Newt Gingrich...what the fuck?

I've been hearing this little gnome's name dropped more and more frequently lately, including a couple times in reference to a possible bid for the Presidency. Holy shit. Newt Gingrich as President? First I laughed, then I laughed more, then I laughed a third time when I realized that some people were actually serious about this.

Whether he runs or not, though, I have to say my respect for him as gone up after reading a New York Times article about his comments regarding the Bush Administration. Granted, my respect for him couldn't go anywhere but up after it came out that he was having an affair at the exact same time as he was calling for Clinton's resignation over the Monica Lewinksy scandal. I suppose that's par for the course as far as politicians go, but I refuse to hold politicians to a lower standard just because they consistently fuck up.

Anyway, here's what Gingy said:

“You can’t be a governing national party and write off entire regions,” Mr. Gingrich said. “All he proved was that the anti-Kerry vote was bigger than the anti-Bush vote."

Pretty astute if you ask me. And then he continued with this prediction:

He is quoted in The New Yorker as suggesting that a Republican will win the White House by running against Mr. Bush as Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidency in France by running against his fellow party member Jacques Chirac, in whose cabinet he had served.

Not bad Newt, not bad at all. Some of the best political punditry I've seen a while. Now don't get too excited. That doesn't mean I'm voting for you. It just means that I think you're less of an idiot than I did before. Confused? Watch this.




Wow. I just watched this video again and it just sank you back to the bottom Newt. You're an idiot.

Memorial Day

While half of America takes advantage of the Memorial Day Sales, I decided not to insult everyone who has died an honorable death defending our country by indulging in shameless consumption (and by tacit consent, legitimizing the way this day has been commercialized). Here's a picture from the New York Times, that says what I want to say.

Democrats Puss Out

Political parties blow. Both of them. All of them. But my respect for the Democrats had been growing lately over their newly-found balls (helped by poll numbers no doubt) on the Iraq war and the funding bill. That respect ended today when the Democrats capitulated to Bush with the passage of a bill that does nothing more than solidify the status-quo.

That's too bad. Not because the Democrats were right (I'm not sure that they were), just that I could have respected the party if it had finally found its spine. Disappointed? Me too.

Here's what Bush said:

“As it provides vital funds for our troops, this bill also reflects a consensus that the Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America’s continued support and sacrifice"

Really, Mr. President? Because to me it reflects that Hillary and Pelosi probably have more balls than all of the other Democrats combined. After the passage, an NPR guest suggested that the Adminstration had "played a weak hand very well," and I have to agree. By implication, that also means the Democrats played a strong hand poorly. And I have to agree with that, too.



Too right, sir. Too right.

Quick, Someone Assassinate Fred Thompson

For a while it was looking like Democrats had the Presidency in the bag: Guiliani is an abortion-loving, gay marriage endorsing liberal that none of the conservatives like (John Kerry, anyone?), McCain is old, and Romney (despite his unbelievable good looks and smokin' hot daughters) is a Mormon. That made me happy. I felt like I could just sit back and watch as they beat themselves with their informed, non-Biblically founded opinions.

But now it looks like Thompson wants to ruin that for me by running.

God damnit. The worst part about the whole ordeal is that Thompson has a legitimate shot at winning the nomination, and an equally legitimate shot at winning in the main election. Especially considering the people he's going to be (most likely) running against: A Black Guy and A Mannish Woman. We're fucked. The only thing we can hope for now is a gaff on the order of "Macaca," or some skeleton in Thompson's closet.

If none of those things pan out though, Democrats need to start considering other avenues. The best one: assassination. As far as I'm concerned, it would be payback. Military Nazis killed JFK, hippies kill Fred Thompson. The conservatives should take that offer, it's more than fair. JFK had sex with Marilyn Monroe, Thompson plays legal-types on a TV Show.



Damn you, Fred Thompson.

Amnesty for Everyone! I love Amnesty!

Republicans are having a bitch-fest about the new immigration bill, at least most of them are. They've been after the Democrats since the debate began, calling the immigration reform tantamount to amnesty (which it is). The semantics of the debate have reached all-time highs recently, which has eclipsed the much more interesting and less anger-inducing aspect of the whole ordeal: when business trumps racism. I find it somehow fitting and also funny that the only thing conservative congressman care about more than racial supremacy is the money in their wallet. Immigration is perhaps the most divisive issue for the right, and I think it's along these lines that votes tend to fall.

Here's a recent story the LA Times did on the topic:

New immigration bill faces a wall of old opposition

Attacks from left and right suggest latest push for change, although representing a potential breakthrough, could again end in a stalemate affecting millions.

I tend to agree: immigration is like abortion, it loses votes for everyone (which is the biggest problem, because everyone knows politics is more important than the issues in the political arena). In the meantime, go go border crossings!

Houston, We Have a Mexican

Oh, do we! Richardson entered the race as the THIRD minority candidate for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. So, to recap, here's what we've got so far:

1 Woman
1 Black Guy
1 Mexican

Hmm, looks like we're missing a few. We still need an asian candidate, that's for sure. A Muslim candidate might help us out. Of course we could just throw the Reverend Jesse Jackson in there again. Yeah, I know he's black, but he's that special kind of black so he doesn't count.

My broader point here: what kind of faith should we have in the "throw every minority at them" approach that has characterized the Democratic side so far? I, for one, am not holding my breath. Here's the LA Times vomit:

New Mexico Gov. Richardson officially enters presidential race

In L.A. speech, former congressman, diplomat announces bid to be first Latino U.S. president.

Flanked by local Latino leaders and a large contingent of politicians from his home state, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson formally entered the 2008 presidential campaign Monday, saying that his thick resume offered him an ability unmatched by others in the race to tackle the country's problems at home and abroad.

The Democratic candidate, who has been running for months and has already aired campaign ads, made his announcement in downtown Los Angeles' Millennium Biltmore Hotel.

Richardson's official entry expands what is becoming the most diverse field of mainstream presidential candidates in U.S. history. He is of Mexican heritage, and his candidacy joins those of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the son of a black man, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the first woman to campaign in the top tier of her party's presidential contenders.

Political Death Match: Romney vs. McCain

Winner: the Democrats!

While the Romney and McCain campaigns had been rumored for some time to be harboring ill-will towards one another, they had played nice. Until now.

Here's the summary:

WASHINGTON -- Republican John McCain accused presidential rival Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on immigration Monday and said with sarcasm: "Maybe his solution will be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn."

McCain also said he was disappointed in potential candidate Fred Thompson for opposing immigration legislation the Arizona senator is co-sponsoring.

The immigration spat comes as the GOP race turns increasingly contentious and as Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, shows signs of gaining steam in Iowa and New Hampshire while Thompson lays the groundwork for what increasingly appears to be his own White House bid.

Awesome. The immigration debate is (as I've said in a previous post) probably the worst possible issue for Republicans, because it loses them votes no matter what they do. Not that I have any pity for them--these things happen when half your party is racist and the other half doesn't give a fuck about anything but their income. Still, Republicans owning Republicans can't be a bad thing.

It also highlights two other aspects of the Romney and McCain campaigns that make me happy--they both face massive obstacles in their White House bids, ones which will come back to bite them in the ass in the main election. My prediction is that McCain won't even make it there; if he's grasping for straws this early, he knows it's because there is something wrong. And that something won't go away.

As for Romney, well, he's quite the commie, especially for a Mormon. If that whole "wearing underwear with the name of the planet you are going to rule when you die" thing doesn't hurt him in the coming months (that is a real Mormon belief, by the way), his liberal record in Massachussets will.

Hillary Clinton Sucks

I read a great opinion piece in the last Time magazine (can't remember who the author is by), and the basic thesis was this: when people look at Hillary, they see a woman, and that means a change in the status quo. But if you look at Hillary the politician, not Hillary the woman, what you see is exactly the opposite. She's shockingly plain, maybe even predictably entrenched in the Democratic leadership. I see the John Kerry-in-reverse effect happening here (how fitting that the party moves radically one way, electing a boring but seemingly electable candidate, only to nominate an exotic but actually bland one the next year).

That idea got a welcomed boost with a recent Los Angeles Times article exposing what a conservative bitch Hillary really is (which I find bemusing considering most conservatives think her a boundless commie).

At Wal-Mart, Clinton didn't upset any carts

As a board member, she touted women and the environment but didn't fight anti-union efforts.

That pretty much sums it up, folks. We've got a black guy and Hillary. We're so fucked.



This film may be familiar, but that doesn't make it any less applicable.

War Czar: the worst job ever

Bush selects general for 'war czar'

The not-very-long and relatively unfruitful search for a war czar ended today with Bush's appointment of General Douglas E. Lute. But Lute's already got two strikes against him in my book, and here's why:

1: He's only a three-star general. What a pussy. I didn't even know they had three-star generals, probably because they suck and never get appointed to any cool positions.
2: He was dumb enough to take the job. This position is an odd Catch-22, because it requires an extremely intelligent person. On the other hand, anyone that would take the job at this point must be a fucking idiot (two four-star generals turned Bush down, which proves my point about three-star generals. Hacks. All of them).

Here's some info on Lute, who seems to be a good guy (too bad his job is hopeless)

-	In his own words: The new war czar speaks
-	Biographical data on Gen. Douglas E. Lute

The actual job of the War Czar is unclear (how fitting), but what is clear is that the title is fitting. This guy will have to be a serious feudal lord (in the Czar Nicholas sense of course) to get anything done.

Lute will have to go through the Senate confirmation, which will give the Democrats ample time to bitch and the Republicans ample time to walk the thin line between giving Bush a pseudo-blowjob and trying not to come off like a commie. I'll be watching for sure, because I'm definitely not tired of hearing old people complain because they're grandkids forgot to change their diapers.

Most Worthless Blog Award

The Conservative Tuna: an idiot's guide to understanding the political universe

So in the interest of checking out what other people were bullshitting about on their blogs, I surfed around the excel file of blogs and came to this little gem: Conservative Tuna, which perhaps not so coincidentally happens to be an anagram for "Rove: A Navie's Cunt." I'm not sure what that means, but maybe that is fitting since none of what TunaCon writes seems to be any more coherent.

Reading a couple entries of that thing reminds me of listening to Bill O'Reilly, except Billy is funny and entertaining. The best analogy I can give to the experience of reading TunaCon's blog is the act of bludgeoning myself over the head with a mallet labelled "dumb ideas" until I pass out. Three entries in, I felt like I do after I see a shitty movie: I wanted some monetary compensation for the 5 minutes of my life that I had wasted.

Which brings me to the links on the side of his page - FoxNews? Seriously? There is a reason why no conservative papers (with the exception of the Wall Street Journal) ever win any awards: they're terrible, overtly politically biased (I concede that all papers have a bias in what they choose to report, but the best are objective in how they report what they do), and generally spineless. True patriotism is standing up for the values of this country when those values are in jeopardy, not bending over to give some red-white-and-blue fellatio to the Bush administration.

Now, I'm not saying that CNN is any better - in fact, they're both equally worthless. The only difference between those two networks is that watching one is like beating yourself senseless with a hammer and sickle, and watching the other is like beating yourself senseless with a swastika. Like TunaCon, they engage in boring and narrow-minded punditry that ignores the complexity of any issue actually worth talking about. And all three take themselves too seriously: no one cares what you think, partly because you're points are largely ideological ramblings with no factual basis, and partly because you're just not that good at making them anyway.

Farewell to Falwell

God damn that title rocked. Anyway, the Great Divider, Reverend Jerry Falwell is dead today. I thought about waiting to report on this because I like to wait a few days to make fun of dead people, but I figured I'm destined for hell anyway so fuck it.

Personally, I always loved Falwell. Watching him speak and watching the 700 club were two of my favorite activities. Granted, I watched them for the comedy value (made all the better because they were completely serious the whole time), but I welcome laughter in whatever form it takes, even if it's at the expense of others.

On the whole, though, I'd have to agree with the New York Times: Love him or hate him, Falwell was an integral part of the political landscape for both Democrats and Republicans, and will continue to hold sway even after his death. It's like when Time put Hitler on their cover as the most influential man of the 20th century; genocidal murderer or not, he was a great man in the objective sense, and the same can be said for Falwell.

In other news, I hadn't seen a picture of him in quite a long time, and had forgotten how fat he was. In parting, here are some of the Reverend's most lasting and poignant insights about the world we live in and the people that are sinning their way right into Hell.

On faith:

If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.
On 9/11:
The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
On disease:
AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.
On literature:
The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
On politics:
The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.
On music:
Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan.

R.I.P. you crazy son of a bitch. We'll miss you.

Everything Kills You

Common chemicals are linked to breast cancer

As usual, scientists are trying to scare the hell out of us. According to a newly released report, more than 200 chemicals, many of which are found in urban air and everyday consumer products, can cause breast cancer. First, I've got to say: I'm glad I'm not a woman. Nonetheless, is anyone really surprised? I mean, we use more than 400,000 chemicals and are exposed to approximately 1,000 different chemicals per week. Still, it seems unfair that women should suffer so. I think we ought to have to carry around uranium necklaces (along with a national ID card of course) to even the playing field. Maybe if everyone starts getting cancer people will start giving a shit about it.

If you want to know more, check out these stories, which will also scare the hell out of you:

Chemical carcinogens

Despite cancer, many keep careers healthy

And here's some more info on other stuff that will kill you, as per the LA Times article:

Seventy-three are present in consumer products or are food contaminants — 1,4-dioxane in shampoos, for example, or acrylamide in French fries. Thirty-five are common air pollutants, 25 are in workplaces where at least 5,000 women are employed, and 10 are food additives, according to the reports.

On the bright side, this article has affirmed one important thing for me: I'm going to die no matter what I do, so why bother quit smoking (cigarettes, that is). But here's a video for those more daring bloggers out there:

The Dead Baby That Just Won't Die

Giuliani is having one hell of a time beating back all those pro-lifers in the Republican party. That's not surprising, although it seems to be for Giuliani's campaign. Despite a massive amount of time to formulate a palatable response to the abortion question, they're failing pretty miserably at this point.

In a somewhat ironic (perhaps intentionally, it is the New York Times after all), the NY liberals brought up the issue in a recent story:

Abortion Rises Anew for Giuliani

Am I the only one that sees the pun there? Maybe not, at least I hope not, because I chuckled and I've got to believe it was calculated.

Still, it raises a valid question: how is Rudy going to get past the dead baby problem? As the campaign has continued, the issue has become a hanger in the side for the Republican hopeful, and it doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. If things continue as they are now, he may be forced to, well, abort.

My religion is better than your religion.

Romney, stressing leadership, also faces religion issue

First things first: Mitt Romney looks like a president. I mean, God damn, if there ever was a man that deserved to be president on looks alone it's Romney. It's ironic that with all that talk of God, his genetics are impeccable. I wonder if maybe his family line has been strategically bread (and on that note, I could say the same of all Mormons. Mormon girls are smoking hot, mostly all of them. It's almost as if God is playing a joke on the faithless by creating girls you'd like nothing more than to have sex but require marriage before they put out). He even gave the commencement address at Virginia!

Okay, back to the story. Romney has been reaching out to the conservative, largely Evangelical base of Republicans. He's worried (and rightly so) that when Christians look at him all they'll see is Polygamy and the fact that they believe Joseph Smith was a messiah. So he's been playing nice with some of the Christian big-wigs in an attempt to win them over. Sure, he looks the part. But is he willing to ignore the vast strides made in scientific research since Darwin? That's what they really want to know.

He's been helped out by his good looks and not at all unrelated ability to raise massive amounts of money. Here's some more stuff about Mitt for all the women who wish he was a depraved atheist and not a wholesome God-fearing Mormon.

-	Romney assets estimated at least $190 million
-	Romney explains abortion stand
-	Romney sharply responds to Sharpton comments on his belief in God
-	GOP money surprise: Romney No. 1

Bush Burns American Flag

U.S., Iran to hold rare talks; subject is Iraq

Bush finally broke down this past week and agreed to meet with Iran, breaking the longstanding tradition of refusing to negotiate with pretty much any nation he doesn't like. To be fair to Bush, his stubborn nature remain intact as they only agreed to speak about Iraq. And if Iraq wasn't getting worse by the day, he might not have even done that at all. So don't worry Bushy, I still think you're an idiot.

Mission Accomplished.

Both sides are calling the talks "negotiations," but I think that might be a misnomer. A better description might be "two old people sitting a room agreeing about nothing." Some people called the meeting a "positive and optimistic development," although I think it is probably more like a calm before the nuclear storm. Still, the talks are the highest-level negotiations to take place between the countries in quite some time. Judging by the prime motivation behind the talks on the part of the US, this is both good and bad. On the bad side, it's taken 4 million refugees and more than 100,000 civilian casualties to get us to the table. On the good side, the way things are going we'll be having Iranian diplomats over for a tea party in no time.

As usual, Bush played it cool: "The Bush administration has long kept the Islamic regime in Tehran at arm's length, accusing it of supporting international terrorism, seeking to develop nuclear weapons and backing insurgents in Iraq. But the Iranian government is believed to have influence both with Iraq's Shiite-dominated government and with Shiite militias, and the Bush administration is under increasing pressure from even its Republican allies in Congress to show progress in Iraq."

Democrats try to remove Hammer and Sickle Stain

Democrats war against anti-military image

Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have largely been seen as anti-military commies. It's not even just anti-war, but anti-spine. Now the Democrats' eyes are wider than a white kid at a rap concert as the Republicans have managed to screw up so bad the Dems may actually be able to spin their commie-ness as the right thing to do. Still, it's too early to tell. They did, after all, manage to completely botch the last election. Unseating Bush was like shooting fish in a barrel--if you had a gun, that is.

That pretty much explains it.

Want Cheap Gas? Move to Iraq.

Iraqis resist U.S. pressure to enact oil law

To be fair, this post actually isn't about cheap gas at all. In fact, it's about how Iraqis are fighting over oil. But I'm going to make it about cheap gas since I had to sell my kidney to fill up the tank of truck yesterday.

In any case, the Iraqis are squabbling over a controversial oil law that US officials have touted as the most important step in ending the civil war. I wish I could say I was convinced, but unlike Americans, I don't think Iraqis will be willing to forget the massive country-wide bloodshed because they have just got a share of some oil profits (like we forgot about what a shitty president Bush was when gas prices went down, that is).

Some arabs sabotaging our goodwill.

Although the bill has met resistance, it may still pass. Big surprise though, the White House had called for a May 5 deadline that obviously will not be met. If the White House was a reporter, it would have been fired about 6 years ago. Just by sheer probability one would think Bush would have gotten something right by this point. Here's my suggestion Mr. President: use a Quiji Board. I know, it sounds insane (though perhaps less insane than looking to God for guidance in making foreign policy decisions), but I'm fairly confident you'll do better with it than you have been doing relying on your own wit. Here's a quick synopsis of the oil law nonsense (courtesy, though perhaps not so curteously, from the LA Times):

Opposition ranges from vehement to measured, but two things are clear: The May deadline that the White House had been banking on is in doubt. And even if the law is passed, it fails to resolve key issues, including how to divide Iraq's oil revenue among its Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions, and how much foreign investment to allow. Those questions would be put off for future debates.

The problems of the oil bill bode poorly for the other so-called benchmarks that the Bush administration has been pressuring Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government to meet. Those include provincial elections, reversing a prohibition against former Baath Party members holding government and military positions and revision of Iraq's constitution.

Reagan Is Dead. Get Over It.

Differences emerge as Republicans debate

The Democrats should use their newfound majority to impose strict penalties on Republicans who are riding Reagan's Cold Warrior coattails to cover their own incompetence. I propose a law that punishes the next Republican candidate that says Reagan's name with a swift kick in the balls. Not that I was counting or anything, but I'd be willing to guess Reagan's name was used upwards of 100 times at the first Republican debate. Shocking.

The New York Times said it best: Bush is rarely invoked, Reagan is repeatedly, as the 10 GOP presidential hopefuls each promise change if elected in '08.

Exactly. The thing is, Reagan was president in a time completely at odds to ours. He was fighting a united, monolithic (or at least, so we thought) communist infliltration (yeah Reagan, get those commies!). We are fighting a decentralized, fractured, divergent network of terrorist organizations that operate around the world through a temporary medium (the internet). So yeah, stop pretending that using his name will somehow invoke his spirit. While Reagan is the second best thing to Jesus for Republicans, invoking him won't hurry his resurrection along. You've gotta wait for the real rapture for that one, kids.

Here's some other goodies, courtesy of the LA Times, for those of you who actually give a shit about politics. Have a ball.
-	Giuliani, Clinton lead in Connecticut
-	First debates draw around 4 million viewers
-	Fred Thompson calls for continued presence in Iraq
-	Schwarzenegger loses debate--and he wasn't even in it
-	GOP presidential candidates, gathering for first debate, also tap California donors
-	Fred Thompson: Actor. Senator. Presidential candidate?
-	What do presidential candidates watch on TV, besides themselves?
-	Democratic debaters get their first close-up
-	2008 Candidate Profiles

Barack Obama: 1 Klu Klux Klan: 0

Barack Obama requested and received Secret Service Protection today. My question is this: when did we start extending affirmative action to politicians? Just because every redneck is out to assassinate him doesn't mean he has to puss out and get some bodyguards. Is this the willy-nilly attitude towards public expenditure he's going to take once he's in office? If it is, don't count on my vote Mr. Obama. Here's the gist according to the New York Times:

The decision to assign agents to protect Senator Barack Obama, a full nine months before the Democratic primary, is the earliest the Secret Service has ever issued security detail to a presidential candidate. Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said today he could not comment on whether the decision was made in response to a specific threat against Mr. Obama or his family, but that several criteria were taken into account before the authorization was made.

Shocking. Since when is the Bush administration in the business of giving freebies to minorities? His recent policies have been very confusing - the push for a comprehensive immigration reform not least among them - and I'm just not sure where our WASPY racist has gone.

To be fair to Obama, he is going to need that extra security after receiving an endorsement from ORPAH WINFREY today. There's two things someone can do to really piss of the KKK. The first is to be black. The second is to be endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. Personally, I like Barack, but don't know what the hell he is thinking. Does he want to live long enough to become President, or what? The only thing that could increase the likelihood of his assassination at this point is if he fathered an illegitimate child with Hillary Clinton.

Cops Beat Mexicans

In Orange County this may be taken as the status quo for most of us, but for some reason people seemed to be surprised after the LAPD "dispersed" the May Day crowd at MacArthur Park on Tuesday.



The best part about this video were the tag terms: gestapo, military state, nazi, riot gear.

I couldn't explain it better myself.

CNN: Challenging Fox News for Worst News Station Ever

I know what you're thinking: what a monumental task! As completely useless as Fox News? As shamelessly unnews-worthy? Impossible!

Well, you're right, it is. I doubt any other news network will ever manage to sink as low as Fox, or at least ever be as good capturing an audience whose average IQ ranks somewhere between 15 and 45. Take, for example, this stellar piece of journalism:



Wow, I mean just wow. I'm still not sure how Fox managed to get a seasoned vetern like old Chuck to even come on their show. Incredible, just incredible.

Obviously CNN would have to really pull out all the stops to beat Fox in the race to the bottom of the intelligence barrel. They're not there yet, but they're sure trying. Consider the I-Reporter feature they just introduced. Don't be fooled, the I-Reporter idea may seem like a fancy of saying "cell-phone video for shock-value stories that aren't news at all," but this is legitimate journalism folks. I mean sure, the video replaying a train hitting an 18-wheeler may not exactly be news, but that one titled "Man sues Cleaners for $65M" is some hard-hitting shit.

Bill Moyers Hits on Jon Stewart

It's barely noticeable, but about 3/4 of the way through the clip Moyers ogles Stewart with a look you'd expect from a Catholic Priest in a Sunday School. It's okay Bill, you don't have to hide it anymore - I have it from reliable sources that Stewart feels the same way. Go for it, man. Don't hold back. Tell him how you feel.

In all seriousness, his interview with Stewart was one of the best I've seen in a long time. I've always respected Stewart for his take on what politics should be, and his outspoken discontent with what it has become. Regardless of your ideology, I think we can all agree that the heart of what Stewart is saying is exactly what American politics needs, and what it hasn't had for so long: someone willing to unite the country, someone we can actually get behind as a good choice, not the lesser of two evils.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you Mr. Moyers - if Stewart was 10 years younger I'd be all over that. As it is, he's all yours. Besides, Stewart would probably be a crap lay anyway at this point. Back when he was the host of Talk Soup he probably got tons of ass, but then he had to puss out and go get married. Quitter.

Political Powers Activate! Go Go Pointless Punditry!

It's been more than a week since Bush invited the Democrats up to the White House to discuss the emergency spending bill with the qualification that he would not change his course, that no "negotiation" would take place. A small event, I suppose, but I couldn't shake an uneasiness about the whole ordeal and I have found myself, without knowing it, thinking back on that story, trying to get at something I didn't quite understand, trying to articulate what disturbed me about it. It wasn't the specifics or the details of the event, or even the particular stubbornness on the part of Bush, the unwillingness to recognize the Democrats as a party representing a legitimate concern of the American people - that is to say, our troops, our standing in the world, our economic future. Those are partisan arguments, and to get angry about those things is to miss the broader point.

What was memorable about Bush's invitation was what it represented, how it confirmed for me something that has been growing in our government for so long and seemed to come suddenly to the surface. It's not that we are divided (although we are), or that we seem ever-more steadfast in our opposing beliefs (although we do); those things are merely symptoms. And they are not because of one party or the other, nor are they more concentrated in Republicans than in Democrats, though they may seem so because the Republicans were in power for so long. What really happened when Bush made that statement was something much more fundamental. In that moment consensus and compromise - the genesis of our entire system of government - were abandoned for an advantage in political maneuvering. In that moment what was lost was the purpose for governing at all, any moral center which might guide us in a complex and dangerous world, and what replaced it was pure calculation.

Now that might make a Game Theorist giddy with delight, but it makes me sad to think that politicians in this country are now subject to a Prisoner's Dilemma they can no longer control, one that has so many lives hanging in the balance. Instead of solving what has become a political, economic, and military disaster not so unlike Vietnam, our elected officials are bickering on Capitol Hill in an attempt to ensure their own futures and vindicate their own perspectives. As divided a nation as we are now, that frustration may be the only thing that will unite us.

Democrats Vote to Change Name of United States to "Dirka Dirka Jihad"

Just as the troop surge is starting to show real progress in Iraq, the anti-victory Democrats have passed a bill (though just barely) that calls for a withdrawal beginning as early as October of this year, with the goal to have all troops out within a year from the October draw-down. Here's the gist of it, according to the New York Times:

The White House reaction was swift and harsh. “Eighty days after President Bush submitted his troop funding bill, the Senate has now joined the House in passing defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender, micromanages our commanders and generals in combat zones from 6,000 miles away, and adds billions of dollars in unrelated spending to the fighting on the ground,” said Dana Perino, the administration spokeswoman.

With the veto coming, some Democrats argue that the bill should simply be stripped of the timelines that have drawn Mr. Bush’s ire and sent back with the benchmarks and troop readiness rules intact. Others say Congress has made its antiwar statement and should now give the president the money without conditions.

Those pussies. Now al-Qaida - completely on the ropes and hardly even functioning at this point - will just have to wait it out for a year. Then (because they haven't already), they'll be able to inflict some real damage. I can't believe this, this....this complete flouting of the President's impeccable military strategy up to this point in Iraq. We've got Iraq under control; now we need to focus on some other very important missions, some of which are outlined below.



Sure, there have been some minor setbacks in the war, and even the most devout warhawks acknowledge that his now infamous Mission Accomplished speech might have been a bit premature. But now we'll never know. I thought the biggest lesson we learned in Vietnam was that if we fuck up and end up in the middle of a bloody civil war, we should just stay until there is no one left (and hell, we won't have to wait much longer seeing as 2 million Iraqis have already fled the country). Apparently what we learned instead is to cut-and-run.

The answer: a draft! That's right, time to put our bodies where our failed hopes of bringing democracy to the Middle East are - gear up boys, we're heading to Iraq. We need to show the world that no matter how badly we botch post-invasion plans, no matter how underfunded our troops, no matter how incompetent former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was in giving our generals too few troops the first time around, we're sticking to our guns, literally.

The Conservative Tuna: an idiot's guide to understanding the political universe

So in the interest of checking out what other people were bullshitting about on their blogs, I surfed around the excel file of blogs and came to this little gem: Conservative Tuna, which perhaps not so coincidentally happens to be an anagram for "Rove: A Navie's Cunt." I'm not sure what that means, but maybe that is fitting since none of what TunaCon writes seems to be any more coherent.

Reading a couple entries of that thing reminds me of listening to Bill O'Reilly, except Billy is funny and entertaining. The best analogy I can give to the experience of reading TunaCon's blog is the act of bludgeoning myself over the head with a mallet labelled "dumb ideas" until I pass out. Three entries in, I felt like I do after I see a shitty movie: I wanted some monetary compensation for the 5 minutes of my life that I had wasted.

Which brings me to the links on the side of his page - FoxNews? Seriously? There is a reason why no conservative papers (with the exception of the Wall Street Journal) ever win any awards: they're terrible, overtly politically biased (I concede that all papers have a bias in what they choose to report, but the best are objective in how they report what they do), and generally spineless. True patriotism is standing up for the values of this country when those values are in jeopardy, not bending over to give some red-white-and-blue fellatio to the Bush administration.

Now, I'm not saying that CNN is any better - in fact, they're both equally worthless. The only difference between those two networks is that watching one is like beating yourself senseless with a hammer and sickle, and watching the other is like beating yourself senseless with a swastika. Like TunaCon, they engage in boring and narrow-minded punditry that ignores the complexity of any issue actually worth talking about. And all three take themselves too seriously: no one cares what you think, partly because you're points are largely ideological ramblings with no factual basis, and partly because you're just not that good at making them anyway.

Lookout Senator Reid! Cheney's Got a Gun!

Democrats and Little Bushy's right-hand man sparred off on Capital Hill today over the emergency spending bill the Democrats have been using as political leverage to force the President's hand on the management of the Iraq war. And if I were Senator Reid, I'd be afraid, very afraid; rumor has it that lawyer he shot was a closet-liberal that Cheney's commie-dar picked up a mile away. I'm not saying he did it on purpose - defending America against terrorists seems to be a subconscious tick for Cheney and what flag-loving American doesn't respect a man who shoots first and looks later? But that kind of mania doesn't bode well for Reid, and judging by Cheney's comments today I wouldn't don a hunting vest anytime soon (don't want to give the VeePee an excuse). Here's what he said:



“What’s most troubling about Senator Reid’s comments yesterday is his defeatism,” said Mr. Cheney. “And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it is a political calculation.” He went on to say something to the effect of: the Democrats want the war to go badly because if it does they will win the next election, and to that I have this to say:

Too right, sir. I'm so tired of the Defeatist Democrats undermining the War on Terror and being generally un-American, so tired in fact that I've recently purchased a Hummer painted red and white blue to counter the "woe-is-me" attitude espoused all over the liberal media. And the blatant use of the War as propoganda for votes? Shocking, absolutely shocking. The Administration needs to fight back with a new wave of fabricated hero stories like that of Jessica Flynch and Pat Tillman, which coincidentally happened right after the Abu Gharaib scandal broke. I'm worried though that a couple feel-good stories won't be enough this time. Desperate times call for desperate measures, something on the order of an Iraqi rescuing 20 injured Marines while singing the pledge of allegiance.

These Democrats are so peace-hungry they're ignoring the vast strides we've made with the new Baghdad Security Plan (like McCain's tour of the market, for example!). They need to stop harping on all of the minor blips in the quest to bring democracy to the Middle East, the little snags like the 80 people that died today in the new-and-improved suicide bombings or the huge Berlin-esque wall we are currently building around Sunni and Shia neighborhoods, which are apparently now considered "gated communities." Who wouldn't want to live in one of those? Sure millions of Iraqis have fled the country in the largest mass-exodus in 50 years, but you know what that means? Great housing prices. It's the only place I can afford real estate right now anyway because of the inflated market at home. Even Laura Bush agrees. I am so there.



Still, for a spineless commie Reid had some fighting words of his own. “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating,” were his exact words. SNAP! Now that's some drama, way better than the episode of House I was going to pirate off of Limewire tonight. A cheap shot though, to be fair. It's not Cheney's fault he looks like Senator Palpatine, or that he's completely lost touch with reality. Besides, he's bound to die any day now - Reid should play nice.

Giuliana is a Commie (and also, Pat Buchanan for President)

At least that's what most conservative voters think, according to a recent Times poll on the former New York Mayor. (Obviously, my stance on Giuliana's political leanings are clear). Actually, I lied. That's not what they said at all - they actually said they'd vote for him - but that's what they think if the Los Angeles Times article on his candidacy is to be believed. Sure, the reporter only talked to a few God-fearing Christians in Iowa, but everyone knows that the correct thing to do is to interview a few people in a small town and draw sweeping conclusions about the entire conservative voter base accordingly. Nonetheless, citing things like his unreasonable support of godless liberal positions on abortion, gun control, and a myriad of other anti-Jesus issues like science, reason, and divorce, the apparently representative sample of Mid-Western fascists seem to be in agreement that they'd rather see a total pussy in office than a Democrat. I suppose I wouldn't expect anything less from people stubborn enough to still believe in the Bible.

Still, my point stands: Giuliani is a commie (catchy campaign slogan for Thompson? I think so.) Enough of this centrist-leaning, "oh I just want someone that can win in the general election" bullshit. You know why the Republican party sucks ass now? It's got no balls. Bring back Reagan! Bring back the Cold Warriors! Stop trying to sugar-coat the conservative platform and get back to roots of the movement: slavery, laissez-faire economics, and most importantly a Puritan (now Evangelical) theocracy. If we ran our society like the one in The Scarlet Letter, we wouldn't have to worry about abortion, gay people, or anything else. We could just make a letter for every transgression of the Ten Commandments, then you'd know exactly what you were in for with each person you met. We could even know right away the people that were destined for Hell - 3 or more and you're headed straight for Satan. Better yet, we could just use numbers to denote the violation, since every good American should know his 10 Commandments backwards and forwards.

Back to my original point. This country is in a state of moral decay and it's time we do some cleansing. The Final Solution: Pat Buchanan for President. Now there's a real American we can all get behind. Hate homeless people, gays, and lazy minorities? So does Pat Buchanan! Want to carry guns around in case a meth addict tries to rob you? You can if you vote for Pat. In a sheepish, flip-flopping, John Kerry-like approach to winning over the conservative base, Guiliana has been moving to the right in order to look more like Hitler and less like Nader. Last week he came out in support of the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on mid-term abortion. That wouldn't be odd, except that he vowed never to oppose that ban in 1997. He also said individual states should be able to decide whether or not it was allowed to fly the Confederate flag. Still, none of that will help him against true believers like those interviewed in the Times article:

"I would not vote for Rudy, because he's been married and divorced twice," said Norman Nieuwsma, 73, a retired postal clerk who was buying a gold coin honoring the town's 2007 tulip queen. "It's a Christian issue. When you take the oath — for better or worse, until death do us part — that's what it means."

Amen.

Breaking News: Businesses Like Profits

Anyone surprised? People seem to be judging by how much bitching I've seen in the last week about NBC's decision to air the cleverly named 'killer tapes.' In the last three days I have read articles by the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post regarding the moral outrage of grief-strickn viewers who saw the tapes and have since joined up with the rest of the right-wing Hypocrite Police to bitch about something they probably watched every time it came on air.

I take that back actually - it would be a mistake to assume all people aren't equally stupid (and I say stupid because they're not intelligent enough to realize they are hypocrites and shut the hell up). Now I'm only a 4th year political science major, so I could have this wrong, but last time I checked economics functions principally through the laws of supply and demand. If a product is in short supply, it is in higher demand. Expanding that out a bit, if a product is scarce, its value increases (example? gold, diamonds, all precious metals are nothing more than rare, shiny objects). Our behavior has taught every business that pays attention to give us what we want and give it to us now. If you want to call what happened at NBC a monstrosity, what does that say about the mad scientist?

We live in a hyper-capitalist consumer-oriented society and then we get our panties in a bunch when news organizations act like we do, when it's us who have allowed them to be owned and operated like a fucking business. So what the hell does any of this have to do with airing those tapes? Ratings. If the same idiots who are complaining about those tapes didn't watch them 30 times each the networks would have never aired them anyway (and I feel compelled to mention here that all of them aired the tapes and are now on the naught-NBC bandwagon to deflect criticism from themselves for making the exact same decision). I'm defending their airing and I haven't even watched them, and here's why: I'm insulted by people who argue that a supposedly-independent, free press should censor our information for us. These are the same people arguing against Howard Stern and Don Imus, the same people who want more censorship everywhere because they're shitty parents.

That kind of mentality short changes our own agency in the process, which isn't really all that surprising because anyone that is bitching about these tapes has probably shortchanged their own agency already. If you don't like it, don't watch it. And as for the ridiculous claims that the tapes alone are somehow encouraging copycat crimes...well, I already said it, they're ridiculous. Do you want to know what has encouraged people to perpetrate the same kind of crimes as the Columbine kids and Cho? The relentless 2-week long 24-hour news coverage of this tragedy, the way we can't seem to talk about anything else, the way it forces us to raise issues which have been pressing for years but no one seems to give a shit about it until 33 people die (which I feel compelled to point out is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things). If kids think notoriety will come from their crimes, it's because they know the vast majority of Americans are so ignorant they'll watch it without even understanding why. And as long as we are willing to watch them kill people, the news stations will air whatever material they live behind.

Now without further adieu I'm going to post the videos in the vain hopes of increasing traffic to this site and thus raising my grade.

Alberto Gonzalez: you suck.

Simon gives Gonzalez the thumbs down.

When the news about Virginia Tech broke, and it was announced that the Senate Judiciary Hearing would be postponed, my bet is that Gonzalez broke down on the floor of his office and cried tears of joy. Two more days to prepare.

Those two days didn't seem to have done much to help him out - he got crushed by just about every old wind-bag sitting at that admittedly intimidating long-table, even Republicans (when Republicans are nailing you, it's probably time to throw in the towel).

I suppose that, being a Bush-pet, it would be naive to expect him to do anything but what Bush has largely done (stick to his guns, even when the ship is sinking), but I was nonetheless shocked at the extent to which Gonzalez has continued to stick to his "I was at the meeting but don't remember anything said" approach. The smarter approach would have been to admit the reality of what obviously occurred: Gonzalez consulted with the White House and fired the U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.

Sure, he might take some flack initially, but at the end of the day the revelation that Washington is full of politicians will shock only the most obtuse people. If he was paying attention, he would have learned from Clinton (the one with the authentic, not simulated testicles): fuck whoever you want, just don't lie about it.

On the NPR radio show immediately following the end of the hearing, Doug Kmiec, professor of Law at Pepperdine, provided a much more articulate and defensible position than anything Gonzalez stuttered out during the hearing and probably better than his own lawyer's advice. My advice: he should fire his lawyer and hire Kmeic. It's probably the only chance he's got left to keep his dignity (his job is a lost cause).

Democrats May Love to Kill Babies...

but they may not be able to for much longer if the Supreme Court has anything to say about it. In a 5-4 decision today, the ominous 9 - half of which are so old they are starting to look like babies and probably don't want to die either - upheld the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act.

The New York Times rightly points out that the decision is a semi-watershed decision, especially given that it represents the Court's turn from Roe v. Wade to a more conservative oriented 'right-to-life' approach. Personally I'm all for this shift; women have gotten out of control in the last 50 years and it's time to put them back where they belong (the kitchen). Enough of the invisible "right to privacy" that hippy Blackmun dubiously-inserted into the Constitution. Every life is sacred, even if it is in some form that we would have no problem destroying if it wasn't going to look something like a kid in a month.

Alright, I want to write more on this but I'm off to hunt some deer for sport. Good thing the commies haven't got to the 2nd Amendment yet.

And the Pulitzer winners are...

The Wall Street Journal? What the hell? Seriously?

I did a double-take (more like a double-listen as I heard it on NPR) when that bit came up, and had to know more. At first I thought "that fascist paper won something?" and then I thought "maybe they deserved it," and sadly I have to admit their Pulitzers were well-deserved. For anyone that doesn't know, the Journal won the prizes for their expose of the "unethical practices of business executives who had rewarded themselves millions of dollars by backdating stock options."

Fair enough. But for the Pulitzer Prize Board to conclude that they had brought "widespread changes in corporate America" might have been an overstatement. Sure, CEOs won't backdate anymore, but the chances of that effecting any widespread changes seems to be a bit over-the-top. If anything the scandals with backdating and, less recently, with Schilling and Lay at Enron prove that corporate moguls are always one step ahead on such things. Still, fair play to the fascists over at the Journal for their hard work.

Charlton Heston Would Be Proud

Rock on, America!

Everyone is dead at Virginia Tech, but the 2nd Amendment seems to be alive and shooting at the White House, according to Press Secretary Dana Perino. Sure, 33 people just died, but let's not forget the other 300 million who love their guns! Perino's statements are so insensitive and hawkish it's almost funny. No. It is funny. Here's what she said, according to an Arizona newspaper:

“The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed,” Perino said, noting that Bush and Education Secretary Margaret Spellings held a conference on school gun violence last October. “Certainly, bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting ... is against the law and something someone should be held accountable for,” Perino said.

This is one of those times when the proper thing to do would be to throw up. Still, I find myself laughing, not because what happened at Virginia Tech is funny. To the contrary, the most hilarious part is that our President, who should be as saddened as the rest of us, thought hard enough to throw in that little gem about the 2nd Amendment.

McCain Kills Iraqi Marketmen

Okay, McCain didn't kill any Iraqi market workers (Yellow Journalism is coming back in style, I can feel it), but then again they didn't kill him either (Bush would probably call this a victory for democracy). Know why? Because he had about 30 heavily armed Marines flanking him. Now I'm not one to fault McCain for not wanting to die - who doesn't? It's a different story, however, when that same person says you could walk through the marketplace freely and without an M16 and an armored Humvee.



Let me follow that by saying this: I like John McCain (as far as Republicans go anyway). He's willing to admit when he misspeaks, and he's intelligent and considers an issue from multiple sides and I respect that. The reason why this particular misspeak is so interesting is, in fact, because it came from McCain. The fact that a former Vietnam PoW would understand the reality of death and still bluff that he would be willing to walk around the marketplace alone says how desperate the conservative leadership has become.

I tend to wonder how McCain felt about how the 60 Minutes feature on him turned out. He'd probably laugh it off because he's a good guy (Bush would probably have half the staff kidnapped and transferred through extraordinary rendition to Pakistan and tortured), but I was surprised to see that McCain allowed that kind of access to him at a time when his poll numbers are diving faster than an Iraqi during a car bombing.

Gonzalez - Idiot or Genius?

Despite the fact that the case involving Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is almost as over-reported as the Anna Nicole saga (okay maybe not, but still), I find it has interesting parallels with some of the past (and more entertaining) political scandals. The first one that comes to mind the Libby trial - you know, the one where Rove should have been on the stand but Libby got nailed. So now Rove's ass is on the line again and yet all anyone can seem to talk about is Gonzalez
and his shockingly stupid decision to admit he made a mistake. He should have learned from Bush - if you never apologize you never admit to making a mistake, and thus you are never wrong.

Case in point: Iraq. If only Gonzalez had 20,000 troops to force into 15-month tours. That might be enough to get him out of what looks to be a career-ending case of partisan politics.

Fuck it - why bring our troops home at all?

So apparently the US Army has once again extended tours of duty for active and future military personnel. Awesome. I personally felt like giving our troops less than a year between deployments was a really pussy thing to do; they signed up to fight didn't they? Then why the hell would we give them a year's rest? They're fighting machines! They don't have PTSD or flashbacks or remorse, or other weak civilian traits like families and wives and children. And I'm not quite sure, but last time I checked increasing the 12-month tour of duty to a mandatory 15-month tour for new recruits is the best tool ever to reach recruitment quotas. (lying about benefits and opportunities is a good one too, so we should just step up our efforts on that front as well).
The revolving door of military personnel in Iraq is a pretty good idea if you ask me. I mean a revolving door anything is an awesome idea really - look at our prisons! That door can't swing fast enough. Not that I'm surprised in any case. Check out the Bushisms on the sidebar of this site to find out why.

The President or The Fuhrer?

Today President Bush criticized House Democrats for their delay of the emergency spending bill, which is, of course, nothing new or even unexpected. The game is simple: Bush wants no time frame for withdrawal, and Democrats are banking on the public's growing unease with the situation in Iraq. What was exceptional and indeed comical (or perhaps tragic) about Bush's comments today was this:

“It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds they need to succeed,” Mr. Bush said, adding that he is inviting leaders of both parties to the White House next week to “discuss the way forward.”But the White House made clear that Mr. Bush had no intention of using the session to negotiate or compromise, and Democrats reacted harshly.

If that isn't the most glaring example of how ridiculous "Bush diplomacy" has become I'm not sure what it is - although I don't expect the average American to see the insanity in Bush's statement (after all, the vast majority of Americans still believe in Creationism). No intention of using the session to negotiate or compromise? What the hell does that even mean? Isn't that what democracy is? I don't know, maybe I'm just being unpatriotic, but I'm pretty sure that when you invite someone to "discuss a way forward" the idea is to come to a consensus. Bush's attitude is fascist on so many levels it defies explanation. It's like trying to argue rationally with a Christian.

Mexican Ice FOR THE WIN

According to a report today by National Public Radio, Mexican "Ice", a potent form of crystal meth, has been making its way into the United States in increasingly large amounts due to the success of the Drug Enforcement Agency in shutting down smaller local meth labs. This new, highly addictive form of the drug is not only more potent but more dangerous as well.

The report was part of a series by the NPR on the "Forgotten War: the War on Drugs," and I'd have to agree about the forgotten part. It's time for a new focus! Our politicians need to show us they are serious about curbing demand at home in the United States, not just supply in Latin American countries like Colombia and Panama. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm dying to see Obama and McCain touring some recovery clinics gladhanding the meth addicts. I can see it now:

Obama: I'm sorry we forgot about you. We have to do better in providing you with adequate rehabilitation facilities in the future.
Addict: How about you give me some more meth instead?
Obama: I know what you're feeling right now, brother. Resist the temptation.

Rock on drug dealers and $20 grams.