an insane tirade against yourself? Based on your ability to believe two things at once, I think that would be possible. And entertaining.

He planted the seeds of war...

Radical Islam planted the seeds of war. We're just digging them up and destroying them.

...and harvested a whirlwind. And now, the "corrupt tree" of a war waged on false premises

No, no, no, no, that's all wrong. The correct phrase is "false pretenses." Haven't you been reading the opinion pages lately?

...has brought us the "evil fruit" of Americans torturing and humiliating prisoners.

7 of them. 7 Americans. Who are being investigated and punished. More than Saddam ever did, since he actually set up the entire system.

Wow, that was less than effective, but the next section will be better.

Posted by CD at 07:45 PM | Comments (2)

Fisking the Gorebot: Part 1

All right, this is going to be quite a daunting task (how often do you see that phrase online?), but I am determined to fisk every last sentence of Al Gore's deranged MoveOn speech. I'll have to do it in several parts. I haven't figured out how many. In any case, I'll put the whole thing in the extended entry, as I usually do with huge posts.

Enough introductions. I'm just going to dive right in and see what happens:

George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world.

If you liberal idiots really cared about our international reputation, you wouldn't be bending over backwards to make it look like the Abu Ghraib abuses represent our entire military.

He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

"Bush lied! Bush lied!" Even the former vice president is parroting this pathetic smear now. I love how they can NEVER PROVIDE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. We just have to trust them, since everyone knows that Republicans are liars. After all, if they were honest, they wouldn't agree with the eeeeeeevil right wing agenda.

Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention.

Yeah, because he ordered those poor, innocent guards to stack prisoners naked and take photos. And by the way, THE GENEVA CONVENTION ONLY APPLIES TO SOLDIERS IN UNIFORM! Terrorists disguised as civilians have no rights.

Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts...

I find it interesting that all those groups agreed that Saddam needed to be taken out. But I guess they were just lied to by the horrible Bush Regime.

...or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind."

Well, I believe that about 70% of Americans were for the war. And I'm sure the Iraqis really loved Saddam more than freedom.

He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq.

Could've fooled me.

And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.

Attending funerals would dishonor the dead, because it would take attention away from them and their accomplishments, as well as depriving the family of an opportunity to pay their last respects. And you sick freaks are obsessed with photos of flag-draped coffins because you know that people will have an emotional reaction to them and might not be as supportive of the war. Which puts our troops in more danger, and creates even more coffins. They're soldiers, not pawns.

How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.

The horror! The horror!!! How about the horror that we felt in witnessing the 9/11 attacks? Do you really believe that those poor, mistreated prisoners wouldn't have flown those planes themselves if given the chance? We treated them better than they deserve.

To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II.

From its earliest days in power? What the f**k were they doing before 9/11 that was so horrible for us?

The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption."

That's because the strategy of containment resulted in crooked deals with European countries, violations of cease-fire agreements, development of illegal weapons, and mass graves, you droning douche.

And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security...

Did you miss the part where Bush said that we must act before the threat is imminent?

...but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral...

"Because it's not a coalition without France and Germany!"

...U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so...

Yeah, too bad it was in response to violations of international law by SADDAM HUSSEIN.

...and take military action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent threat.

You f**king moron, that's exactly the point. If he was already an imminent threat, it would be even more risky to take him on, because he might be able to friggin' nuke us. You just don't get it, do you?

All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the President.

Yeah, I remember that whole "rush to war," where Bush forced us to go to Iraq based on his assertions alone. In fact, here's one of the more forceful quotations from that period:

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Now, who could've said such a horribly dishonest thing? Oh, now I remember: YOU!

More disturbing still was their frequent use of the word "dominance" to describe their strategic goal, because an American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does.

Well, thanks for the enlightenment, Forrest. I'm so glad that you can compare mistreatment of a couple dozen prisoners to the liberation of 25 million people.

Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at all. It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for more power still by striking a Faustian bargain.

I think we're taking a ride into the imperialism zone. Scary.

And as always happens - sooner or later - to those who shake hands with the devil, they find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul.

I think that translates to "Bush is evil." How original.

One of the clearest indications of the impending loss of intimacy with one's soul...

When did you decide that you're an expert on metaphysics, you idiot? the failure to recognize the existence of a soul in those over whom power is exercised, especially if the helpless come to be treated as animals, and degraded.

*cough* PLASTIC SHREDDERS *cough cough*

We also know - and not just from De Sade and Freud - the psychological proximity between sexual depravity and other people's pain.

If he starts talking about weird S&M fantasies, I'm leaving.

It has been especially shocking and awful to see these paired evils perpetrated so crudely and cruelly in the name of America.

By a whole 7 people.

Those pictures of torture and sexual abuse came to us embedded in a wave of news about escalating casualties and growing chaos enveloping our entire policy in Iraq.

You've been watching too much CNN.

But in order understand the failure of our overall policy, it is important to focus specifically on what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison...

"...because that's the only ammunition we've got left!"

...and ask whether or not those actions were representative of who we are as Americans? Obviously the quick answer is no, but unfortunately it's more complicated than that.

I'm surprised he didn't say "nuanced."

There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy are what have lead us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in our collective aspirations more than the people any other nation.

Okay, now you're just trying to throw off people who want to question your patriotism.

Our founders were insightful students of human nature. They feared the abuse of power because they understood that every human being has not only "better angels" in his nature, but also an innate vulnerability to temptation - especially the temptation to abuse power over others.

Our founders understood full well that a system of checks and balances is needed in our constitution because every human being lives with an internal system of checks and balances that cannot be relied upon to produce virtue if they are allowed to attain an unhealthy degree of power over their fellow citizens.

You really could've found a way to say that in less time.

Listen then to the balance of internal impulses described by specialist Charles Graner when confronted by one of his colleagues, Specialist Joseph M. Darby, who later became a courageous whistleblower.

*GASP!* You mean another soldier reported the abuse, not the heroic American media?! I am shocked, SHOCKED! to hear that! He must be the exception, not the rule!!!!

When Darby asked him to explain his actions documented in the photos, Graner replied: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the Corrections Officer says, 'I love to make a groan man piss on himself."

What the crap is a "groan man?"

What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances.

Since your previous statements about individual temptations actually refute the last one, shouldn't they cancel each other out and create a wormhole or something?

The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th.

"Bush equivocated, prisoners masturbated!"

There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with.

Oh no! We're doooooooooomed!!!!!!

But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse.

Worse for terrorists, not us.

We are less safe because of his policies.

Oh, is that why terrorism is at a 30 year low?

He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation -- because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.

Pot, meet kettle, etc. etc.

He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us.

Another contradiction! First, he says that there will always be a threat of terror, then he says that there's only a threat because Bush went to war. PICK ONE!

And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries.

"Islam is a religion of peace...we worship the same God...this is a war against a political ideology, not a religion..." Yeah, nice try, but I actually listen to the president when he opens his mouth.

And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name.

"Bush murders brown people!"

President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists.

Did it ever occur to you that the terrorists were already recruited, and now they're just lining up to be killed for Allah?

[Dick Cheney said, "This war may last the rest of our lives.]

You just said that a few paragraphs ago, so I don't know why you brought it up.

The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States.

I guess you take that "lies, damned lies, and statistics" quote to heart.

Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict " has arguable focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition."

And when Al Qaeda sees how hopeless it is to f**k with the United States, they'll back down like the little b**ches they are.

The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that that number was just randomly chosen.

The war plan was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from military professionals and the analysis of the intelligence was incompetent in its conclusion that our soldiers would be welcomed with garlands of flowers and cheering crowds.

Never mind the fact that that actually happened.

Thus we would not need to respect the so-called Powell doctrine of overwhelming force.

My brain hurts. Now you're in favor of overwhelming force? STOP GETTING YOUR LOGIC WIRES CROSSED!

There was also in Rumsfeld's planning a failure to provide security for nuclear materials, and to prevent widespread lawlessness and looting.

And now he's also in favor of attacking civilians. Brilliant.

Luckily, there was a high level of competence on the part of our soldiers even though they were denied the tools and the numbers they needed for their mission. What a disgrace that their families have to hold bake sales to buy discarded Kevlar vests to stuff into the floorboards of the Humvees! Bake sales for body armor.

Wasn't it your buddy Bubba who destroyed the military's capability, specifically because he "loathes" them?

And the worst still lies ahead. General Joseph Hoar, the former head of the Marine Corps, said "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss."

And so am I, because that's just a small part of the speech. I'll continue this a little later.

Posted by CD at 05:45 PM | Comments (2)

One Three More Pictures

This is exciting! After a bit of investigation, I managed to find out what flavor of Kool-Aid the news media drinks. Click the extended entry to see.

Abu Grape.jpg

I forgot a couple others that they drink occasionally:



You really don't want to know how late it was when I made these. Let's just say that I'm starting to hear birds waking up.

Dang it, I should've replaced "Artificial flavor" with "Fictitious flavor" on the Moorange packet. Oh well.

Posted by CD at 02:32 AM | Comments (1)

The Poodle Barks Again

I was going to fisk Maureen Dowd's latest column, but then I saw this line:

An outraged president called yesterday for the immediate resignations of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, Douglas Feith and Stephen Cambone.

Unfortunately, it wasn't the president in the White House. It was the shadow president, the one who won the popular vote.

What else can you say about someone who honestly believes that? It's just not worth it.

Incidentally, I'm still thinking about taking on the entire Algore speech. I'll get back to that later.

Posted by CD at 12:07 AM | Comments (1)

May 26, 2004

Thinking Out Loud...

I wonder if it would be possible to fisk Gorangutan's entire speech in multiple posts. Hmmm...

Posted by CD at 10:43 PM | Comments (0)

Funniest. Thing. EVER.

Read these. That is all.

Posted by CD at 09:33 PM | Comments (0)

How Ironic

It looks like the Democrats are becoming what they hate:


I think we should start calling him "Algorangutan™."

According to Google, no one else has used that word, so now it's mine. Along with Donktionary™ and Bushchimpler™.

Posted by CD at 09:03 PM | Comments (3)


I participated in a Fark Photoshop contest! Go here and look for CMD7. That would be me.

Posted by CD at 08:07 PM | Comments (0)


That's about the only word I can think of to describe the concentrated idiocy coming from the Post-Gazette letters to the editor today. I know I do this a lot, and I really should diversify my content a little (although I'll probably have some new songs posted later), These things are simply amazing, and not in a good way. They must've been distributing free samples of Kool-Aid this week. Let's just go right into the first one, and I'll let you see for yourselves:

Radio brainwashing

Be loud, arrogant, irrational and self-righteous.

It seems you're taking your own advice so far.

State that anyone who opposes unrestrained military action or worse is committing treason.

That liberal fantasy world must be a scary place indeed.

Be repetitive, and be sure that anything said over and over eventually becomes the truth.

You're talking about Air America, right?

Rules of the Nazi propaganda machine in the 1930s? Unfortunately, no. It is the constant drumbeat of the dozens of "Rushniks" on talk radio.

See what I mean about the Kool-Aid? (I accidentally typed "Kook-Aid" a second ago. I guess that works too.) They actually published a letter comparing talk radio to the Nazis. I refuse to believe that this is the best they can do.

The only light at the end of this dark tunnel is my firm belief that come November, a clear majority of the American people will think, see the light and change the regime.

And, in traditional "crazy person writing a letter" fashion, this one ends in a complete non-sequitur. I guess we're supposed to assume that this person is part of the "Bush controls the media" crowd. Seriously, this letter fisks itself. I don't know what else to say.

So, are we having fun yet? Let's see another one:

If liberals hated America, they'd support Bush's agenda

Regarding the May 8 letter "We're Fed the Liberal Agenda: Demonize America": Once again, a missive from the right claiming the "liberal agenda" is to demonize America.

*cough* MICHAEL MOORE *cough* TED KENNEDY *cough cough* TED RALL *cough* CNN *cough* REUTERS *cough cough cough*

Oh, excuse me. Must've had something caught in my throat.

Once again the call to "support Bush" under the deceitful fig leaf of supporting the troops.

I don't think that was even a complete sentence. And was that supposed to say "olive branch" instead of "fig leaf," by any chance?

I have a news flash for those on the right: Americans are beginning to realize that the best way to support the troops is not to send them into unnecessary wars of choice...

The war was necessary, because Iraq supported terrorism, and every war that isn't fought against an invading army is a choice. lying to the American people and to the world.


Is it not the Bush supporters who at every turn seek to dishonor the dead by denying and censoring the reality of their sacrifice?

No, it's Bush supporters who seek to respect the dead by not making them tools for someone's political agenda. We like to focus on what they accomplished during life instead of dwelling on their deaths, thank you very much.

And only a right-winger would hold American soldiers to the same gutter standard as an Iraqi mob in Fallujah.

...You lost me there. When did anyone do that? Incidentally, does anyone else think that if a right-winger said that, it would be perceived as racist? I'm getting that vibe.

Believe me, if this liberal really hated America he would be an ardent supporter of this unelected...


...illegitimate regime...


...of corporate cronies...


...ideological warmongers...


...and hacks so incompetent that they allowed us to be attacked worse than ever before in our history...

...And yet, you oppose preemptive warfare. Hooray for consistency.

...and then allowed the perpetrator to go scot-free for more than 21/2 years (and counting).

I don't know where you've been getting your news, but we decimated the Taliban about 2 years ago, and we're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq at this very moment. Nice try, though.

Oh, and did I mention bankrupting the country?

Yeah, let's blame the side that believes in traditional values and tax cuts for bankrupting the country. That'll work.

The absurdity of right-wing rhetoric becomes more blatantly hallucinatory by the hour!

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

All right, just one more. I know you've all got important things you could be doing:

Anyone but Bush

What an original title.

Talk about shooting the messenger.

That sounds Maureen Dowdish.

I find it just incredible that you received a letter to the editor that could blame the media for turning "a very unfortunate situation in Iraq into a national and international travesty" ("Many, Many Iraqis Are Grateful to Be Free of Saddam," May 18).

I think this would be a good time to mention that the front page of today's PG features a picture of people visiting Abu Ghraib. Along with no actual articles related to the picture in any way. How convenient.

This mind-numbingly, simplistic approach...

That comma was unnecessary. I know that doesn't prove anything, but I thought I'd point it out. explaining the mess in Iraq is being parroted by conservatives to protect the real source of blame for this "travesty": Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney.

Are there actual humans writing these pathetic excuses for opinions? It seems like they're all about the same. I'm starting to think that the VLWC distributes fill-in-the-blanks forms to its minions at the beginning of each week. Hmmm...I may have to make one of those.

We have been thrust into a pre-emptive strike against a weaker nation under false pretenses...

I can't believe how ironic it is that people keep using the phrase "false pretenses" to make arguments that are based on...wait for it...wait. for. it...FALSE PRETENSES!!!! this administration. I personally think that this guy should be impeached for causing such needless death and destruction to both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Too bad your opinion isn't a valid reason to impeach the frickin' president. As soon as he actually does something illegal, like the last president who was impeached, we'll get back to you.

I guess the writer would prefer to push her head into the sand and not know that the war effort is not going as Paul Wolfowitz envisioned.

Well, boo-frickity-hoo! Nothing ever goes the way it's envisioned. If it did, Communism would be an effective system of government.

In a democracy we hope to get the good news as well as the bad news from our media...

They've done half their job pretty well.

...and then decide for ourselves whether the war is justified.

Yeah, because the media doesn't influence public opinion at all, does it? I'm sure the South Vietnamese will be happy to hear that.

Well, I am appalled by what I see happening in this ill-conceived attempt at nation-building...

Good for you.

...and anything good that we have accomplished in Iraq has been negated by our lack of planning and unwillingness to admit our errors.

So "demolishing Abu Ghraib" and "raiding Chalabi's house" don't count as admitting errors? Wow, you've got high standards.

Consequently, I will happily vote for anyone but Bush in November.

What about a monkey? Would you vote for a monkey? How about a pineapple? I hear the Pineapple Party is gaining support in obscure regions of Hawaii.

...You know what? I'm done dealing with this crap now.

Posted by CD at 05:28 PM | Comments (3)

May 25, 2004

That's More Like It

This is the speech President Bush should've given. It's awesome:

Let me make this clear: when people want to kill you, will blow up men, women, and children and celebrate the deaths by jumping around and yelling like a bunch of deranged howler monkeys, you waste those motherf**kers.

We need to get rid of the "35 or older" rule so Frank J. can run for president in 2008.

Posted by CD at 03:43 PM | Comments (4)

May 24, 2004

Speech Blogging

All right, it's time for some "live" blogging. Live as in "typing as I watch a speech and then posting it immediately." I'm not going to try and update throughout like some people do. This will be pretty much stream-of-consciousness, as I did with the SOTU and the Democratic debate, so I'll put it in the extended entry for the sake of everyone's sanity. Also, my computer desk is in the corner of my room, so I have to look to the right to see the TV, then back to the left to see the computer. Therefore, random typos may be present even after proofreading.

Anyway...let's get started.

All right, Chris Matthews just said that the speech is coming up in a moment (I'm watching it on MSNBC), so I guess the action is about ready to begin. Hey, I almost forgot that it's in Pennsylvania. That's where I am...oh, they just announced him. They're clapping. Good. And there he is...smirking...DU is going to hate that. Now they're standing. He's smirking again. That actually bothers me. Don't ask why.

Oh, crap, he's slurring already. The actions of our enemies have been brutal, calculating, and instructive...Izadeen Saleem? Is that how you spell that? Way to enunciate, Dubya.

Now he mentioned Berg's murder. It was a vile display, showing a contempt for the rules of warfare. It reveals fanaticism that would not be appeased by any concession. Nice. He named Zarqawi. He's connecting Iraq to the WoT. THANK YOU! "It was a distraction, it was a distraction!!!!"

Uh-oh. My headphones are malfunctioning. That isn't good. I missed part of it.

Now he's pointing out that the "insurgents" are members of Saddam's forces. And they're terrorists. And foreign fighters and extremists have joined them to seize regional power for themselves. They share a goal: They hope to wear out the patience of Americans, our coalition, and Iraqis before the arrival of an effective self-government, and...freedom. Man, I need to type faster.

The way forward may sometimes appear chaotic. Why didn't he mention the media? Now they're clapping.

Okay, so far, so good. He made it clear that we're fighting terror, not Iraqi militia. And he hasn't mispronounced anything yet.

People prefer freedom. Danged right, they do. Terrorists are against progress, they only want death and violence. We want freedom, independence, security, and prosperity for the Iraqi people. He says we'll be safer after the war. I think the low rate of terrorism proves that. Heh.

Iraq is our friend. Ooh, five steps! Let's see what they are:

-Hand, crap, I lost track. Stupid keyboard.

Step one: Transfer full sovereignity to an Iraqi government, clear the way for national elections. I guess he's still keeping the June 30 date. I'm guessing the terrorists won't like that. He'd better be ready for a fight. Iraq will have a new prime minister, but the composition of the government hasn't been decided yet. Interim officials being announced this week. Sweet.

Different departments and ministries...he said "diversity." I'm not sure what to think.

Iraq already controls 12 ministries? I didn't know that. I thought the eeeeevil imperialist Americans were jackbooting all freedom away.

Are they ready for self-government? Do they want it? YES!!!! Representative government, yay! They've elected town councils and city governments, and a civil society is emerging. We need the transfer to happen. They don't like foreign control. Well, so much for the "taking over the country" meme. He's clearly making the case that we don't particularly like being there either, and we're going to leave the country to them as soon as we can. Nice.

Step two: Establish security and stability. Fight terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists. We need to maintain a troop level of 138,000. Extended duty is necessary for 20,000 people who were scheduled to leave in April. He will send more troops if needed.

He thanks the soldiers for their sacrifices, courage, duty, etc. That got a lot of applause. He looks nervous. I wonder why (/sarcasm).

Fa-loo-ja. I was wondering how to pronounce that. I've only read it on the Internet. I thought it was Fa-loo-ha. Friggin' Spanish classes influencing my pronunciations of foreign words.

He's giving the Iraqi people credit for their own abilities. Fallujah, Najaf, Karbala, Kufah? Where's that?

He's talking about Sadr. Using holy shrines as shields. Not to mention civilians, I might add. A mosque was cleared of weapons. Maybe they were just holy weapons. It seems like every grain of sand in the Middle East is a frickin' holy site. "This is the holy rock of Baghdad!!!! Mohammed stepped on it once!"

...Sorry, got sidetracked there. Back to the speech.

We're training Iraqi fighters better. They have an Iraqi chain of command, with the best possible leadership. Good. 260,000 Iraqis are being trained. That's a lot. 13 batallions will be there by "Joo-ly" the first. O...kay.

Step three: Continue rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. Economic independence and a better quality of life are needed. Hospitals and schools, health clinics, bridges, electricity, modern communications, private economy, new currency, open foreign investment...liberalized trade policy, participation in the World Trade Organization...

He's talking about oil revenues. Oh, look, it's helping the Iraqis, not Halliburton. OOOOOOOOIL!!!!!

He's breaking up. I think his attention span just gave out. Get outta there, Dubya, before it's too late! I think he has ADD. I should know.

...I Got sidetracked again. See what I mean?!

New prison system...he screwed up the word "Abu Ghraib." That was embarrassing. Allow me to phonetically reproduce the sound he made:


Dang it, don't you practice? The left will be all over that. "Look, he's so guilty, he can't even say the name of the torture chamber!" Crap crap crap crap crap. It's Ah-boo-grabe. Dang it.

U.N. participation? Yeah, that'll help. Most nations have expressed support for a free Iraq, apparently. He will thank our 15 NATO allies next month, who have 17,000 troops on the ground as part of the unilateral invasion.

Step four: Free national elections by next January. We're forming an election commission for an orderly, accurate national election to choose a transitional national assembly. They'll draft a new constitution which will be presented in fall of 2005. They'll have a permanent government by the end of next year.

Iraqis are united in a broad and deep conviction: They're determined never again to live at the mercy of a dictator. Representative government will protect basic rights and defend them from the return of tyranny, and that election is coming. In 18 months. Okay.

Step five: He didn't say what step five is. Maybe it's "Profit."

Terrorists will not determine the future of Iraq. Hopefully, it'll be because they're dead and in hell. Say that, Dubya!

Iraqis will raise a government to reflect their own culture and values. We went to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American. They will write their own history and find their own way. As they do, Iraqis can be certain that they will always have a friend in the United States of America. Man, transcription is hard.

He mentioned 9/11 and Afghanistan. Orange Alert, ricin, dirty bombs, Madrid, Istanbul, Tunis, Bali...I think they just want to show off his ability to say these words.

We must keep our focus. We must do our duty. History will tend toward hope, or tend toward tragedy. The enemy wants to impose "Taliban-like rule." It's called "radical Islam," Dubya. Say it. Say it so people realize who the enemy really is.

They seek weapons of mass destruction to impose their will through blackmail and catastrophic attacks. "None of this is an expression of a religion." Yeah, sure it is. It's not all political, but I think he just has to say that so people don't call him a bigot.

Fa-na-ta-ci-sm. Sound it out. Sound. It. Out.

America will be safer when hope has returned to the Middle East. Afghanistan is coming to life, and two ideologies are contending for the future of Iraq...or something.

We will not fail. We will perservere and defeat this enemy. And...that's all, folks. Hmm...Matthews has Joe Biden on his show. Okay.

"I'm quite frankly disappointed..." Oh, shut up. TV off.

So, that's the plan. Sounds about right. It outlined our plans pretty well, I'd say. He could've mentioned the sarin and mustard gas. Or the averted attack in Jordan. But he's probably waiting on those. He has a tendency to do that so the media looks dumb. He also said nothing about Kerry, or domestic policies, or anything of the sort, so that gives him points for focus. It's too bad the Democrats don't seem to have the ability to focus on one thing without attacking their opponent.

That's about it. You may now return to your meaningful activities.

Posted by CD at 08:45 PM | Comments (7)

VRWC Minions Attack!

If anyone's interested, there's some dissent that needs to be crushed in this post from a couple days ago. I already responded, but I figured I'd point it out in case the rest of you are interested.

By the way, I'll be blogging President Bush's speech tonight. It's cutting into my regularly scheduled "beat the crap out of my drums" time, so it had better be good. You listening, Dubya?

Oh, wait, you're not. Dang.

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

May 23, 2004

More Letters

Ah, Sunday. The day that the Post-Gazette bombards its readership with dozens of letters and editorials. Once again, the letters to the editor are more entertaining than the rest, so let's take a look. First, we have a very short one that teaches a valuable lesson about how to completely miss the point:

May freedom prevail

President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is another example of his Big Brother arrogance.

ANOTHER example? I must have missed all the other ones.

The government ought not to see inside the bedroom, nor should its morality have an effect on the behavior of consenting adults.

So, you're saying that the government should get out of marriage altogether, right? Because that's what it means for them to stay out of the bedroom. You did know that, didn't you?

I do not condone same-sex marriages. I support the freedom to be involved in one. "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Oh. I guess you didn't know that. See, this bothers me. If people really wanted the government out of their bedrooms, they wouldn't be worrying about what kind of marriage is legal. By having the state endorse your relationship, you're bringing them into your bedroom. I wish more people realized this.

Anyway, let's move on to a war letter. Those are always fun:

This is Bush's buck

In a May 20 editorial, the Post-Gazette called for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld from his position as secretary of defense ("Trail of Abuse: Follow the Evidence Up the Chain of Command").

No liberal media here...

I agree with that position; however, the blame for the treatment of the Iraqi prisoners should go one step further.

If it was possible for it to go even further than Bush, you'd probably blame that person too.

Remember Truman's sign that "The Buck Stops Here."

It's hard to forget when you friggin' moonbats keep regurgitating it every five minutes, yes.

Well, Mr. Bush should get the sign and start abiding by it.

Have you not been paying attention? I believe Bush already addressed the issue. But maybe that's just what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh told me to think.

If this debacle had happened during any Democratic administration, we would be in the midst of an impeachment process today.

By that logic, the soldiers who abused Iraqi prisoners are morally equivalent to Bill Clinton's sperm cells.

But when the Republicans start a war unnecessarily...

Yay! An opinion treated as fact! I love the predictability of these things.

...and then abuse prisoners...

The Republicans abused prisoners? That's news to me. is for the "safety of our nation against terrorists."

Really? I thought those prisoners in Abu Ghraib were arrested for trampling someone's daisies.

Never mind that the whole reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction...

AHEM...and murder, and U.N. violations, and cease-fire violations, etc.

...which have never been found.

Yeah, except for Jordan, Syria, and NEXT TO THE F**KING ROAD IN IRAQ, we haven't found any.

Young men are being killed every day, and why?

Because war kills people?

Because of a vendetta that Bush Jr. has against the Iraqi people...

Great. Now Bush went to war because he wanted to kill civilians. That's a meme of a different color.

...and he and his cohorts' lust for the oil.

Couldn't leave that out, could ya?

Now they are court-martialing young soldiers and reservists for their (the higher-ups') dirty deeds.

That was doubleplusgoodthinkful how you managed to mention two groups and only blame the one that didn't actually abuse anybody.

Isn't it time that we stop this nonsense and let our young people live their lives normally and peacefully?

They're in the military. It's their job to risk their lives for our safety. I'm sorry that you weren't aware of that.

...All right, let's see a couple more. These are about Bush, Kerry, and religion, so you know they'll be good:

Bush's troubling ties

I thought that questions about a Catholic holding public office ("How Good a Catholic Is Kerry?" May 9) had died with the election of John F. Kennedy. Apparently not, but they never seem to surface in non-presidential elections.

If Kerry wouldn't bring up his Catholicism, it probably wouldn't be an issue. Kinda like Vietnam. Kerry was there, you know. In Vietnam. He was there.

Ann Rodgers' article made me wonder whether people are more worried about a candidate (John Kerry) being influenced by the Catholic hierarchy than they are about a candidate (George W. Bush) being dominated by the conservative religious right.

I sometimes forget that the VRWC includes this so-called "religious right" that usually consists of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and nobody else in particular.

Current presidential policies related to abortion, stem cell research, prayer in public schools, faith-based initiatives and school vouchers are direct reflections of the positions advocated by this group.

Well, whoopty-f**kin'-doo! You're telling me that Bush actually believes in the teachings of his religion? How horrible! He's so much worse than Kerry and his brilliant "nuance," which gives him the magical ability to be a Catholic without actually holding Catholic beliefs.

Why is that less troublesome to so many people?

Maybe because a lot of people agree with him on those issues? Or because they like having a president who stands up for his beliefs? I could go on.

As a Protestant clergy person...

As if I needed another reason not to go to church anymore...

...I am bothered by the president's messianic-style language with the implication that this country has some special calling from God to be an "example" to the rest of the world.

Well, considering the fact that we're the most successful nation in the history of civilization, I think that's a perfectly acceptable view.

On the contrary, it appears to me that if God is calling us to do anything as a nation it is to reform our own behavior...

Who ever said that America was perfect? Bush didn't say that.

for example, in the areas of poverty (the great disparity between the rich and poor in this country)...

Tax cuts...


Job creation...


Tax cuts and job creation...

violence (domestic and otherwise)...

Second Amendment rights...

the stewardship of God's resources and the (mis)treatment of children.

You know, there are other entities besides government that can take care of these things.

We are far from exemplary in our behavior in regard to these issues.

Who isn't, dang it? That's not the point.

To suggest that America is a manifestation of God's intentions for human life is very shortsighted, if not delusional.

I don't think Bush said that either. I think you're just afraid because he actually has a set of beliefs. How horrible.

Just one more. This one's about Bush and his adherence to the demands of his church. I probably should point out that I was raised and confirmed as a Methodist, so I have some credibility on the issues here:

What about Bush?

I found Ann Rodgers' May 9 article about John Kerry disturbing, starting with the question the Post-Gazette chose for a headline: "How Good a Catholic Is Kerry?" I have a few questions for the Post-Gazette.

1. Is it our civic duty to judge the religious and spiritual lives of political leaders (or anyone else) and their fidelity to their church? I believe that judgment belongs to God.

When they try to make their religion part of their image, yes. Especially when it's clear that they don't actually follow Catholic teachings.

2. But having started on this course, will the Post-Gazette, in fairness, publish an equally prominent and in-depth article titled, "How Good a Methodist Is Bush?"

Has Bush made an issue of his Methodism? No. He just says that he's a Christian, which makes sense. I didn't even know he was a Methodist until I saw this.

3. If so, will the article report that Mr. Bush has unilaterally...

How can one person do anything multilaterally?

...rejected the pleas of the Methodist Church (and many other churches) not to wage war in Iraq, not to seek revenge in Afghanistan and not to drill for oil in Alaska?

Well, you see, unlike Catholicism, Methodism is a religion, not a lifestyle. There's no Pope to answer to, and there's not an entire political structure based around it. Therefore, Methodist leaders don't represent what Methodists have to believe. There's this thing called the Bible to answer those questions.

4. If his stance on abortion is the measure of Mr. Kerry's fidelity to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, is Mr. Bush's persistent pursuit of war the measure of his fidelity to the teachings of the Methodist Church?

I think I covered this already. The Methodist Church isn't structured in a way that people can be denied communion or excommunicated or something because they believe differently. To Methodists, church is a place for guidance, not rigid marching orders.

5. If it is an act of faithfulness to protect the unborn, what kind of act is it to kill the born, such as the estimated 8,000 Iraqi civilians who died in the bombing...

It's called an accident, moron, and it's not the same as deliberately dismembering a living human being in the womb.

...and what kind of act is it to hide from public view the flag-draped coffins of the hundreds of U.S. soldiers who died fighting Mr. Bush's war?

Well, the act of bringing that up here is a complete non-sequitur, because it has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I doubt that Jesus would say, "Show them the coffins until they hate war." I could be wrong, but I'm just getting that feeling.

Posted by CD at 06:30 PM | Comments (1)

May 22, 2004

Yeah, Nobody Saw That Coming

'Fahrenheit 9/11' wins top honor at Cannes

American filmmaker Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a scathing indictment of White House actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, won the top prize Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival.

“Fahrenheit 9/11” was the first documentary to win Cannes’ prestigious Palme d’Or since Jacques Cousteau’s “The Silent World” in 1956.

In other news, the sky is blue, grass is green, and water is wet.

Posted by CD at 08:17 PM | Comments (7)

Good News

Apparently, drumming reduces stress.

As a drummer, I can personally say that this is true. Beating the crap out of synthetic materials with large wooden sticks does tend to calm a person down after a while. Plus, it's a lot of fun.


Posted by CD at 08:09 PM | Comments (0)

More Fun With Letters to the Editor

Today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, as usual, gives us a few letters to the editor from a few very dumb writers. I won't go through all of them, but I want to focus on the ones that are particularly in need of some fisktastic attention. Check 'em out:

The best support would be to vote Bush out of office

I'm responding to Kit Kellinger's letter ("A Minuscule Number," May 18) and other "well, they did it first" letters. Whatever heinous acts Saddam Hussein or other Iraqis have committed are irrelevant to the prisoner abuse argument.

Tell that to Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy. He seems obsessed with the idea that we're as bad as Saddam.

Saddam didn't claim to be a great moral leader generously bestowing democracy on the unfortunate Iraqis. But President Bush did;

Hmmm...and President Bush actually FOLLOWED THROUGH, didn't he?

...therefore, we have a duty to be above reproach in all our actions in Iraq.'re basically saying that the war is a failure if anything goes wrong? I stand in awe of your truly realistic world view.

Yes, Jessica Lynch was mistreated in Iraq. But why can't people recognize she never should have been there?

Maybe because not everybody agrees with that opinion, nimrod.

Our invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the hunt for the terrorist network responsible for 9/11.

Okay, first of all, that makes absolutely no sense. Why would Bush fight a whole new war for the specific purpose of slowing the progress of the original one? And even if he did, how do you suddenly know exactly what he was thinking? I seem to remember him saying something about weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist support, and human rights violations, and U.N. violations, and cease-fire violations...I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

(No matter how many times this administration says Iraq was involved in 9/11, it knows that's not true. It just hopes you don't.)

That's funny, because this administration has repeatedly stated that Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11, and we have no good evidence that suggests otherwise. It is possible to hear what people are actually saying, you know. Pretending that they said what you wanted to hear doesn't help anyone.

Saddam had never attacked us, and it's unlikely he would have in the future...

That may be true, but hey, remember those terrorist groups we went after in Afghanistan? He could've given weapons and money to them so they could attack us, but it wouldn't be traced directly to him. In fact, that was one of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq, even though you seem to remember him saying that Saddam was behind 9/11.

(retaining his position was of more interest than doing us in).

See my previous point. He could've easily given support to terrorist groups, which would make it harder to trace the attacks back to him. Two birds with one WMD.

Bush says otherwise, but as he barely bothers to read important CIA briefings...

Are you personally involved in White House activities, or are you relying on the "illiterate cowboy" stereotype?

...I won't give him credit for being able to read the future.

That's a surprise, since you seem to give yourself credit for being able to read the president's freaking mind.

If you truly support the troops, you'll make sure they aren't put in harm's way unnecessarily.

"I support the troops, as long as they don't have to get hurt!"

The best way to do that is to vote Bush out in November.

Yeah. The troops will be a lot safer after Kerry goes around the world apologizing for everything America has ever done. That won't make terrorists view us as an easy target at all. Nope.

Idiots. Let's move on to another letter. This one's slightly less complex, but a lot more ignorant:

A mirror of society

To those who "surfacely" express outrage or surprise at the inhumane treatment of Iraqi POWs...

More frickin' mind reading! What is wrong with these people? must remember that the military, like other organizations, is merely a reflection of the larger society.

Um...if that were true, don't you think they'd be a bit less particular about who gets in and who doesn't?

One takes into those entities the same prejudices, racial superiority and bigotry practiced on the outside.

Here comes the moonbattery. Something tells me this person works for a university. It's just a feeling I'm getting.

America has yet to resolve its own "anti" behaviors; what would make one believe there will be a miraculous change when a uniform is donned?

Let's see...they seem to be pretty good at making people respect authority, and they're not segregated by anything but gender, so I don't understand the problem here. Apparently, American society is just full of eeeeevil bigotry.

The section of the country that most of the suspects have been reared in is and has been a center of intolerance to minorities.

I love it. I love it so much. The heroic anti-bigotry crusader is relying on stereotypes to make an argument. You can almost taste the irony. Hmmm...tastes like chicken. And tinfoil.

You don't put uniforms on people who have no respect for those without pale skins...

"Your racial attitudes are determined by your geography, and nothing else!"

...send them into a country of dark skins...

That didn't sound racist at all.

...and not expect exactly what has happened unless sensitivity training has been impacted.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You do work for a university, don't you?

This is ridiculous. How can you possibly blame the abuses on racism and society? Do you honestly think that they only mistreated the prisoners because they were a different color? If you do, I truly feel sorry for you. But it's still funny.

Remember the saying, "You can take one out of the country, but you can't take the country out of him/her."

I've seen variations of it, but not the weird, politically correct version you just whipped out.

At least not without recognizing the truth in that saying and targeting for change.

I really can't get over the fact that people are capable of blaming this whole thing on racism. I don't know about the rest of you, but when someone looks at a situation where white people abuse brown people and, without any actual evidence of bigoted activity, immediately decides that racism is the cause, I worry about the observer being a racist. After all, when skin color is the first thing you notice, you are a racist by definition. Even if you call it "diversity" or "sensitivity."

Somebody make the stupidity stop.

Posted by CD at 06:35 PM | Comments (2)

May 21, 2004

Do Democrats Stand for Anything These Days?

You's physically painful to read through the DNC website. If you go to the "Issues" section, you'll notice that almost all of the subsections begin with some statement about how horrible President Bush is. The rest of the site is similar. Let's look at a few examples of what the Democratic Party considers essential content for their site. First, the front page, which contains:

-A large banner that says "Grand Old Petroleum" and links to a page about Bush's "secret deals with Saudi Arabia to keep [gas prices] high until the election."

-Not one, but two links about "the Bush record."

-Their apparent slogan, "Take Back America!"

Now, let's look at a few "Issues:"

-"African American Vote" (yeah, no pandering there) begins with "The Bush Record on African American Families: Economic Setbacks, Attacks on Civil Rights," which is followed by the opening sentence, "Bush's America is not friendly to African Americans." Another link criticizes Bush for sending John Ashcroft to commemorate Brown v. Board of Education, and yet another link says "Bush falling short in effort to woo black voters."

-"Children and Families" begins with "The Bush Record: Broken Promises to America's Children," and makes the opening statement, "The administration that claims to be so interested in defending and promoting the American family is doing a lousy job of it." The entire "DNC Research" section of this area is devoted to attacking Bush's education and economic policies. The "DNC News" section also links to stories about Bush's supposed failures.

-"Civil Rights and Justice" begins with "The Bush Record: Freedoms Under Attack," and opens with the statement, "Not surprisingly, Bush is no friend of civil rights. Years of advances are being rolled back, and Bush is opposing affirmative action and appointing judges who defend cross-burners and oppose voters' rights." A large red headline proclaims "Bush Nominates Right-Wing Judges" (really? I'd never expect a Republican to do such a thing).

This is fun. Let's look at some more...

-Of the 8 headlines and links in the "Disability Vote" section, only 2 are about Democrats. The other 6 are devoted to attacking President Bush.

-The "Economic Growth and Jobs" section reads like a Maureen Dowd Column. It begins with the headline, "The Bush Economy by the Numbers: What a Difference Three Years Makes," and introduces this with the following paragraph:

It's still the economy, stupid! Don't the Bushes ever learn? Bush inherited record surpluses, a balanced budget and steady job growth -- and he's blown it. The budget deficit is ballooning, job growth is non-existent and the stock market is faltering. Even Republicans are disgusted with Bush's handling of the economy. It's time to ask yourself the classic question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Real professional. In addition, all 12 headlines and links in this section are about Bush, including " Tax Day: Facts and Fibs about the Bush Tax Cut," "Another Bush Ripoff: Health Savings Accounts," and "The Hazards of Halliburton."

-The "Education" section begins with "The Bush Education Record: Every Child Left Behind," and introduces this by saying, "No child left behind? Don't believe it!" All 8 headlines in this section are about Bush, including "DNC gives Bush "A" for Audacity" (how childish can you get?), and "Hispanic Students Need Real Reform, Not More of Bush's Empty Rhetoric."

-I think the "Environment" section was created by hippies. It starts with "The Bush Record: Industry Runs Roughshod Over Environment," and opens with the statement, "Drill everywhere! Foul the oceans! Pollute the skies! That's great if you're Big Business, but lousy if you're anybody else. Bush's policies are undoing decades of environmental protection and leaving a dirty world for our children and children's children to inherit."

-The "GLBT Vote" section includes a petition, sponsored by Margaret Cho, encouraging people to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, since "It is now clear that President Bush and the Republicans will use attacks against gays and lesbians as their 2004 election year strategy," and [the FMA] threatens the freedom of all Americans because it denies the civil rights of a whole group of individuals."

-The "Health Care" section begins with the statement, "Health care in the Bush administration is sick, sick, sick." This section contains 10 headlines. 9 are about Bush.

-The "National and Homeland Security" section proclaims:

In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, Bush took advantage of Americans' patriotism to push through legislation that tramples our Constitutional freedoms. His efforts at homeland security are an underfunded, disorganized mess. And by chasing non-existent weapons of mass destruction, he's gotten us stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and squandered the good will of our allies.

Some of the headlines in this section include "Bush's Real Military Record" (He was AWOL, we tells ya!), "Weapons of Mass Distortion," and "Lies About Iraq."

...Wow. I can't take any more of this. It's almost as bad as Democratic Underground. So, what does the Democratic Party stand for? I think I can sum it up in 3 words:

"Anybody But Bush."

Posted by CD at 11:45 PM | Comments (3)


Was anyone else aware that there's an American Nazi Party? That disturbs me just a bit.

(They even have a website at But I'd prefer not to hyperlink that.)

Posted by CD at 10:53 PM | Comments (2)

Open Letter to Moonbats

You specifically said "there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." Therefore, even if we only found one sarin shell, it still proves that there were, in fact, weapons of mass destruction. Put the goalposts down and slowly walk away. Thank you.

-This message was brought to you by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™ and the Republican Attack Machine™.

Posted by CD at 09:39 PM | Comments (3)

That's How It's Done!

Look at this:

A leader of the armed wing of the radical Hamas movement has been killed in an Israeli air strike in the southern Gaza town of Rafah, it has been reported.

HA! Nice job. That's one less waste of oxygen.

Why can't the U.S. be more like Israel? They actually seem to understand the concept of "killing terrorists before they kill you."

Posted by CD at 12:52 AM | Comments (3)

May 20, 2004

Bad Advertising Strategies

Is anyone else tired of reading an article, then suddenly coming to an advertisement with a message that says "Article continues below this ad" or something?

What makes you think I'm going to give you my business after you just interrupted my train of thought, you frickin' idiots? At least give me the option to block you like I do with popups (I love Mozilla).

Posted by CD at 08:15 PM | Comments (1)

Kerry Kaptions

Well, apparently, the new definition of "news" is "AbuGhraibAbuGhraibAbuGhraibAbuGhraib," so there's not a lot to blog about. Fortunately, I found some pictures on John Kerry's blog that are in dire need of captions, so I'm going to help them out. Click the extended entry to see, and feel free to come up with your own.

"You see, a Republican cuts taxes during a deficit, and raises defense spending during a war. Now I raise taxes during a deficit, and cut defense spending during a war. Therefore I'm mad." (If you don't get this one, go here, then go here.)

"We are all individuals!"

"That is the most crooked, you know, tasteless bow-tie I've ever seen. And by the way, I think Denzel Washington is sneaking up behind you."

I can't come up with a good caption for this one at the moment, so I'll leave it to you. For now.

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

Cause and Effect

Here's something I've been thinking about for a long time. I actually mentioned it back in January, but didn't get any response, so here it is again:

A lot of people, particularly on the left, refuse to accept that people are responsible for their actions. For example:

-Fast food is responsible for obesity, not people who eat fast food every single day.

-The U.S. is responsible for terrorism, not the terrorists themselves, since we refuse to investigate "root causes."

-Israel is responsible for Palestinian terrorism, since they refuse to leave.

-Gun manufacturers are responsible for murder, not the people who commit murder using guns.

-Tobacco companies are responsible for lung cancer, not people who smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day.

...And so on. However, based on the logic that nobody is responsible for their actions, why do we blame these groups?

After all, who are we to say that gun manufacturers are responsible for gun deaths? Someone else obviously forced them to make those guns! Let's find them first! What about fast food? Who caused McDonald's and Burger King to force those horrible, greasy foods on an unsuspecting populace? It certainly couldn't have been their fault!

And furthermore, how can you blame the United States for terrorism? Someone else must have forced us to intimidate terrorists and hurt their feeeeeelings! Let's get to the root causes of our terrorism incitement, rather than blaming ourselves!

See where this leads? If you use the logic that someone else is to blame for all the world's problems, you can logically continue blaming other groups until you're out of scapegoats. Why do we always stop with one? Let's keep investigating!

When people don't take responsibility for their own actions, this is what happens.

Posted by CD at 12:00 AM | Comments (14)

May 19, 2004


Remember when I said that liberals seem to be able to simultaneously believe that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction AND the U.S. sold them weapons of mass destruction?

I found a good example of this mindset in some Right Wing News comments. Check out this quote from a lefty:

...the sarin shell is from the Iran/Iraq war. Game over. No WMDs.

How do they handle that much cognitive dissonance? I think it would cause my head to explode.

Posted by CD at 11:01 PM | Comments (4)

Reason #9,247,861 to Ignore the Old Media

Check out the brilliant sentence construction in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article from today:

Harman, 26, of Lorton, Va., was photographed with Graner behind the pyramid of naked Iraqi detainees stacked in a pyramid.

Wow! The pyramid was stacked in a pyramid? Who knew?!

Man, I could write a better friggin' article than these nimrods.

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

Brief Observation #2

Another thing I've noticed, at least on the Internet, is that many liberals honestly believe that "George W. Bush is evil." In addition, when these people are asked to explain their belief, they act like the other person is crazy:

"Well...he's just evil! Haven't you noticed?"

Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that some people treat statements like that as obvious truth and/or common knowledge? That worries me.

Also, I've noticed that they occasionally say the same things about Reagan. However, I don't think I've ever seen a Democratic president referred to as "evil" by anyone on either side of the spectrum.

Why is that?

Posted by CD at 02:09 AM | Comments (8)

May 18, 2004

Brief Observation

I've noticed that a large number of liberals are able to simultaneously believe the following two statements:

- Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD, and any intelligence indicating that he did was a lie.

- Saddam Hussein did have WMD, but only because the U.S. supplied them.

Pick one, you idiots!

Posted by CD at 11:53 PM | Comments (1)

Stepping Back

NOTE: This post is long, rambling, and autobiographical, but there is a point. I think.

You may have noticed that I've been blogging a bit less for the last couple days. Or you may not have noticed any difference whatsoever.

In any case, I realized a few days ago that I've been doing a ton of writing on this site, but I haven't taken a lot of time to expand my horizons, so to speak. Basically, the majority of my blogging has been based on information that I either learned from absorption or actively taught myself over the past couple years. Let's hear a resounding "hooray for public school."

Yeah. I started getting interested in politics at age 16, shortly after 9/11 (I'm part of the "terrorism opened my eyes to the real world" club), and I really got into it around late 2002/early 2003. In a very short time, I changed from a right-leaning moderate to a full-fledged conservative, and have remained that way ever since. Oddly enough, before that time, I thought that anything even vaguely associated with the political world was about as exciting as racing injured snails.

I guess I'm just lucky that my school district was run by 100% idiots, as opposed to liberal moonbats, or things may have been different. My life experiences taught me that stupidity in any form was the enemy, so even without the knowledge of how dumb leftist positions can be, conservatism was the natural political choice. I was on the rifle team, after all.

After I had formed the basis for my opinions from experiences alone, I set out on a quest for actual knowledge. Since my school classes weren't giving me everything I needed, I turned to the Internet. I started out slowly, but by the summer of 2003, I was devoting lots of time to learning everything I could about topics that hadn't been covered in high school and weren't available in my upcoming college classes.

So, if anyone was wondering, most of the stuff I write on this blog is based on my fact-finding journey last summer. I found information on all kinds of topics, like current events, political issues, philosophy, and religion.

While studying some of these, I also learned about argumentation and logic. This was definitely the most important step of the journey, because now, I could actually analyze the things I was reading. If you've been reading SIT for any length of time, you know how big I am on consistency of arguments, opinions, etc. FYI, I learned most of these lessons from reading/listening to Greg Koukl and associates. Virtually all my anti-abortion arguments, as well as a few on same-sex marriage, are based on STR's information. Good stuff.

Of course, the next logical step in this journey was finding a way to share the information I'd learned. After all, once my eyes were opened, I couldn't stand to see all the stupidity and ignorance in the world without at least trying to do something about it. That's how Semi-Intelligent Thoughts came about.

In the beginning, it was just going to be a place to put pre-written excerpts from my "Book of Semi-Intelligent Thoughts" (more about that here and here), but soon, I began writing original rants. You all know the end of this story, since you're reading the blog now, so I don't have to go into more detail.

If you're still reading (cue the crickets!), you're probably wondering what the point of all this could be. Here it is:

For the past 8 months, I've been writing about various topics on an almost-daily basis. I've also learned a lot more from reading other blogs, news sources, and articles. However, I realized a few days ago that I'm running out of things to say. Most of the stuff I write has been based on that same information that I learned last summer, and although I have found out a lot more than I ever thought possible from the blogosphere, I really haven't been paying as much attention. I had to get my own words out there, and there was also schoolwork (I think that's what they call it) to worry about, so the learning process slowed down a bit.

Now that I'm on vacation, I have the same amount of free time that I did last summer, and even though I'll probably be getting a part-time job in the next couple weeks, I'll still have an opportunity to take in more information relevant to blogging, instead of just regurgitating what I already know. I've already started doing this, which is why I'm posting less.

What I'm saying is that I want to know more. I need to seek out new sources of information and review what I already know. For example, I'm planning on reading "1984" by George Orwell, as it's available online at a few sites. I read it when I was 15, but I had no idea what it was about, and due to time constraints, I completely skipped the part that explains Party philosophy, so I want to go back and look at it all over again. There's also a lot of other stuff that I can read, and I want to spend more time looking at other blogs as opposed to updating my own.

This doesn't mean that I'm done blogging, of course. I'll still try to post every day, and some days will be heavier than others, but the writing process was starting to overshadow the learning process, and honestly, I feel like I don't know enough to intelligently rant about half the topics that are coming up these days. You may have noticed that I didn't say anything about the gay marriages in Massachusetts. That's because I've said everything I know! There's nothing left, but I want to change that.

I hope you'll understand. Just keep coming back, and I'll try to be more informed from now on.

Posted by CD at 10:55 PM | Comments (1)


Have any other bloggers noticed that Site Meter is full of crap?

I suggest trying out StatCounter. I'm using it right now (as you can see on the sidebar), and I've found that it's a bit more difficult to navigate, but it gives you a lot more information, and it usually picks up more hits than SM.

Just trying to help.

Posted by CD at 05:11 PM | Comments (2)

May 17, 2004

And In Case You Missed It...

We found WMD in Iraq.

Don't bother telling DU, though. They've already decided that the timing is too convenient, so Bush must've planted them.

I located some actual photographs of the liberal reaction to the sarin/mustard gas story! They're in the extended entry if you're interested.

Hey, come back here with those goalposts!

Don't hurt Mr. Straw Man! What did he ever do to you?

...Yeah, I'm bored.

Posted by CD at 04:26 PM | Comments (2)

Hey, Let's Take Pity On the Enemy!

This is so incredibly wrong. A page of today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is trying to make people feel sympathetic toward the insurgents. To prove it, I took a couple pictures:

Here's a large picture of the page. See the photo that says "A son mourned" above it? Looks pretty innocent, right? Well, there's more to it than meets the eye, as you'll see in the second shot...

Here's a closer view of the caption under the photo. In case you can't read it, it says:

A gravedigger prepares a grave as a mother of a militiaman loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr cries yesterday at a cemetery in the holy city of Najaf, south of Baghdad. The man was among 20 Iraqi militiamen killed by British troops Saturday during five hours of fierce fighting after a convoy was ambushed outside the southern Iraqi city of Amara.

Notice anything odd about that? Let me outline it for you: THEY'RE ACTING LIKE WE'RE THE F**KING ENEMY!!!!

Do you see this? They're not even "insurgents" anymore, they're "militiamen," and we're now required to keep track of how many are killed by the eeeeeevil occupying force.

Holy crap, media, why don't you just admit that you're playing for the other team?

Posted by CD at 03:55 PM | Comments (4)

How Dumb Are These People?

All right...for the last time...if you're going to troll the blog, don't do it on posts that are several months old. It will result in me deleting your comment and adding your information to MT Blacklist. Thank you.

This isn't the first time it's happened, but I still don't consider that a "real" troll. Man, people are idiots...

Posted by CD at 03:55 AM | Comments (0)

May 16, 2004


Well, The Simpsons just did an episode where people were imprisoned for hating America. Of course, we don't have to worry about that kind of oppression taking place in the real world, because in the real world, ridiculous crap like this happens:

U.S. athletes told to cool it at Olympics

NEW YORK -- American athletes have been warned not to wave the U.S. flag during their medal celebrations at this summer's Olympic Games in Athens, for fear of provoking crowd hostility and harming the country's already-battered public image.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS A JOKE!!!

The spectacle of victorious athletes grabbing a national flag and parading it around the stadium is a familiar part of international sporting competition, but U.S. Olympic officials have ordered their 550-strong team to exercise restraint and avoid any jingoistic behavior.

I cannot believe this. Seriously, tell me this is just a joke. What P.C. fanatic decided that being proud of your country is equivalent to "jingoism?" And if they did make that decision, why aren't other f**king countries being told the same thing?

The plan is part of a charm offensive aimed at repairing the country's international reputation after the deepening crisis in Iraq and damaging revelations of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. forces at the Abu Ghraib prison.

Because when people think of America, they think of prisoner abuse!

You f**king idiots.

"American athletes find themselves in extraordinary circumstances in Athens in relation to the world as we know it right now," said Mike Moran...

You put an "a" where an "o" should be.

...a veteran former spokesman for the United States Olympic Committee who has been retained as a consultant to advise athletes how to behave.

"Let's talk about cultural framework and perception!"

"Regardless of whether there is anti-American sentiment in Athens or not, the world watches Americans a lot now in terms of how they behave and our culture.

Since we're the most influential country in the world, that kinda makes sense, doesn't it?

What I am trying to do with the athletes and coaches is to suggest to them that they consider how the normal things they do at an event, including the Olympics, might be viewed as confrontational or insulting or cause embarrassment."

Let me get this straight: Because some overly sensitive douchebags might view the American flag as a threat, our athletes shouldn't be allowed to wave it if they win a freakin' event? What world are you living in?

Four years ago at the Sydney Olympics, members of the victorious American 400-meter relay team were widely condemned for strutting with the U.S. flag after their gold medal presentation.

Of course, no other country received a similar reprimand, right? After all, they were just trying to stand up to the mean, nasty, jingoistic Americans.

American officials, mindful of the country's precarious standing in world opinion, are desperate to avoid any repeat.

I guess we want "world opinion" to label us as cowards who will change our behavior just because we might offend people by having a frickin' flag present at the frickin' olympics.

"Unfortunately, using the flag as a prop or a piece of apparel or indulging in boasting behavior is becoming part of our society in sport because every night on TV we see our athletes -- professional, college or otherwise -- taunting their opponents and going face-to-face with each other," Mr. Moran said. "We are trying for 17 days to break that culture.


"What I am telling the athletes is, 'Don't run over and grab a flag and take it round the track with you.' It's not business as usual for American athletes.

Would it be okay if they spit on it? Or maybe they should just forego that question and lose intentionally. After all, if Americans win events, it could be seen as threatening, and there's always the possibility that other countries will be embarrassed. We wouldn't want them to feel inferior, would we?

If a Kenyan or a Russian grabs their national flag and runs round the track or holds it high over their heads, it might not be viewed as confrontational. Where we are in the world right now, an American athlete doing that might be viewed in another manner."

I've had enough of this attitude. Who decided that everyone should behave based on how it might be viewed? That's not our friggin' problem!

Mr. Moran added that the behavior of British athletes could face similar scrutiny in Athens, though the British Olympic Association insists there are no plans to ban them from celebrating with the Union flag.

Of course not. They're sophisticated Europeans, not like us barbaric, uneducated American cowboys.

"It's up to every athlete how he or she wishes to celebrate their Olympic success, and there are no plans to issue any instructions," a spokesman for the association said. "We are confident that every athlete will celebrate in a responsible way."

If that was true, you wouldn't be telling people how to behave.

The USOC's anxiety at overexuberant displays of jingoism...

Is that the P.C. term for "celebration" now? I want to hear that in everyday language.

"Hey, it's my friend's birthday, and we were thinking of having a surprise overexuberant display of jingoism for him! Are you coming?" a far cry from scenes at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, where the American flag became the defining symbol of the Games. A different environment awaits the American team in Athens, where officials are anxious to replace apple pie with humble pie.

Did Maureen Dowd write this?

Americans were booed at the World Athletics Championships in Paris last year largely because of Jon Drummond's histrionic protest at his disqualification from a heat of the 100 meters.

Yeah, it couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that they were in FRANCE. Everybody loved America there before Drummond showed up.

Also, at an Olympic soccer qualifying match in Mexico earlier this year, the American team was subjected to sustained razzing by a section of the crowd, including chants of "Osama, Osama!"

So soccer fans now represent world opinion? Thanks for that bit of information. Next time there's a soccer riot, we can blame it on capitalism.

"We're not the favorite kid in the world right now," conceded Bill Martin, the USOC's acting president.

We're not supposed to be! It's called "jealousy," and it's a sign of success! Don't you remember what happened to the popular kids in elementary school? They ended up in prison and drug rehab! Do you want to be the popular kid, or the unpopular nerd who goes on to be a trillionaire?

"We are sensitive not only to the security issue, but to jingoism in its raw sense. That is why we are sending people around to educate the athletes as to the appropriate behavior."

How dumb are people going to get before God steps in and decides that we can't handle the planet anymore? I'm starting to get the feeling that we're short on time.

In any case, why are we even competing in the olympics if we're not allowed to celebrate? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being there in the first place?

Maybe it's just so everyone can have fun. As long as nobody's feeeeeeelings are hurt.

Posted by CD at 09:00 PM | Comments (5)

Sunday Fiskathon: Part 2

And now, the rest of the letters. These are in a section called Issue One: The abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Yeah. Apparently, that's still their top story. Anyway, there are 2 letters worth looking at. Here we go:

Chain of command

It is difficult to come to the defense of the soldiers who tortured prisoners in Iraq. After all, they were caught on camera for all the world to see. But there is a chain of command in our government.

Here we go again. "The soldiers didn't know what they were doing! It's all the administration's fault!"

Have you heard of Nuremberg? I didn't think so.

As President Harry Truman was not afraid to exclaim, "The Buck Stops Here."

Holy crap, I'm getting sick of that phrase.

The current president thinks this quotation means the buck stops in his and his cronies' pockets.

I'll assume that this is a veiled reference to war profiteering, or whatever the oilwar moonbats are calling it.

The White House covertly tells the CIA what and how to get information out of these prisoners, the CIA tells the military intelligence what and how to get said information and, in turn, the military intelligence tells the soldiers what and how to get this information.

We've got an interrogation expert on our hands! He even knows EXACTLY how the abuse incident happened! Fascinating. And can you prove that Bush told them to make naked pyramids and take pictures of it? Of course you can't.

The soldiers being used as scapegoats in the situation did something crazy, agreed;

Last time I checked, the word "scapegoat" referred to someone who didn't actually do the thing that they've been blamed for. In fact, the left is using Rumsfeld and Bush as scapegoats. Amazing, isn't it?

...but not before they were put into a crazy situation and a crazy war by the so-called leaders they put their trust in.

"So-called leaders?" Where did that come from?

Prosecute the real villains in the country. They have no one giving them orders -- they are giving the orders.

When will you people get it? The soldiers who took the frickin' pictures are responsible for what's in those pictures. Bush and Rumsfeld didn't know about it until it was reported, so how is it their fault?

Man, President Bush must be the dumbest evil genius in history. Let's move on:

Shame for America

The reality of war is very ugly, and a picture is worth a thousand words.

This sounds like some kind of poem.

Place the two quotes together and you have the demise of the Bush administration.

Wait, now it just sounds like Democratic Underground. "This is it! This is really it! Bushitler really has been defeated with this scandal! Everybody look! Look!"

This administration has opened a Pandora's box of a horrific magnitude. If we were unsafe before the war on Iraq, we are surely less safe now.

A statement backed up by the fact that we haven't been attacked once since then. No, wait, that contradicts your point completely. Heh.

I am an embarrassed American. To think that American soldiers can willingly treat human beings like animals is utterly disgusting, yet I don't place the entire blame on them.


Who sent them there and why?

Bush, because Iraq was a threat. Was that so hard?

The reasoning was weapons of mass destruction, then liberation, then because "Saddam tortured and killed his own people."

Actually, the reasoning was WMD, and liberation, and because Saddam tortured and killed his own people. And those scare quotes around the latter make me want to vomit.

"Plastic shredders and state-sanctioned rape aren't really torture and murder!"

You sick freaks.

As it turns out, we kill and torture Iraqis too, just like Saddam.


Sorry, couldn't hold it in any longer.

You idiot. You morally equivalizing, atrocity minimalizing IDIOT. Saddam tortured and killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. American soldiers humiliated dozens of enemy combatants. If you think those two situations are about the same, you truly have no decency.

The irony of all this is John F. Kerry.

Can't forget that all-important middle initial. Makes him sound more presidential, you know.

John Kerry spoke out about war crimes more than 30 years ago.

War crimes that he first admitted to participating in, then later admitted to not even witnessing, yes.

How appropriate that he is running for president.

As an admitted war criminal?

I'm not a John Kerry shill in the least...

Could've fooled me.

...but he spoke out against the crimes we are seeing today, and for that he deserves my vote.

He spoke out against fictional events that he never even saw. It damaged morale and possibly helped lose the war. All so he could be like his hero, the real JFK.

Yep. That's who I want as my president.

I hope you'll forgive me for questioning his patriotism.

Posted by CD at 07:05 PM | Comments (0)

Sunday Fiskathon

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a full section dedicated to editorials and letters on Sundays, which gives me a wide range of stuff to work with. Today, however, it's all about letters to the editor. They've got 2 separate sections of 'em, and I'll look at the funniest letters from both. Let's get started:

Bush administration puts ideology ahead of reality

It was a brief but welcome change of pace to see George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld show a bit of contrition in response to the Iraq prison abuse story ("Iraq Scandal Leaves White House Reeling," May 9) but then it seemed like the White House was back to business as usual.

...And that's a bad thing? Am I to assume that you wanted them to drop everything, including the WAR, just so they could apologize a little more to everyone who could've possibly been offended by something that they had little or nothing to do with?


On May 10, Cheney said that Rumsfeld was "doing a superb job" as secretary of defense.

"He has an opinion that's not the same as mine! He MUST be wrong!"

It's a catastrophic flaw of this administration that it always puts ideology ahead of reality:

This is coming from a guy who just suggested that verbal self-flagellation is more important than running the country.

Even though his massive tax cuts for the rich create a massive national debt...

Do you hear that flushing noise? That's your credibility. Guess where it's going?

...Bush proceeds with more of the same.

I love how they just assume that everything Bush does is bad, despite actual facts that show how effective the tax cuts have been.

Even though it is al-Qaida that attacks the United States, not Iraq...

"Al Qaeda is the only terrorist organization in the world, and they never associate with anyone, EVER!"

If I hear the "Iraq never attacked us" thing one more time, I may have to break something. News flash: WE ATTACKED IRAQ SO THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE THE CHANCE TO DO WHAT AL QAEDA DID TO US. Moron.

Bush diverts forces from Afghanistan and bombs Iraq.

Why do they always use that phrase? We didn't "bomb Iraq." We bombed strategic targets, then sent in ground forces to clean up. But I guess that's not what moonbats see when they picture a war. They just see bombs falling all over, killing innocent women and children indiscriminately while the eeeeeeevil Bush regime laughs at the destruction they've caused for their Halliburtonoilwar.

Even though the generals tell him that a small force can't secure Iraq, Rumsfeld proceeds with a small force.

130,000 is a small force?

Even though a Palestinian state is a top issue to Muslims everywhere...


Yeah, every single Muslim in the world is united against the Zionist conspiracy. Are these people even capable of independent thought, or do they base their arguments on the signs at A.N.S.W.E.R. rallies?

...Bush throws salt in the wound by backing Ariel Sharon.

"How dare those Jooooooooos defend themselves! They're oppressing innocent Muslims by not being in the sea!"

Even though Rumsfeld and Cheney sold war with Iraq using lies about weapons of mass destruction...

Can't leave that one out, can we? I'm not even going to justify that idiocy with an argument.

...and brought our country's international reputation to its lowest point in many decades...

Wait a minute! You're telling me that if we're popular, people will stop attacking us?! Why didn't someone say this before? Awwww...let's all hold hands and sing songs about rainbows and love.

...Bush keeps them on!

What does this say about Bush?

It says that Bush actually has character and beliefs. He doesn't just base his ideology on polls and moonbat myths like certain other politicians who are in the spotlight right now.

Are these still the best arguments they can come up with?

"Bush lied! There were no WMD! Iraq didn't attack us! Nobody likes us! We're hurting Muslims' feeeeeeelings! Tax cuts for the rich! Israel is evil!"

Let's see if the next letter is more logical:

On the mark

Rob Roger's May 11 cartoon of Bush hiding behind Donald Rumsfeld, who is being pummeled by rotten vegetables, is right on the mark.

I mentioned that the PG cartoonists are like Ted Rall lite, right?

Also, Mr. Bush's statement that Rumsfeld's performance is "superb," is revealing of his approval of Rumsfeld's despicable performance.

There's that ideological elitism again: "I think that Rumsfeld has done a despicable job, and therefore, he has! So when Bush says that Rumsfeld has done a superb job, he must be lying, because everybody knows and agrees that Rumsfeld should resign!"

They're like little children who can't get what they want.

The irony of it all is that the lowly GIs get court-martialed for following orders from their higher-ups...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Free will is not a movie about a whale.

...which came from their higher-ups. The buck stops at your desk, Mr. President.

Do they really believe this? Let's try to imagine the scene that they picture in their tiny minds when trying to make these arguments (here comes my inner screenwriter):


Bush: Hello? Is this Abu Ghraib Prison?

Charles Graner: Yes sir, Mr. President.

Bush: Do you have any A-rabs there?

Graner: Yes sir, dozens of 'em.

Bush: Are they responsible for terrah?

Graner: We don't know, sir. That's why we're treating them so well.


Graner: But sir, that's a violation of the Geneva Convention!

Bush: F**k that! I'm the president! I want you to torture those prisoners until I tell you to stop! I can have you terminated, because I'm the president! Did I mention that I'm the president?


...Wow, I got carried away with that one. Let's move on to one more letter, and then I'm going to start another post for the other section:

Sign of incompetence

President Bush's vote of confidence for Donald Rumsfeld is further evidence of incompetency.

Anyone else seeing a common theme here?

The defense secretary could not dissuade the president from -- or he actively encouraged him into -- a pre-emptive war.

*GASP!* Really? Because, you know, I could've sworn that pre-emptive war was what they were TRYING TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Rumsfeld grossly underestimated the troops and resources necessary to win the peace after removing Iraq's dictator and destroying its infrastructure.

Have you personally seen his plans, or are you assuming? Because when you assume, you make a Democrat out of the University of Maine...wait, that's not right.

Rumsfeld allowed the sadistic humiliation of Iraqi prisoners...

Why the crap does everyone think that Rumsfeld actively encouraged that? Was he there? NO! Has he already said that it was wrong? YES! You idiots. simultaneously inflame the Arab world...

From what I've seen, a lot of Arabs really don't give a crap. It's just the American left expressing their outrage at the "atrocities" committed by the eeeeeeevil imperialistic Americans.

...give Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida recruitment fodder...


...and soil America's world image.

Because a few soldiers represent 285 million people!

Rumsfeld then made the president appear a dope by being the "last to know."'re blaming Rumsfeld for how you perceive the president? You've gotta be kidding me.

Yet the president wants Rumsfeld to stay on.

Do we want Bush to stay on?

Yes we do. Because it's fun watching people like you try to come up with coherent arguments without actually saying anything original.

I'm going to start a new post now.

Posted by CD at 06:33 PM | Comments (5)


You know...I've been taking myself way too seriously on this blog lately. I mean...I'm not a political pundit. I'm a friggin' college student. And I'm studying to be a friggin' screenwriter! That doesn't even have anything to do with what I blog about!

Anyway, to remedy the situation, I'm linking to a weird list I posted back in November. This should prevent any of you from making the mistake of taking me seriously like I've been doing. The list is here.

I still don't know how I came up with that.

Posted by CD at 01:28 AM | Comments (3)

May 15, 2004

Open Letter to Jimmy Fallon

Mr. Fallon,

Please learn to get through an entire SNL sketch without either laughing at your own jokes or breaking into a string of unintelligible sounds that may or may not be the English language. Thank you.

Your pal,

Posted by CD at 11:57 PM | Comments (5)

Random Thought for the Weekend

Here's something that popped into my head last night:

A lot of people think that President Bush is dumb. Many of them base this assumption on the fact that he's not a very good public speaker. He stutters, mispronounces words, uses improper grammar, etc., so he's obviously not very smart.

They're basically saying that anyone who has trouble talking is an idiot, right?

I'll be sure to pass that message on to Stephen Hawking.

(this weekend's Random Thought™ was brought to you by Boredom, Inc.)

Posted by CD at 06:18 PM | Comments (1)

Die Arachnids Die

Have I mentioned that the spiders in my house are creatures of pure, unadulterated evil? I was just sitting here at the computer, minding my own business, and this big brown spider came racing down the wall out of friggin' nowhere and tried to hide behind a shelf. I managed to crush it with a wad of napkins (I was trying to enjoy a delicious bag of popcorn at the moment), but I'm still spooked now. Where the f**k did that thing come from? It just appeared!

I hate spiders so much. Which you probably figured out from the fact that I'm willing to blog about them at 12:30 in the morning.

Posted by CD at 12:41 AM | Comments (2)

May 14, 2004


I just realized that I've been blogging for almost 8 months, and I've never had a real troll.

I'm not saying I want one, of course. I just think it's odd.

(NOTE: People who take this as an excuse to pose as a troll will have their comments edited into Ralph Wiggum quotations)

Posted by CD at 03:26 PM | Comments (5)

May 13, 2004

Make. It. Stop.

That's all I can think. I know I said it already, but it's worth repeating. I'm still angry and confused after the events of the past couple days. Mostly angry.

I'm angry at the sick "people" who videotaped themselves murdering an innocent civilian for their "god."

I'm angry at everyone who thinks that the murder was America's fault.

I'm angry at everyone who thinks that naked pyramids are oh so horrible, but videotaped beheadings are just another thing that happens.

I'm angry at the entire culture and ideology that condones this crap.

I'm angry at the media for doing everything in their power to downplay good things, overplay bad things, and make America look like the enemy.

I'm angry at the left for caring more about their own political gain than about the lives of the people they supposedly represent.

I'm angry at all the idiots who think we should "just leave them alone."

I'm angry at the right for not using true atrocities as a way to pound the need for action into the thick heads of the left.

I'm angry at President Bush for continuously pretending that we're not at war with radical Islam, but just this thing called "terror."

I'm angry at John Kerry just because he's a lying, manipulative, opportunistic prick who doesn't even deserve to have his name on a ballot.

And I'm angry at myself for not doing more to stop these things that make me angry.

...I need to listen to some loud music and then go beat the sh*t out of my drums for a couple hours. Otherwise, I'm going to hurt someone.

Make it stop.

Posted by CD at 06:55 PM | Comments (2)

This is Too Much

Latest search to bring someone to my site:

Aliens + "Nick Berg"

See, this is what it takes to make me say:

Who ARE you people?

Posted by CD at 06:01 PM | Comments (1)


Speaking of the Post-Gazette, today's opinion section contains one of the dumbest letters to the editor I've ever seen. It doesn't really have anything to do with the stuff I've been writing about, but it's so hilariously ignorant that I couldn't resist blogging about it. Check it out:

Thou shalt not kill

E.J. Dionne Jr's May 4 column, "This JFK's Problem," discussed the abortion or right-to-life issue in the presidential election. The controversy over whether a pro-choice Catholic Democrat, John F. Kerry, should be allowed to receive communion was discussed as was the fact that Sen. Rick Santorum, a foe of abortion, campaigned for Sen. Arlen Specter, a supporter of abortion rights.

That introduction was way too long. The good part is coming up next.

Sydney Harris, an author who routinely wrote about morality, said that the 10 commandments did not say that "Thou shalt not kill except in the case of (1) abortion, (2) capital punishment, (3) euthanasia, or (4) war."

Yeah, good call. The 10 Commandments actually say "Thou shalt not murder." That means you can't kill an innocent person. There is a difference. I'm always surprised at how many people think that "thou shalt not kill" means "you can never, ever kill anybody for any reason."

Since President George W. Bush wants to be known as the "war president..."

Yeah, because we all know that he loves war more than anything.

...and war involves killing...

*GASP* Really?! Why didn't someone tell me before? seems to me that Bush and Kerry are even on this issue.

And there's the ignorance, folks. Apparently, killing terrorists and murdering unborn children are morally equivalent in this person's world. Tell me, when did babies start blowing up buildings and decapitating civilians? I must have missed that.

Kerry is opposed to war...

Only on odd days of the week.

...and Bush is opposed to abortion. Maybe Bush should not receive communion either.

See what I mean? These people don't even know what they're saying half the time. In case you didn't know, BUSH ISN'T CATHOLIC! That means that the Church has no control over whether he receives communion.

I don't understand how people can be this dumb and still manage to express their semi-thoughts with actual English words.

Posted by CD at 04:20 PM | Comments (1)

More Bias

Here's an interesting fact: On the front page of today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, there are TWO stories about the Abu Ghraib photos. Two. On the same page.

There are also two stories about Nick Berg today. However, both of those are on page 6. One of them is about his family criticizing the U.S. government over his death, and the other is about the Arab media's treatment of the incident. That's it.

Make it stop. Make it stop before I do something I'm going to regret later.

Posted by CD at 03:15 PM | Comments (0)

May 12, 2004

Free Time Can Be a Bad Thing

O...kay...someone apparently typed I want cd to ask "who ARE you people?" again so I'm writing this nonsense! into Google.

You can't control me! I'm just going to say...

Who IS this person?


Posted by CD at 11:58 PM | Comments (2)


I want you all to take a look at this screen shot and tell me what's wrong. I'll wait...

...Finished? Good. In case you didn't catch anything odd, let me outline it for you:

The main story is about Nick Berg. However, the surrounding headlines, which one normally assumes to be related to the main one, include:

-"Abuse at Abu Ghraib (Note: Graphic Content)"
-"Timeline: Iraq Abuse Case"
-"Senators: Abuse Images 'Disgusting'"
-"Two more face courts-martial in abuse case"
-"Lawmakers Say New Abuse Photos Even Worse"


I'll refrain from further comments, because I'm not in a very reasonable mental state at the moment.

Posted by CD at 11:46 PM | Comments (4)

Now They're Just Trying Too Hard

This is ridiculous. The latest "Nigerian" spam I got has a frickin' logo at the top. Look at this.

Maybe I can make another SpamLib out of it...

Posted by CD at 10:21 PM | Comments (1)

You've Gotta Be Kidding Me

What is this?

Syracuse University has adopted a new athletics logo for all of its athletics teams. The new look is the result of a collaborative effort between the University and NIKE, SU's official athletics apparel partner. All 21 of SU's athletics teams will utilize the new mark -- an interlocking SU -- and the official orange color on uniforms and warm-ups and in print and electronic venues. Previously the department had multiple marks and logos. In addition, Syracuse University's teams will now use the nickname Orange, replacing Orangemen and Orangewomen.

Okay...we called them "The Orange" already (all of us marching band types are known as "The Pride of the Orange"), so this isn't really that big a change, but still...I can't help thinking this is somehow related to the gender identity thing at Harvard. Don't ask why. Just a feeling.

...There, that should balance out the other rants a bit.

Posted by CD at 06:20 PM | Comments (0)

Change of Plans

I don't think I'm going to post any further rantings about the Berg thing. I was basically just planning to drop a bunch of uncensored f-bombs on the Islamofascists and their jihad, but I'm sure you were all thinking the same thing that I was going to write, and that kind of thing is sometimes better when you don't see it in plain English right in front of you.

I do, however, stand by my previous statement of "kill them all now."

By "them," I mean Islamic terrorists, for those of you who couldn't figure that out.

Posted by CD at 06:08 PM | Comments (0)

More On the Berg Murder

This isn't the mega-rant, just something else I have to say:

Can we please stop pretending that Nick Berg was killed because of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib? Do you idiots in the media understand that the Islamofascists are just using that as an excuse?

Seriously. I'm sick of it. It Abu Ghraib hadn't happened, they'd say it was to avenge our killing of Muslims in Iraq. If we weren't at war with Iraq, they'd say it was because of our invasion of Afghanistan. If we hadn't invaded Afghanistan, they'd say it was because Berg was a Jew.

Did you know that Berg was Jewish? I didn't know that until I read it in the newspaper earlier. Do you honestly think they wouldn't use that as an excuse? These monsters are not human. They cannot be reasoned with. They don't want to negotiate. They don't care if we hurt their feeeeeelings. They're laughing at us. They're parading mutilated body parts in front of cameras while they LAUGH AT US. They're taking advantage of our "civilized" culture so they can eliminate the "infidels."


Posted by CD at 04:09 PM | Comments (6)


That's the only word I can come up with right now. EVIL. I've been thinking/reading about the Nick Berg story a little more, and I just keep getting angrier and more confused. I have not watched the video. I don't know if I will. But I have read descriptions, and I think I can picture it.

I don't know if I'll be writing about this anymore, but if I do, be prepared for probably the most vitriolic thing I've ever posted. The rant that's currently brewing in my head would make Emperor Misha seem like a calm and peaceful man. I am so incredibly angry at these sick f**ks right now.

But I'm going to try and relax before I get carried away.

...Have I mentioned that I have no faith in humanity?

Posted by CD at 03:41 PM | Comments (0)

Public Service Announcement


Look what happens to your traffic!

This is a good day.

Posted by CD at 02:57 PM | Comments (0)

This is an Outrage!

Look at this:

BOSTON (AP) - Nine former students at a Roman Catholic school for the deaf filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging they were raped, beaten and tormented decades ago by the nuns who ran the place.

I demand that the Pope take responsiblity for these atrocities! How dare he let this happen under his watch! I won't rest until he resigns and puts someone in the Vatican who won't stand for this torture!

(NOTE: I'm not saying that abuse of children isn't horrible. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it would be if people were to react this way. Thank you.)

Was it even the same Pope back when this happened? I'm not Catholic, so I don't follow those things.

Posted by CD at 02:52 PM | Comments (1)

Soulless Monsters

I haven't written about this story yet, because there's really not that much to say that hasn't been said already.

I'll just say this: If we ever catch the f**king murderous b@stards who killed Nick Berg, we should execute them with a rusty guillotine.

But "guillotine" is a French word, so we can just call it the "freedom beheader."

That's justice.

Posted by CD at 02:43 PM | Comments (0)

Strong Words

Read this. Immediately.

I feel the same way lately. Except for the "former liberal" part. I managed to avoid that phase ;)

People are frickin' idiots.

Posted by CD at 12:37 AM | Comments (0)

May 11, 2004

The War on Homogeneity Continues

In case you missed it before, I'm now referring to "diversity" as "the War on Homogeneity." I think it sounds cooler. In any case, it looks like UC Berkeley is on the front lines. Discriminations points us to an article about the problem, which I will now cover.

Just to give credit where credit is due, a lot of the things I'm about to say have already been said at Discriminations, but I couldn't pass up an opportunity to write about the WoH. Let's take a look:

She is young, smart and black. And she is mad.

By one measure, Renita Chaney is fortunate indeed. She's one of the elite students who won a coveted place at the most prestigious public university in America: UC Berkeley.


But the campus that has long prided itself on diversity -- only 31 percent of undergraduates were white at the beginning of this school year... there are less whites at the school than in the general population? You racists! (thanks again to Discriminations for that link)

...has become increasingly less diverse for certain minority groups, particularly for Chaney and her African American peers.

How can a single group become less diverse? Are they chameleons?

"Where is the diversity promised to my community by UC Berkeley when we decided to come here?" she demanded at an April 22 rally in front of the chancellor's office after the latest fall admission figures were released.

Uh...shouldn't you be more worried about academics than how many non-whites are at the school? I know I would be. But I guess it never occurred to them that college is supposed to be for learning facts, not meeting "diverse" groups of people.

Those figures vividly illustrated the continuing legacy of Proposition 209, the 1996 ballot measure by which voters banned affirmative action, or racial preferences, in public education, contracting and employment in California.

At least they'll admit that affirmative action is the same as racial preferences. But that still doesn't mean that they'll accept racial preferences as a Bad Thing™.

Chicano/Latino admissions for this fall fell 7 percent from last fall, American Indians declined 22 percent and African Americans dropped the most --

29 percent.

Oh no! It must be the racism present in every single American that caused the admissions personnel to purposely reject black students! What will we do now?!

Of 8,676 acceptance letters, blacks received 211, or 2.4 percent. At Harvard, African Americans account for 10.3 percent of this fall's admissions. Blacks make up 6.7 percent of California's population and 12.3 percent of the nation as a whole, according to the 2000 Census.

Why are they even keeping track of these things if they don't use racial preferences anymore?

"I don't want to say 'segregated,' " senior La'Cole Martin said in an interview...

Good, because that would imply that they did this intentionally.

"...but it's kind of discouraging when you don't see a lot of faces in the classroom that look like you."

And there's the kicker, folks. They want more "diversity," as long as "diversity" means "more people like us." Isn't that the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Anti-Homogeneity Warriors are always trying to accomplish?

"You need diversity so you meet people from different backgrounds with different views!"

So how does having more of one group contribute to that, unless, as I've stated a few times before, "diverse" means "black?"

Student Aquelia Lewis told the UC regents in March: "Ever since I stepped onto this campus, I've had to fight racism, negativity and questions about why I should be here."

The voices in your head don't count, if that's what you mean.

Insert leftist here: "You bigot! You just implied that all African-Americans are schizophrenic!"

There. I saved them some time.

The distress is compounded by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's austere budget and its proposed elimination of state funds for UC outreach programs, which are designed to recruit disadvantaged students to campus.

And there's the "only minorities can be disadvantaged because of 'white privilege'" thing illustrated quite effectively. I love it.

The shrinking number of black faces has created extra stress not only because of the resulting alienation...

Are you saying that people of different races can't get along? That's news to me.

...but also because many African American students feel driven to do what they can to stop the trend.

How is that anyone else's problem? If they "feel" it, it's their own dang fault.

Many of them devote long hours to volunteer outreach efforts in addition to their schoolwork and jobs.

Kindly direct me to the people who put a gun to their head and forced them to do so, and maybe I'll help with your sacred mission to eliminate racism.

Working at the recruitment and retention center "is like a full-time job on top of being a student," said senior James Drake. "If we didn't do stuff like that, things would be worse. It's really, really stressful having all these commitments.

Don't. Make. Commitments. If. You. Can't. Handle. Them.

Everyone should know that by the time they get to frickin' college. I don't know how you can even get into college without knowing that.

"You would think being a Berkeley student, 'Wow! I get to do all these things' -- but being a black student, you can't really enjoy that."

So...the school is racist because some black students choose to do more work?

...My brain hurts.

Martin, an American studies major applying to law school, has worked part time since she came to Cal, while also volunteering to help pre-college youth in her Oakland community around McClymonds High School, where she herself benefited from UC outreach programs.

"A lot of us go to different places and volunteer our time, different schools and community centers," she said Friday before meeting with fellow seniors to plan next Saturday's African American Studies graduation ceremony, a major annual event for families and members of the Cal black community.

Do you hear that? It's the Double Standard Alarm! This sounds a lot like segregation, doesn't it? Oh, but it only discriminates against non-blacks, so it's okay.

"I want to be sure when I leave Cal that there will be students like me coming here."

If only "students like me" meant "intelligent and hard-working students," not "students who just happen to look like me."

The new admissions numbers follow a long decline since 1998, the first year that the Proposition 209 ban took full effect.

Underrepresented minorities at Berkeley fell to 11.2 percent of entering freshmen in 1998 from 24.3 percent just three years earlier, a plunge rivaled only by UCLA's in the nine-campus UC system.

Shouldn't someone be checking to see how many were qualified to be there before and after the proposition? I'd guess the numbers would be about the same.

Among all undergraduates at Cal, the number of African Americans has fallen from 1,543 in 1995 to 924 this school year, or 4.1 percent of the current nonforeign total.

The latest admission figures have fanned a growing sense of alarm among not just African American students, but the black community at large.

But it's the school's fault, not theirs, right?

Several dozen Bay Area black leaders invited UC President Robert Dynes to a private Oakland home Tuesday night to express concern about the declining admissions, particularly at UC's flagship campus, Berkeley.

Yep. It is the school's fault. Those horrible Berkeley administrators, forcing everyone to meet the same requirements. What kind of world are we living in?

"President Dynes is concerned about the representation of African American students and wants to understand personally the factors affecting the declines we've seen," said UC spokesman Hanan Eisenman.

For the UC system as a whole, African Americans received 3.7 percent of admission offers in 1997 (1,435) compared with 3.1 percent this coming fall (1, 469).

I still want to know who's counting and why.

But acceptance letters don't reflect the entire problem. Many highly qualified black students are choosing not to apply in the first place, said UC Berkeley's director of public affairs, George Strait.

Nobody saw that coming.

Applicants to Berkeley from King Drew Magnet High School in Los Angeles, a source of many gifted black seniors, fell 45 percent this year, Strait said.

"Part of that is they're going to Harvard," he said. Their decisions are influenced by UC's rapidly rising fees, cuts in financial aid and the "perception problem" that they won't feel welcome at Cal.

"Perception problem?" Again, isn't that their fault, not the school's? Or do universities have control over the students' precious feeeeeeelings now?

UC Berkeley is going out of its way to try to raise the numbers of African Americans on campus and to make sure they feel supported after they arrive, he said.

Nope, no racial preferences here...

Chancellor Robert Berdahl, who is retiring at the end of this school year, is "going to spend his final weeks with this as his No. 1 priority," Strait said. The campus is expected to officially announce this week, for example, that it will finally establish the long-promised student multicultural center this fall, Strait said.

I still don't understand how they can have that. What happened to AMERICAN culture? Is that evil and racist and not good for diversity?

When the new admissions figures were announced, Berdahl called them "flat- out unacceptable."

"Reality doesn't match my fantasy world! We can't have that! The pink unicorns specifically told me that we can't have that, and I don't think you want to defy the pink unicorns...which doesn't mean that the green unicorns aren't also appreciated...but they're overrepresented in my fantasy world, and...*THUD*"

I guess Berdahl forgot to inhale.

Dynes wants to address all the sources of the decline, including the factors causing similar declines at other universities, deficiencies in the public schools and laws that need remedying, Eisenman said.

It's not an issue just for minorities. A newly formed group of white male students also is raising the banner. A dozen members donned "White Male for Diversity" T-shirts Wednesday at a campus plaza.

I already wrote about them.

"We wanted to show the campus that diversity is important to the whole student body," said senior Adam Balinger.

Which you accomplished by gathering a bunch of white guys. O....kay.

Senior Melissa Geddis, another planner of the African American Studies graduation, said the problem starts in poorly funded public schools.

"The issue is California has a poor education system," she said. "A lot of the schools where the income and property values are low don't get the resources they need."

So, logically, shouldn't they be up in arms over this, not the supposed lack of diversity at universities? I thought that quality of education was more important than what color the students are.

Then again, maybe I'm just a Privileged White Male™ who's never had to deal with oppression and a feeling that I don't belong.

Yeah, that must be it.

Posted by CD at 09:41 PM | Comments (2)

Precision Guided Humor: Fun Facts About Michael Moore

Now that I'm on vacation, I finally have time to participate in Alliance assignments again, starting with this week's PGH:

Michael Moore is about to release his latest crockumentary entitled "Farenheit 911" in which, rumor has it, he will somehow find a way to blame George Bush for the terrorist attacks instead of the terrorists themselves.

Throughout his career, Michael Moore has consistently twisted the truth and/or plain old made stuff up to promote the sick agenda that sloshes around in his stubble-bedecked head. With his latest effort he shows no remorse for the propaganda windfall he is about the hand the enemies of freedom.

Well, the Alliance can make stuff up, too, so let's see how he likes it. Your Precision Guided Humor assignment this week is to answer the question:

What "facts" about Michael Moore would you include in a documentary about him?

This is perfect, because I just happened to be doing a bit of "research" lately on Michael Moore's life, and I dug up quite a few facts that he doesn't want you to know. These are all completely false 100% true, but Mikey won't admit it if you ask. Check out the SIT list of fun facts about Michael Moore (note: the roundup won't be posted until tomorrow night, so I may add more before then):

-He constantly wears a baseball cap so "The Elves" won't steal his thoughts.

-That's not a beard. It's an alien parasite.

-He only hates Republicans because he was once mistaken for an elephant.

-He's a member of the Bin Laden family.

-"Nigerian bank account" spam was his idea.

-He'll be playing the role of Jabba the Hutt in Star Wars: Episode III.

-Speaking of Star Wars, Jar Jar Binks was also his idea.

-He really wanted to track down Roger Smith so he could declare his undying love.

-He actually weighs 175 pounds, but he's been wearing a fat suit for the past few years. He figures that if everyone is making fun of his weight, they'll forget about all his lies.

-He originally endorsed Wesley Clark because he thought the general invented the Clark Bar.

-He has a personal army of oompa-loompas waiting for the order to storm the White House.

-When he eats Mexican food, he qualifies as a WMD.

-He hasn't always made documentaries. Let's just say that his earlier films include "Blowing for Columbine," "The Really REALLY Big One," and "Roger and Me and the Babysitter and the Neighbors and a Goat."

-In his younger days, he was known as Mîkelmür the Conqueror, and he terrorized small Icelandic villages.

-He directed Gigli.

And there you have it. Now you know the whole truth about Michael Moore. Use your knowledge wisely.

Posted by CD at 07:22 PM | Comments (6)

Is This the Best They Can Do?

Have I mentioned that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette sucks? Well, it does. Today's letters to the editor are almost painful to read. Let's look at a few!

First, we have one explaining why President Bush's failure to serve in Vietnam is relevant to the war in Iraq:

Ignorance of war makes Bush vulnerable to surprise

President Bush's reaction to the recent revelations that American soldiers committed atrocities on Iraqi prisoners of war was surprising. He was shocked -- shocked! -- that American soldiers -- some under the prodding of American civilians -- had acted shamefully. Or shamelessly.

Maureen Dowd would be proud of that paragraph.

The president -- and many of those around him -- tried to distance themselves from the actions of these people:

WHAT? Haven't they been kissing everyone's @ss for the last week trying to apologize for it?

This is a handful of people, not the whole army. These are just a few bad apples in a big bushel of apples. We are not like them.

REALLY? I wasn't aware of that, because I haven't heard it hundreds of times in the last few days.

It is in moments like this that I am sorry that our now-president opted out of overseas service during the Vietnam war.

Yeah, because the National Guard never gets sent into combat. They just fly them big purty jets cause they makes loud noiseses. Idiot.

I am also sorry that so many others of this administration have no real firsthand experience with war. That ignorance may be one of the reasons for their enthusiasm for war rather than other means of achieving an end.

How much are you willing to bet that this person also uses the "only women who have been pregnant can have an opinion about abortion" argument?

But that ignorance also leaves them gasping with surprise and shock when they discover that war is hell. War is terrible for a variety of reasons. Soldiers get killed all the time in war. Not only that, but very often civilians also get killed.

Everybody. In. The world. Knows that.

Since when do you have to go to war to realize that horrible things happen? IT'S F**KING WAR!!!!

There's more of that letter, but I think that was the most entertaining part. Now, our next writer tries to explain why today's Republicans are fascists. I'm totally serious. They actually printed this. Let's take a look:

Disturbing trend

E.J. Dionne Jr.'s April 30 column ("Death to Moderates") points directly at the very disturbing trend within the Republican Party toward the hard-line right-wing neoconservatism espoused in the Project for the New American Century.

I bet you post on Democratic Underground. Am I right? I mean, come on! Is this really the best they can do?

"The far right-wing wants to turn the entire world into an American empire! We're doooooooooooomed!!!!!"

I really don't understand the delusion that this administration is even close to being right-wing. Have you heard the term RINO?

Although this trend was probably conceived during the Nixon administration...

Holy crap, I think I see a conspiracy theory on the horizon. has finally burst forth in all its viciousness with the inauguration of the current Bush administration.

What f**king "viciousness?" This is one of the most liberal Republican administrations we've ever had, and yet, it's all part of the VRWC? What are these people smoking?

The intolerance of moderates within their own rank and file...

*COUGH* Colin Powell *COUGH COUGH*

...the use of intimidation and threats against those who do not tow the party line...

Okay, that's all the proof I needed that this letter is based on one of the writer's hallucinations. Point out ONE example of "intimidation and threats" against anyone besides foreign terrorists, and maybe I'll take your lunatic ramblings seriously...but don't count on it.

...questioning the patriotism of anyone who dares to disagree with or question the current administration's policies...

You're thinking of John Kerry and his wife.

I still can't believe they printed this...

...Sen. Rick Santorum's "K Street" strategy...

I have no idea what that means.

...the current administration's double-speak...

It's called "stuttering," and it doesn't make Dubya a worse president, just a bad public speaker.

...That is what you meant, right?

...and its insistence on secrecy and executive privilege and so on...

Because no other administration has EVER kept things secret.

...testify to the fact that the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now the party of Francisco Franco and Benito Mussolini.

And there you have it. Because the Bush administration has been the target of numerous lies and misrepresentations, they're fascists. Unbefrigginlievable.

Let's look at one more letter. This one tries to compare the flawless, golden years of the Clinton adminstration with the oppressive, dark, evil Bush regime (keep in mind that I was 15 when Clinton left office, so this isn't going to be brilliant):

Good years and bad

In response to the April 23 letter "Clinton's Disgrace" by Gary T. Getsy: If a year was wasted during the Lewinsky matter, it was due to the relentless obsession of the Republicans to get President Clinton out of office.

It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he committed perjury. Perish the thought!

He worked hard for all people and our country.

Especially the interns!

As the circus droned on, countries were laughing at us.

At us? Or with us? You be the judge.

What? It sounded funny.

During the Clinton years, people took pride in going to work instead of going to the welfare offices.

I haven't heard that one: "The Bush administration invented welfare, and nobody ever needed it before now! EVER!!!!!"

And isn't unemployment currently at the exact. same. rate. as it was during Clinton's term?

States had funds to hire many policemen, school teachers and children were not left behind.

Funny, I didn't notice any change in the quality of those things that coincided with presidential changes. It's almost as if the president isn't the only person in the country who can influence things.

People were enjoying vacations, new cars, homes, education and the feeling that it was great to be an American.

I still enjoy all those things. So do a lot of other people. And it's not like Bush has been taking any of that away from people.

"The VRWC has declared that vacations and new cars are unpatriotic! Now bow before the Elephant of Wisdom, or he shall smite thee!"

When President Clinton left office our national debt was at an all-time low. The large surplus was there for a national emergency.

So...if we had a large surplus, isn't it good that we pay less taxes now? Oh, wait, I forgot that the government ALWAYS spends money better than the unwashed masses. Save me, Big Brother Government, save me!

Today the debt is going to the moon, the surplus was given to the rich.

"Given to the rich." Read that again. "Given. To the rich."


Or maybe I imagined my family's tax refund, which we used to buy new furniture and other nice things for the house. Do we owe the government money now?

What happened? Bush happened.

That sounds dirty. Which was probably the writer's intention.

What President Clinton did as a husband was Hillary's business.

Apparently, she thinks that it should be everyone's business. I mean, she did write a book about it.

What he did as president was our business. If Hillary can forgive, we can too. It's time.

I'm glad you use Hillary Clinton as a moral role model. That explains a lot.

To his critics: Make your words soft and sweet. You don't know when you may have to eat them.

All right, it would be way too easy to make an intern joke there, so I'm just going to stop typing now, before I get carried away.

Is it any wonder the city of Pittsburgh is bankrupt? It's full of idiots like these.

Posted by CD at 03:54 PM | Comments (2)

It's Alive!

Wow. I worked for almost 3 hours to make a brand spankin' new music page. It's got all my lyrics, plus quite a few mp3 files (including 3 drum solos). And if you were wondering: Yes, this is mostly to inflate my ego. I'm a blogger, dang it. I'm allowed.

Check out the music page here. There's more information once you get there.

Posted by CD at 12:43 AM | Comments (0)

May 10, 2004

Still Here

There's apparently nothing to blog about, but I have been doing some behind the scenes stuff. I made a brand new intro page (it's got the exact same information on it as the old one though), and I'm also in the process of transferring all my song lyrics to Movable Type. I'm also adding mp3 samples of the drum parts I've written. That should be ready by tomorrow.

Just letting you know.

Posted by CD at 10:12 PM | Comments (2)

Who ARE You People?!

Wow. Someone just came to the blog by googling for George W. Bush gay Nazi.

...Dude. Just...dude.

Posted by CD at 03:41 PM | Comments (1)

Spam Libs

Crap. Monday afternoon, and nothing but the same political stories. Oh, well. I've been taking this blog too seriously lately anyway. I was actually going to post some pictures of my cats, but one of them was under the bed and I couldn't get a good shot.

Aaaaaanyway...I just got one of those stupid "Nigerian petroleum" e-mails, and instead of reporting it or deleting it, I decided to make a mad lib out of it. I'll put the list here so you can make your own, along with the actual letter in the extended entry. I'll post mine when I'm finished with it.

I may have an Alliance assignment posted later, too. Nothing really political is happening today that hasn't been beaten to death already. Here's a word list:

10. NOUN
12. NOUN
18. VERB
21. VERB
22. VERB
23. NOUN
25. NOUN
26. NOUN

The e-mail, with space provided for those, is in the extended entry. I'll post mine in an update when it's done (UPDATE- it's there now):

Dear (title),


May I respectfully (verb) your kind attention to the above subject matter and to state that based on (noun) gathered from the relevant Federal Ministry of Trade, Commerce and (plural noun), we, intend to solicit your assistance in the execution of a business transaction. It is our sincere (emotion) that you will handle this (noun) with absolute confidentiality, maturity and utmost sense
of purpose.

I wish to further (verb) you that we have twenty Million (plural noun) which accrued overtime from (adverb) inflated contract awarded in my Ministry (Federal Ministry of (noun) Resources) and executed by a consortium of (plural noun) in the (noun) Industry. The projects executed include the following:

1. The expansion of pipeline network within (country) for Crude Oil and (adjective) products distribution and subsequent evacuation.

2. Contract for the Turn Around Maintenance (TAM) of the three (plural noun) In the country.

3. The construction of (plural noun) for Petroleum Products (Depots).

Consequently, we humbly request your (adjective) assistance and permission towards the remittance of the above stated amount into a personal/company/offshore account nominated by you. We (verb) (adverb) that you will receive 30% of the total sum, and the remaining 70% is for my (plural noun) and me.

However, this is negotiable in the event of your willingness to (verb).

Could you please notify me of your acceptance to (verb) this (noun) urgently by email email addresses: (e-mail address) only, on the receipt of this message. I shall in turn inform you of the modalities for a formal application to secure the
necessary approvals for the release of this (noun) into your (noun).

This transaction from the day of commencement will not take more than ten(10) working (plural noun).

Thanks for your co-operation.

Yours sincerely

(title) (first and last name)


Here's mine:

Dear Professor,


May I respectfully shovel your kind attention to the above subject matter and to state that based on helicopter gathered from the relevant Federal Ministry of Trade, Commerce and Jellybeans, we, intend to solicit your assistance in the execution of a business transaction. It is our sincere horror that you will handle this margarine with absolute confidentiality, maturity and utmost sense
of purpose.

I wish to further jump you that we have twenty Million snails which accrued overtime from stupidly inflated contract awarded in my Ministry (Federal Ministry of Sewer Resources) and executed by a consortium of medals in the Botox Industry. The projects executed include the following:

1. The expansion of pipeline network within Micronesia for Crude Oil and squishy products distribution and subsequent evacuation.

2. Contract for the Turn Around Maintenance (TAM) of the three penguins In the country.

3. The construction of mannequins for Petroleum Products (Depots).

Consequently, we humbly request your frigid assistance and permission towards the remittance of the above stated amount into a personal/company/offshore account nominated by you. We shatter secretly that you will receive 30% of the total sum, and the remaining 70% is for my weasels and me.

However, this is negotiable in the event of your willingness to chew.

Could you please notify me of your acceptance to type this wristwatch urgently by email email addresses: only, on the receipt of this message. I shall in turn inform you of the modalities for a formal application to secure the
necessary approvals for the release of this paintbrush into your hat.

This transaction from the day of commencement will not take more than ten(10) working bullets.

Thanks for your co-operation.

Yours sincerely

President Kwyjibo Snrub

Posted by CD at 03:37 PM | Comments (5)

May 09, 2004

Ted Rall Wannabes

I wasn't going to post today, but I have to express my disgust at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial cartoons. They have them archived online, so I can link directly to the offensive ones. There's a really idiotic one today, but it isn't online yet. Maybe I'll take a picture of it later. Anyway, I'll present these with minimal comments (these URLs may link to different cartoons after May 9, so if you look at them then, I can't promise anything):

Here's the "America is responsible for torture" meme illustrated nicely

Way to honor our soldiers, Tim

Yeah, it's exactly like Vietnam

And the U.S. is as bad as Saddam, too

Oh, look, another Vietnam cartoon

Here's a catch-all of "chickenhawk, corporation whore, right-wing extremist, and anti-environment" accusations

I didn't realize big business was responsible for 9/11

Wow, Bush is as bad as Osama because he's pro-life

And one more that suggests either that the NRA was responsible for the Columbine shootings, or that they only care about how it affected their image

I am so glad that I have a blog now. You wouldn't believe how angry I got on a daily basis while reading this newspaper last summer. Now, I finally have a chance to rant about it.

Have I mentioned that the PG also publishes This Modern World?

Yeah. They're that bad.

Posted by CD at 04:35 PM | Comments (2)

May 07, 2004

DU Parody

You know...I haven't written about Democratic Underground for a while, but now I have a chance. You see, the morons decided to respond to this great story about President Bush comforting a girl who lost her mother on 9/11 with their usual irrational hatred:

It *was* Bush's decisions that lead to her mom's death.
I read that sbout Saddam too He always embraced others by drawing their faces into his arm pits...I am not making this up, old Saddam was kind of a crazy guy. (Need I say more George?)
This was a caring thing to do... rendered completely useless by *'s obvious determination to make sure the camera caught every last compassionate grimace on his face.
This guy is just plain evil. How can someone who is so responsible for what happened on 9/11, who's done all in his power to block any investigation of those events, do this in good conscience? Thay could not.

I pity that poor girl for being used like a stage prop by the Bush campaign.

There's a lot more where that came from, but I'll spare you the nauseating experience of reading it all here. In any case, this got me thinking...

They're always saying that Dubya should go to military funerals, right? They think that he has some kind of obligation to pay his respects to every single person who dies in his evilhalliburtonracistoilwar. But based on the response to this, do you really think they would suddenly give him credit if he did go to funerals?

I think I know exactly what it would be like, and I'll use my special "parallel universe" technique to glimpse into a DU post about President Bush going to a military funeral. Hey, if Frnak can do a Universal Democratic Underground Thread, I can do this, although I'm making an effort to be more realistic than funny.

WARNING: As soon as you click the extended entry, you will enter the world of parody and satire. You will not emerge until you return to the main page. You have been warned.

(original message)

Bushequalschimp (1000+ posts)

Bush* Smirks at War Dead

"While on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas this week, President George W. Bush took the time to attend a nearby funeral for a United States Marine who was killed in Iraq."


"The president met the man's family at the funeral home and accompanied them to the burial service, where he gave a brief speech honoring the bravery of the U.S. armed forces.

'I am proud of the sacrifice that our brave men and women in uniform are making to defend the United States against terror around the world,' said Bush.


"'It was such an honor to have the president here,' said a family member who asked to remain anonymous. 'We know that he cares about the military, and we trust him to make the right decisions.'

Mr. Bush said that he will most likely be attending more funerals in the future."


PresidentGore (1000+ posts)

1. If it wasnt for Chimpya...
That man would still be alive. I don't know how he can show his face in public, the sick f**k.


2. Nothing but a photo-op
Why couldn't * just stand there and watch? He just had to give a speech for the corprate media whores, didn't he? He feels nothing for our military, and everyone knows it.

ImpeachtheThiefInChief (1000+posts)

3. Smile for the camera, Chimpy!
Look at him. He's having a good time watching kids die for his oil war. Why did he wait until he was on one of his milion "vacations" to go to a funeral? That proves that he doesn't care. We cannot let this lieing smirking prick steal the White House again.


4. It's not real
It's obvoius the whole thing was staged. Did you see the TV coverege? Nobody could lift a coffin that easily unless it was empty. He really does think 'Murkins are idjits. What a heartless bastard.


5. I agree with RepugKiller
The relatives of a real Marine would kick him in the groin as soon as they got the chance. Clearly, Rove paid a few people to pose as mourners while they wasted taxpayer money on a fictitious funeral. That coffin was as real as the Weapons of Mass Distraction.

PinkoForPeace (1000+ posts)

6. Not only that, OutandProud...
But that "interview" was a joke! They couldn't even make up a fake name like they did with "Ashley Pearson" in the SOTU! No real relatives of war dead would say they were honored to have a facist murderer at there funeral, but the media tools swallowed it, just like all his other lies.


7. I think I'm going to vomit
He thinks he can send minorities to war just because their not the same colur as him, and then gloat at their funerals about "honor" and "sacrifice?" He has NO RESPECT for any of them, and he should not be aloud anywere near them.

KucinichIsKing (1000+ posts)

8. He'll do anything
To get re-selected. This is just another way to fool the gollable American voters.

AbortionsForAll (1000+ posts)

9. Exactly, KucinichIsKing
"Howdy, partner. Did you know that your son died in a meaningless war so I could play president for another four years like my daddy?"



10. How could he be at a military funeral...
When he wasn't even in the military? Shouldn't he have been smoking crack and knocking up his girlfriend like the last time he was supposed to be doing his duty?


11. NoMoreBushit is right
The AWOL Chickenhawk-in-Chief thinks he can pretend to be a real 'Murkin Soljuurr, just like he did during Vietnam. Im suprised he didn't where the flight suit.

"Mission acomplished! Another one's dead!"

FlagburningPatriot (1000+ posts)

12. You know
Hitler was big on honoring "fallen warriors." All the good Germans celebrated their imperialism. Dumbya is just another bloodthirsty Nazi facist.

AbortBush (1000+ posts)

13. I wish
That Bush was in that coffin. He doesn't deserve to live after all hes done to this country. But he's too much of a coward to actually fight in his racist anti-muslim holocost. Filthy chickenhawks.


14. Does anyone else think...
That it doesn't really look like Bushnazi in that photo? They probably sent one of his dubbles to do his dirty work. Saddam did the same thing. Just another way Pretzelboy is worse then a dicktater.

Name removed

15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.


16. Get out of here FReeper!
Go and wave your chickenhawk flag in your own brainded fourum, moran! Your Nazi pResdient wants you and your family to starve, and he only cares about his corporate Helliburtin partners. You must enjoy living in a facist country.

AbstinenceKills (1000+ posts)

17. I can't believe
That we haven't inpeeched this murderer yet. He's a racist facist oil loving AWOL chickenhawk woman-hating biggit who wants to sell our souls to Haliburton and buy fickshinal WMD's from the Middleast. He's only going to the funerals so he can laugh at everyone who was dumb enough to join his evil imperial army and kill brown people who weren't an imanent threat.

...That's the end of that thread. I'm sure there would be a lot more, but if I keep writing, my head is going to implode from the lack of thought necessary to write on their level.

Trust me, if Dubya ever goes to a funeral, this is what's going to happen.

Posted by CD at 08:00 PM | Comments (11)

New Fisk Target

I forgot to mention this, but now that I'm back in Pittsburgh, I have a new source of material for blog posts: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I read the actual Dead Tree edition of this paper on a daily basis, including the horribly biased editorials. I've been doing this every time I had the chance since sometime last year. Now, I finally have the chance to fisk them. Let's get started with one from today, which nearly made me vomit as I read it while eating dinner:

Editorial: Can Rumsfeld / Iraqi prisoner abuses call for a new Defense chief

With respect to flagrant, brutal U.S. mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan as well...

Great, let's start off with an unsupported assumption. That's always a good sign.

...the more that comes out, the worse it gets.

The Bush administration's response so far has been consistent with its general approach to anything it does that might be susceptible to criticism.

Attacking a straw man administration? Check. This is almost too easy.

It withholds, classifies or dribbles out in difficult-to-understand morsels the relevant information...

That's funny, because it seems to me that they're bending over backwards to appease you pathetic vultures.

...its Republicans in the Congress hold kid-glove hearings...

I must have missed that one. fans out its heavyweights to friendly television forums...

Hmmm...almost sounds like they're trying to get positive publicity, doesn't it? How dare they defend their reputation, those evil b@stards!

...and it has President Bush make a statement that falls short of convincing anyone.

"Because if I'm not convinced, nobody is!"

What is emerging is that there were many cases. What is particularly worrying is talk of "ghost prisoners" -- that is to say, prisoners who were captured and no record made of their imprisonment or further disposition. How many were there? Who were they? Where are they?

You could probably find out if you'd shut up for a second about those horrible Republicans and their public relations campaign. You know those sounds they make? Those are called words. They convey information about stuff and things. Some of that information is probably relevant to your questions. So LISTEN!

It also has come out that the International Committee of the Red Cross knew months ago some of what was going on in Abu Ghraib prison, asked repeatedly that something be done to stop it and was ignored by the American authorities in Iraq.

Uh...didn't the incident take place months ago? Hasn't it since been dealt with privately? Or do you only consider what you see on television to be reality?

It also turns out that some of the alleged torture was carried out by civilian contractors, not by uniformed U.S. military.

"Screw them!"

Those contractors are not subject to being brought to justice under the Universal Code of Military Justice or the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. In other words, because they are private contractors, in practical terms they are able to do almost anything with impunity.

And I'm sure the people who were in the prison always followed those rules.

It also appears that some of the prisoners not only were humiliated, they were killed by their interrogators. So far we have been told of two cases of criminal homicide being brought.

I seem to remember that those were British soldiers, which would make the U.S. reaction a lot less important, but I could be wrong...

What needs to be done? First of all, obviously, a full independent investigation and accounting needs to be carried out -- of who was taken prisoner, what exactly was done with them and where they are now.

Wow. Nobody could've figured that out. It's a good thing we have anonymous newspaper editors to shine the light of reason on the unwashed masses.

The American approach to Iraqi casualties in Iraq -- which is to say, not even to count them -- won't do this time.

Since when is it our job to count enemy casualties? What do you want them to do, track down all the bodies and make a friggin' photographic inventory?

If President Bush really wants to clean this stain off America, never mind his administration...

Both of which had exactly NOTHING to do with the torture incident.

...he needs to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

I love it. If the moonbats are going to say crazy things like this, they could at least put a little more effort into it. I mean...firing Rumsfeld won't do anything to change the behavior of our why don't you call for President Bush to wear a rainbow wig every time he makes a speech from now on? That would have the exact same effect, and it would humiliate him. Look! Why can't you come up with something like this? Get creative, you idiots!

...Moving on...

He shouldn't wait until everyone has called for it.

He doesn't have much of a choice now, does he?

He needs to say, now, "I have learned what happened. I am absolutely appalled by its inconsistency with fundamental American principles. These acts were carried out under the responsibility of the secretary of defense. I have asked for and will accept his resignation."

Was he there? Did he oversee it? Did he order it? Did he even know about it until after it happened? NO!!!!! So why the f**k do you think that firing him will do anything to change the situation?

That message would ring loud and clear throughout the Arab world.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yeah, that'll fix everything.

"Look, Mohammed, the Great Satan fired one of its minions!"

"Oh, this is a great day indeed, Mahmoud! Let's celebrate by blowing up a bus full of infidel women and children! ULULULULULULULULULULULULULU!!!!!!!"

But that's not the real point.

That's a shock...

The real audience for this act on his part would be Americans who are truly disgusted at what has taken place.

And they're directing their disgust at Rummy because.......?

It is also the American forces, who are Mr. Rumsfeld's responsibility...

"Military officers? What are those?"

...who will see what happened to him and will not repeat those acts in Iraq, or anywhere else.

Let me get this straight: These morons in Iraq decided to take frickin' pictures of themselves as they abused Iraqi POWs. Given the fact that they were dumb enough to do that in the first place, you think that firing the Secretary of Defense, rather than disciplining the people who actually perpetrated the acts, will prevent further incidents?

...What planet are you people living on, anyway?

Posted by CD at 05:35 PM | Comments (3)

Michael Moore is Still a Liar

I know I'm about a day late with this, but still...can we all agree that Michael Moore now has negative credibility? This is pathetic:

Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

You'd think that would give him more time to plan a decent publicity stunt, but I guess that when the media believes every load of crap you shove down their throats, you tend to get lazy.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

"The evil corporations are trying to silence me! I'm just a poor boy from Flint, Michigan! What could I doooooooooooo????"

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

As if we needed more proof that Moore is a compulsive liar.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

They probably still believe that. Maybe they think the Bush administration forced him to "confess" with a little help from the Ashcroft Dissent Crushing Squads™.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office.

Isn't that what I said? Someone will be gullible enough to release this propaganda; It just won't be Disney.

...Heh. Disney releasing a Moore film. This reminds me of the Chinpokomon episode of South Park. Just imagine Mickey Mouse saying "Hey, kids, the American government lies to you!"

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is...

What else could it be?

...appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Yep. Good ol' unbiased media, yessiree.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.

Who to believe...? Michael Moore...or the executives of a successful business...?

This is such a no-brainer, even Mikey's fans should be able to figure it out.

Posted by CD at 03:49 PM | Comments (3)

Myth Busting

Some of you may have become aware of this little meme, which is supposedly proof that today's music sucks. It's a recording of two Nickelback songs, "How You Remind Me" and "Someday," played simultaneously. The synchronization is perfect. It seems like they did the same song twice, doesn't it?

Well, I'm here to tell you that if you believe the "Nickelback's songs sound the same" story, you've been had. How do I know? Well, I happen to own "Silver Side Up" and "The Long Road," the 2 Nickelback CDs that those songs are from. I also happen to have said songs in mp3 format in iTunes.

Guess what? Someone did a little audio editing, because "How You Remind Me" is 3:43 in length, while "Someday" is 3:27. That's a 16 second difference. Kinda hard for 'em to synch, isn't it? If you need more proof, I've got it.

I used an experimental technique, which I call "wearing two sets of headphones at once, with one connected to the computer and one connected to the CD player," to see if the songs really do sound that eerily similar when played together.

They. Weren't. Even. CLOSE. "How You Remind Me" was still playing when the CD that had been playing "Someday" rolled over to the next track. Interesting, isn't it?

So, I'm here to tell you that the "recycled Nickelback songs" meme is a MYTH.

You're welcome.

I downloaded the mp3 of the two songs mixed together. Want to know what I found out?

It's 3 minutes and 9 seconds long. Shorter than either song.

Whoever made that thing has some 'splaining to do.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not trying to prove that both songs don't sound similar. That much is obvious. I'm just saying that there was manipulation involved in that recording. Now go read the frickin' political posts I spent all Thursday writing. Dang it.

Posted by CD at 12:28 AM | Comments (7)

May 06, 2004

The Enigma of Rachel Lucas

Okay, here's a blog post about blogging. Wow.

As some of you may know, Rachel Lucas has decided to return to blogging. Rachel, of course, is one of the most famous bloggers in the 'sphere. If you don't believe that, check out the comments to the posts about her disappearance/return on The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler and Blather Review. The response is amazing.

Now, I'm wondering something: WHY? How can one person be such a good blogger that they inspire multi-site celebrations when they come back from hiatus? How do they become such a modern legend simply by putting words on a screen? HOW?

Of course, I'm not saying she doesn't deserve it. Heck, I love her writing too, and I disagree with about 40% of what she has to say (she's a small "l" libertarian, while I'm a small "c" conservative and large "R" Republican).

Again, WHY and HOW does this happen? Why is Rachel Lucas such an incredible blogger? What's the secret that enabled her to publish one post per day, if that, and still get more hits on that day than most of us get in a month? I feel so insignificant after witnessing this, but at the same time, I understand it. Her writing is friggin' BRILLIANT. But it's not clear why. It just is.

Sorry. This post rambled. But if Rachel Lucas had written it, it would've gotten 100 comments and inspired discussion across the blogosphere.

How does one get that good at blogging?

Posted by CD at 08:55 PM | Comments (2)

"Angry White Males" Fight Back...Against Themselves

Okay, I don't want to end the day with the "Evil Spiders Must Die" post, so here's another political one. Via Discriminations, here's a story about lack of "diversity" at UC Berkeley (what a shock). Check it out:

Lack of diversity at UC Berkeley creates angry white males

A new group has emerged to further the fight for diversity at University of California, Berkeley, and they've got the snazzy white T-shirts and the bold new slogan to prove it.

Admittedly, though, these aren't your usual suspects.

Insert leftist here: "You can't say 'usual suspects!' That implies crime, which implies African-Americans!"

Come on. You know there's someone out there who would say that.

One is a former Marine and others are athletes, fraternity brothers, engineering students and economists. At least one is a Republican, another claims Independent status and says both major political parties are "crazy," and many say they aren't particularly fans of affirmative action.

Plus, they're all white. And male.

Figures. "There's so little diversity, nobody but us even cares about it!"

They are also united in the belief that the campus isn't doing enough to attract a diverse pool of qualified students, and they want to lean on UC administrators to hire a new chancellor who has a proven track record for fostering campus diversity.

The irony is so incredible that it's almost physically painful. Keep reading to see why.

It's a timely message, since officials are conducting a national search for someone to replace Chancellor Robert Berdahl, who retires in June.

The students also want to monkey with traditional stereotypes holding that only rabid liberals and minority groups care about campus diversity.

Does it not count as diversity when they break the stereotype? Hmm...

"When the recent admissions data was released, we all realized it was a pretty big travesty," said Adam Borelli, a political economy major and, as it turns out, a member of California Young Democrats. "We just couldn't understand why the admission rates for minorities would go down. It seems counter-intuitive to me."

"If reality doesn't fit our enlightened worldview, reality must be wrong!!!"

The students came together a couple of weeks ago after UC Berkeley released its fall 2004 admissions data, which showed a marked decline in the number of underrepresented minorities, especially black students, who gained admittance.

I'm sure the school did it on purpose too. Dang oppressive honkies.

UC Berkeley admitted only 211 black students in the fall, out of a class of 8,887. It was a 29 percent decrease from the 298 black students admitted last year. In fall 1997, UC Berkeley admitted 562 black students.

Did anyone bother to see how many applied, by any chance?

Admission numbers for Latino and American Indian students also declined.

Maybe it's because they're looked at as objects to further the goal of diversity, rather than students who just want to learn. Maybe.

Borelli and other like-minded young white men began talking about the numbers they called "dismal" and "startling." They met through classes and campus organizations and formed a loose coalition that numbers about 20.

Does that make them minorities? And how many blacks, Latinos, and American Indians are part of the group? Are they diverse enough? TELL ME!!!!!!

They ordered T-shirts: "Overrepresented," was printed on the front; "White male for diversity," was splashed across the back.

I'm going to join a couple of the commenters over at Discriminations and say: Why don't you give up your spot to a minority if you're overrepresented?

On Wednesday, a dozen of them gathered outside Kroeber Hall to share their concerns.

"When we were freshmen, it was a much different environment," said Michael Minkus, a political economy major who says he doesn't see as many black faces around campus as he did when he started five years ago. "We've seen the change."

Minkus said students benefit from meeting people from different backgrounds.

So...different colors automatically mean different backgrounds. Interesting. In my freshman year of college, I met people from all kinds of backgrounds. A lot of them were white. A lot of them weren't. What difference does that make? Are only non-whites allowed to have a "different" background?

Student Marc Salomon says the group's effort isn't about bringing back affirmative action programs, which have been barred by a state voter initiative. Rather, he said, the campus needs new ideas to attract the qualified students he knows are out there.

Is he saying the current students aren't qualified? Man, these people are strange.

"I want the university to be as diverse as the world," Salomon said. "I feel there are a lot of qualified applicants who got overlooked."

WHAT? If they were qualified, don't you think they would've gotten into the friggin' school, you moron? Does he actually think Berkeley is purposely ignoring minority applicants? It's friggin' BERKELEY!

The group has a list of ideas for improving Berkeley's diversity, including restoring funding to campus outreach programs that help prepare disadvantaged students.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Brilliant. Minority=disadvantaged. I'm so glad you're able to see beyond the stereotypes. @ss.

Other ideas include getting rid of the SAT in admissions decisions...

Which would make the entire point of taking the SAT...what?

...citing data that show that poor students tend to score lower on the test, regardless of academic prowess...

I would be laughing my lungs off (what an odd expression) right now if I didn't know that real people were saying these things. Let's review the problem-solution strategy being used here:

Problem: Poor students score lower on the SAT, and therefore have trouble getting into college.

Solution: Get rid of the SAT.

Brilliant. Because you couldn't try and RAISE THEIR F**KING SCORES, YOU CRAPNUGGETS!

...I'm getting way too worked up over this. I think I'm projecting my spider rage onto the "angry white males."

...and refining the comprehensive review admissions policy to try to draw a more diverse pool.

Is that a roundabout way to say "stealth quotas?"

They also want to join forces with other student groups.

Of course. You can't win the war on homogeneity with a unilateral force.

Heh. "War on Homogeneity." That's what I'm calling diversity from now on. Feel free to join me.

So far, the students said response to their efforts has been overwhelmingly positive.

"I don't think anyone should be surprised that we're out here," said Jason Siegel, who spent four years as an infantryman in the Marine Corps before enrolling at Berkeley five years ago. "I think increasing diversity is something that a lot of people believe in, and it's something that's even patriotic."

Great. So now you're unpatriotic if you think the War on Homogeneity is a waste of time.

This is so frickin' stupid. These are white males, saying that there are too many white males on campus, but they refuse to do the "right" thing and leave, so they can make room for more deserving and "qualified" students.

I do not understand this point of view at ALL. Maybe I just need to talk to people with different backgrounds...

Posted by CD at 08:40 PM | Comments (2)

Eight-Legged Evil

Have I mentioned that around this time of year, every year, my house is invaded by one of the most evil creatures that ever walked the Earth? I'm talking about sac spiders.

These things are horrible. I'm sure many of you in the Northeast are familiar with them. Medium-sized, various shades of brown, long legs, often found in that little space between the ceiling and the wall, resting in a silken cocoon, or "sac?" How many of you have dealt with this? Seriously, I want to know that I'm not alone.

Have I also mentioned that I'm arachnophobic? These things frickin' terrify me. Most spiders just make my heart beat a little faster, but sac spiders cause me to go into full-blown "fight or flight" mode. I just killed one in the bathroom a few minutes ago, and I'm still screwed up.

Even worse, I found out a couple years ago that they bite people. They're frickin' poisonous!!!! As if I wasn't scared enough already.

The worst part is that I have no way to effectively kill them anymore. I'm only 5'7'', so I can't really reach the places where they like to hang out. I used to get the ones on the ceiling with a plunger (yeah, a plunger. What's wrong with that?), but my parents decided that said plunger would be better off in the basement, and the spiders are usually in the upstairs bathroom, so now I'm virtually powerless against them! I had to kill today's spider by spraying it with water until it came down from the ceiling, then crushing it with a wad of toilet paper. What fun.

Yeah, this was a pointless rant, but it had to be posted. I HATE sac spiders with such intensity that I even scare myself sometimes. So I want to know: How many of you have had to deal with this abomination? Any good stories about 'em? I know I'm not the only one.

One more thing: I made a handy diagram for dealing with the arachnid threat. Click here to see it. (WARNING: THIS DIAGRAM CONTAINS A LARGE PICTURE OF A SAC SPIDER)

And if you haven't figured it out yet: Yes, I am obsessed. It's called a phobia, people.

Posted by CD at 07:49 PM | Comments (3)

More Illegal Immigrant Nonsense

Keeping with the theme of the last post, here's another story about rewarding lawbreakers:

Kansas Gov. to sign illegal immigrants tuition bill

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- A bill offering some illegal immigrants a tuition break at Kansas' public colleges and universities cleared the Legislature on Tuesday and headed to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who plans to sign it.

Am I to assume that "diversity" includes criminals now?

The House voted 68-54 for the measure, which won Senate passage earlier this year.


The proposal extends in-state tuition -- which is much lower than tuition for nonresidents -- to illegal immigrants who have attended a Kansas high school at least three years and graduated or who earned a general educational development certificate in Kansas.

"You're in the country illegally? AND you've already gotten a high school education? Well, your free ride needs to be moving even faster!"

To receive the lower tuition, an immigrant would have to be actively seeking legal immigration status or plan to do so when eligible.

Here's an idea: Let's wait until they actually gain legal status. I can see some of these deals:

"Are you in the country illegally?"


"Would you like to be here legally?"


"Good enough for me."

I'm sure it's not exactly like that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Proponents contended that many of the immigrants who will benefit have lived and attended schools in Kansas for years and intend to remain in the state.

Why wouldn't they intend to remain? The state is throwing money at 'em.

Opponents argued that the proposal would reward lawbreakers and perhaps even aid terrorists.

"*GASP* You can't say that, you racist!"

"If terrorists come to get a pilot's license at a Kansas university, at least we gave them in-state tuition before they used it against us," Rep. Scott Schwab, a Republican, said sarcastically, drawing boos from some in the chamber.

Boos. In the House of Representatives. Where are all the grown-ups?

Kansas residents pay much less than students from outside the state at public universities. In the current semester, for example, in-state tuition for 15 credit hours at Kansas State University is $1,755, compared to $5,700 for undergraduates from other states.

And yet...they want to give some people the same deal because they're not legal citizens?

...My brain hurts.

Posted by CD at 05:08 PM | Comments (2)

Rewarding Crime

Thanks to Right Wing News, I've got a couple stories about illegal immigrants to address.

Let's start with this one:

Democrats look to relax rules on illegal aliens

Three Democratic lawmakers yesterday proposed a broad legalization for illegal aliens that would allow many of those who have lived here for five years instant legal status.'re telling me that we're giving preferential treatment to people who have spent more time breaking the law? Brilliant.

The bill, which also includes a new temporary-worker program, is much broader than what President Bush proposed in January and broader than most other immigration bills pending in Congress.

Are there any real conservatives left on this planet? Hello? Bueller?

"It is in the national interest to have all those here seeking the American dream to be able to fully participate and contribute to American society," said Rep. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.


"Those who bend their back every day picking the fruits and vegetables that end up on our kitchen tables are part of America. Those who, through the sweat of their labor, dig the ditches that lay the infrastructure for the future are part of America."

It's. Still. Against. The. Law. People shouldn't even be hiring them; They should be reporting them to the INS.

He is sponsoring the bill along with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat.

Illegal aliens who have lived in the United States for five years and worked and paid taxes for two years would win permanent legal residence, or a green card, after passing a criminal background check.

O....kay...wouldn't a criminal background check reveal that they're IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY? Oh, I guess they meant real crimes.

Under the new temporary-worker program, those overseas could take part in a new, two-year visa, of which 250,000 would be issued a year, with a chance for permanent residence at the end.

Why don't we give these jobs to Americans? What happened to those horrible, tax-cut related unemployment figures the left was whining about for 2 years?

The bill would also abolish the 10-year ban, which says those who have lived in the U.S. illegally for a year and want to apply for a green card must first return to their home country for a decade.

Did I miss something? When did it become okay to live here illegally for a year in the first place?

With Hispanic voters being courted during this election year, and Mexicans making up a large part of the illegal work force in the United States, both parties are looking at immigration legislation.

"Illegal work force?" Okay, now I'm confused.

Mr. Bush in January proposed his own guest-worker program, which allows those already here illegally and those overseas to apply for a three-year work visa. The visa is renewable an unspecified number of times. Mr. Bush also proposed raising the number of green cards.

Because Mr. Bush is a freaking RINO when it comes to domestic policies.

But Mr. Kennedy and other Democrats said that with no definite connection between the guest-worker program and permanent status, illegal aliens identifying themselves under Mr. Bush's plan would risk being deported at the end of their temporary work period.

Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Mr. Kennedy said his bill will help national security because it will convert the flow of immigrants at the border from illegal to legal and allow "immigration-enforcement agents to focus their resources on terrorists and criminals attempting to enter the country."

WHAT? How does letting more people into the country make us more secure? Were people only breaking the law because of the traumatic stigmatization that comes with being identified as illegal?

Several Republicans who have proposed their own, more limited guest-worker programs, said the Kennedy plan is unworkable.

Why don't these "Republicans" propose a program that hires LEGAL FRIGGIN' WORKERS?

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, whose plan sets a time limit for guest workers and creates incentives for them to leave at the end of their time, said the Democrats' new bill "does little beyond encouraging further illegal immigration and does nothing to re-establish respect for the law."

Finally, something in this article that I can agree with.

Still, Don Stewart...

The Daily Show guy? Oh, wait, that's Jon Stewart.

...a spokesman for Mr. Cornyn, said the new proposal shows the immigration debate has shifted somewhat in the last few years.

"Democrats are moving away from their outright amnesty to any and all, regardless of how long you've been here, and at least moving toward some restrictions on their amnesty bills," Mr. Stewart.

"B-b-b-b-but those poor immigrants were forced to come here illegally! How dare you call them criminals!"

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, said he won't consider either Democrats' broad proposal or any of the other similar ones pending.

"We're not going to address immigration in the comprehensive manner that was initially proposed by the White House," he told reporters, although he did say "some element of immigration" will be taken up before the end of this year.

Which means essentially nothing, when you really think about it.

Possibilities include expanding the cap on seasonal-worker permits used in particular by summertime resorts and fishing industries, or passing a specific guest-worker program for agricultural workers, called the AgJobs Bill.

I'll say this again: Give the jobs to AMERICAN WORKERS.

That bill, which allows agricultural workers a path to citizenship and would legalize many workers here already, has 61 sponsors, the number needed for overcoming procedural hurdles. Sponsors include more than half of Senate Republicans and more than two-thirds of Senate Democrats.

Have I mentioned that I have no faith in humanity? I don't think I've mentioned that in a while.


Posted by CD at 04:52 PM | Comments (1)

NYT: "Capitalism=Censorship"

"Disney doesn't want to distribute Michael Moore's brilliant new film? Those COWARDS!"

I'm back to posting, and I'm going to start off with a short but still entertaining editorial in today's New York Times. Check it out:

Disney's Craven Behavior

Give the Walt Disney Company a gold medal for cowardice for blocking its Miramax division from distributing a film that criticizes President Bush and his family.

Yeah. It's just "criticism." Right. Might I remind you that we're talking about Michael "The Insurgents Will Win" Moore here?

A company that ought to be championing free expression...

I guess that doesn't apply to their own expression.

...has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.

Uh...have you seen it yet? Are you the only person on the planet with the right to decide what's "acceptable?" Oh, and one more thing: HOW IS THIS CENSORSHIP? They're not preventing Moore from showing the film. They just don't want to attach their name to it. Idiot.

The documentary was prepared by Michael Moore, a controversial filmmaker who likes to skewer the rich and powerful.

Of course, you forgot to mention that Moore is also rich and powerful. I guess that would destroy his "fighting for the little guy" persona.

As described by Jim Rutenberg yesterday in The Times, the film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden.

"Because being related to a terrorist makes you a terrorist!"

It describes financial ties that go back three decades and explores the role of the government in evacuating relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Holy crap, you people need to read Snopes.

The film was financed by Miramax and was expected to be released this summer.

Mr. Moore's agent said that Michael Eisner, Disney's chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor.

"The BFEE (Bush Family Evil Empire) is crushing Moore's dissent!"

If that is the reason for Disney's move, it would underscore the dangers of allowing huge conglomerates to gobble up diverse media companies.

Care to explain how?

On the other hand, a senior Disney executive says the real reason is that Disney caters to families of all political stripes and that many of them might be alienated by the film. Those families, of course, would not have to watch the documentary.

It would, however, make some of those people less likely to patronize Disney. I'm sure it would be harder to watch an innocent children's cartoon if you knew in the back of your head that the same company sponsored a film that accuses the president of being connected to terrorists.

It is hard to say which rationale for blocking distribution is more depressing. But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.

Something tells me that you would be supporting them 100% if they decided not to release a film like Michael Moore Hates America. I could be wrong, though.

I'll end it with this: If Mikey wants to show his film, nothing's stopping him. He's already managed to be featured in Cannes, and I'm sure that he has enough resources to get it distributed in America.

Unless you really believe that Moore is nothing but a laborer from Michigan who rose up to fight the system, that much should be obvious.

Posted by CD at 04:24 PM | Comments (3)

May 05, 2004


Well, I just got home, and I've decided that I probably won't be updating until tomorrow. I'm sure you can all survive.

It looks like it'll be a good summer, because I just found out that the air conditioning in my house is broken, and it will remain that way until at least next Wednesday. That might not sound bad, except that they already tried to fix it once, and I think they ended up breaking something else.

That can't be a good sign.

Posted by CD at 09:42 PM | Comments (3)

Schoooooool's Out! For! Summer!

If you don't get that reference, you must live a very sheltered existence.

Anyway, I should probably tell you all that I'm heading back to Pittsburgh this afternoon for summer vacation, so I won't be blogging until at least 8 or 9 PM. I'll probably continue the light posting for the next few days while I settle in at home, but after that, things are gonna change around here.

This summer, I'll probably be getting a job stocking shelves at a grocery store or doing some other kind of tedious manual labor, but other than that, I'll be free most of the time, so expect SIT to be a lot more active than it has been over the last month. I'll be writing more rants, participating in more activities, and maybe even posting a couple more essays like I did over Christmas. I'll probably write a few more songs, too. In any case, I will make up for the horribly inadequate blogging I've been doing since the end of March.

Until then, this is CD wishing all the college students out there a happy summer, and reminding all the graduates how much better life was when they were in college. Heh.

Posted by CD at 01:27 AM | Comments (3)

May 04, 2004

More Random Thoughts

I just saw an interesting quote on Dissecting Leftism. Check it out:

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." --Calvin Coolidge

That got me thinking: You know how liberals are always talking about "Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy" and attacking corporations, the upper class, and generally anyone who actually succeeds through capitalism?

If the Democrats are the "party of the poor," why are they always acting like rich people are evil? Doesn't that discourage poor people from trying to succeed?

Think about it.

Posted by CD at 08:06 PM | Comments (1)

May 03, 2004

Fun With Paint Software

My final tomorrow is easy, so instead of studying, I'm making fun of Ted Rall. This comic is a fantasy scenario, of course, but it could happen...

Oh, and by the way, I am questioning Rall's patriotism.

Click for full size

Posted by CD at 11:20 PM | Comments (1)

The More You Know

Via A Small Victory

Ted Rall is a sick, pathetic f**king excuse for a human being.

Go join the "insurgents" with your buddy Michael Moore, you b@stard.

"Collage Deferment?"

This goes toward proving my theory: Ted Rall has no functioning brain cells.

Posted by CD at 01:38 PM | Comments (2)

Wasting Time is Fun

One final down, one even worse final to go. Then another one tomorrow. Wow.

Anyway, I thought I'd point out that I posted my edited Kerry pic in some Fark comments.

That's about all I have to say.

Posted by CD at 11:33 AM | Comments (5)

May 02, 2004

Random Complaining

Have I mentioned how incredibly wrong my final exam schedule is for tomorrow? Here's how it looks:

Astronomy: 8 AM-10 AM
Math: 5 PM-7 PM

Great, isn't it? The two worst subjects at the two worst times.

Friggin' liberal arts. I should've gone to a film school...

Posted by CD at 11:38 PM | Comments (4)

Schadenfreude of the Day


Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry took a spill from his bicycle while riding Sunday afternoon but was not injured, a campaign official said.

Kerry was riding with Secret Service agents through Concord, about 18 miles north of Boston, when his bike hit a patch of sand and he fell, campaign officials said.

I can just imagine the scene:

"I don't fall down, the son of a beach knocked me over."

Yes, that was a horrible pun. It's still hilarious. The best part is this photo from the article. I really wish I had time to edit that. Maybe when I get home...

And now, back to studying. Anyone out there know anything about permutations and combinations? I can't figure the friggin' things out.

This was the best I could do with the time I had.

Caption: "No f**kin' pictures, you son of a b**ch!"

Posted by CD at 09:57 PM | Comments (3)

May 01, 2004

Thought for Today

You know...if studying were as easy as procrastinating, my grades would be phenomenal.

(/wishful thinking)

Have I mentioned that I probably won't have any normal posts up until sometime between Tuesday night and Thursday afternoon? I don't know if I've mentioned that yet.

I can't blog much for the next couple days because I have to learn all of this information, plus a bunch of other stuff that isn't online.

Fascinating, isn't it?

Posted by CD at 07:42 PM | Comments (5)