Schadenfreude

God, what a beautiful day. The GOP is on the run and can't even keep its lies straight anymore. Either the announcement yesterday "cleared Karl Rove completely," or else "Karl Rove remains in jeopardy from an overzealous prosecutor." Well, which is it, dummies? Can you imagine what the 2006 election will look like against this collection of dipshits? "The GOP wants you to know that we support our troops, and that's why we need to invade Syria! Vote Republican--WE make jobs for soldiers" OR "Our troops aren't fighting hard enough, and that's why we are losing in Iraq! Vote Republican--WE don't have any kids in the Army!" At this point, it would appear that even Hillary Clinton could be elected to the US Senate against a Republican. Oh, wait! Hot damn!

No, what I meant to suggest is that the GOP ain't looking so good for the 2006 elections. The Democrats, for their part, seem content to sit still and be quiet and let it all fall into their laps. This presents a one-time historic opportunity for those of us who don't particularly like the grovelers and twits at the DNC or their chosen candidates. The chance is there to twist some arms and force a weak national leadership to accept radical local candidates.

I certainly do not mean that Greens, Libertarians, Independents, or any other defeatist, fractioning group should try to put forth candidates as "Democrats". What I mean instead is that actual Democrats (imagine!) should search out and promote truly radical men and women to run for state and national offices next election.

Let's face facts: the Democrats who control the purse strings will pour money into any candidate who proves his viability--look at Paul Hackett. Ergo, it takes little imagination to see that the national party is in a tough spot if local Democrats put forth their own candidates. I, for one, don't want some pud like Melissa Bean or Jesse Jr. as my Congressman. I want the reddest Latino alderman in Chicago to run for Congress, and I want the Democratic Party to pay her expenses. And why would it? Because it is so fucking weak that, with a minimum of fuss, any group of organized Democrats would scare the DNC into acquiescence.

We've been looking at this all wrong. The GOP scares the Democratic leadership--but so should we. The people "in charge" are only tough until you get in their faces, then they fold like wet napkins. Don't let apathetic weaklings represent you in your state legislature or in Congress. When you see a real hardass Democrat, let your greeting be "You oughtta run for political office!"

Encouraging Signs from the Minor Leagues

For a good laugh, you might check out the Rutgers Centurion online, the campus journal of RU students who want to grow up to be Karl Rove someday (note how it's not affiliated in any real sense with the university). Of course, if they were to just get thrown in jail NOW, in six months they could say they were ahead of Uncle Karl himself. Perhaps they could even set up their own prison gang, acting as shock troops and asserting their might so that when Karl arrives he isn't unmercifully ass-raped 24 hours a day for his entire sentence. Having seen their pictures, though, I'm going to guess that none of the Young Republicans at the Centurion knows how to file a toothbrush into a shiv. Too bad for Turd Bloosom; he should pick his acolytes more carefully.

Anyway, I have changed my mind about the Centurion entirely: those guys (and they are all guys, save one or two masochistic female hangers-on) are really trying hard to be amusing and agitating. But, they are strictly bush-league, pun intended, and they spend most issues groping blindly for something--anything!--that readers might respond to. 'Can't say if it is working--but they keep cranking it out, bless the little dimwits, whether anyone reads it or not. I'd say the best indicator of their total irrelevance is that they keep throwing jabs at university president Richard McCormick and he doesn't respond. Obviously, he's too frightened of the little Bolsheviks to do anything. No, wait; that doesn't seem right. I guess he just doesn't notice. How it must hurt to be common.

Anyway, please take a gander at the Centurion and keep your eyes peeled for any comments on the war in Iraq. There is nothing better than sending chickenhawks' names to Operation Yellow Elephant for summary ridicule.

Click to enlarge. I will never get tired of this picture.

Happy Halloween

Last to Turn, First to Burn

NC military doesn't like Bush. I maintain that a large minority of my fellow Tarheels never did, but now the majority has belatedly turned against Dear Leader.

Hope this heralds the coming coup d'etat.

Jesus Christ, I would rather live under a junta than Bush. What a world.

Your Country Needs You!

The Army is falling short of its quota of 80,000 fresh units of malleable young balls of play-doh for its Fun Factory of Civil War. A good patriot commenter at Op. Yellow Elephant has a great idea – get a stack of recruitment fliers and place them on the windshields of trucks bearing W support stickers. We are responsible for letting those folks know just how much they can support their feckless leader. Said commenter wondered where to get those fliers.

Allow me to assist. Go to your local community college bulletin board. There you will find a big rack of recruitment literature right where the ads for internships and jobs should be, but aren't. Take all those fliers, and head right over to the parking lot of the nearest Baptist church or Dean and Deluca. This is a far more efficient recruitment method – targeting the progeny of wealthy and obedient Republicans. Most of them already have the necessary skills for being a good little warrior – experience driving a Hummer, an aversion to questioning, years of practicing prisoner abuse tactics by date-raping cheerleaders, and an innate ability to handle high levels of cognitive dissonance. Many of them even come with their own guns!

Upon completion, reward yourself for supporting the war effort and cleaning up your local college by printing out a copy of the Solomon Amendment, shove it deep into your ass, then pull it out and mail it to Rumsfeld (actually don't, that's probably not legal, but then being a murderous liar isn't legal either).

A Word about the French

I may have said this before, but Marius' comments below, along with the unbelievable half-life of this stupid cultural wanking have prompted me to reiterate it: Americans can justifiably begin making fun of the French (and anyone else we owe money to--like the UN, for instance) just as soon as we, as a nation, get together and pay France for the use of its navy during the Revolutionary War. Does even the dumbest flathead Texan believe that the United States could have won without this crucial and very expensive assistance? Do we really have the conceitedness to believe that the French just lent us their navy, or that perhaps France had nothing better to do than jaunt across the ocean to help some dipshit rebels on a lark?

I think not. France supported and gambled on us as a people, a nation, and an idea. Sure, they expected to get something back for it, but not necessarily filthy lucre. But, seeing as how we have become a nation that places all questions in terms of monetary debt--and seeing as how Jefferson obsessed over his debts, I think, if I'm reading the "original intent" right, even or perhaps especially he would want us to pay the French back. It's been long enough that we've been dependents and, as TJ would remind us, we have for 229 years not been true "men" due to our indebtedness.

So that's what? Like 300 trillion dollars we owe them, or something? Who wants to chip in first? After this, we'll take up a collection for the 5 billion we owe the United Nations.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Pay up or shut the fuck up. There it is.

Bush is a Pussy

...can't even win an election on his own. In but a few short years, no Republican will be able to get elected dog catcher in this country. Keep up the self-immolation, fuckers.

More on the stolen 2004 election. Via Smirking Chimp.

Those Three Little Words

You know the ones I mean. No, not "I love you." I was thinking more of "You are fired."

Woman Sees Husband Off to Iraq, Gets Fired

Who hates America now? (trick question--it's still Republicans)

The Sporting News

Here's an update from the world of balls, pucks, and athletic supporters:

On CNN/SI.com:

1. WNBA MVP Swoopes: "I'm Gay", Lesbians everywhere Unaware She was Keeping it a Secret

WNBA non-viewer Josh: "I knew that, and I don't even watch your sport"
Or, alternatively:
"Is there any way to combine the letters in WNBA, LPGA, WPBA, WTA, and so on, to spell 'RUG MUNCH'?"

2. Bulls' Duhon Carried Off Floor on Stretcher , Cries like Bitch, Asks for Mama

Awesome! Take THAT, Duke's chances of ever having a Hall of Fame NBA player! Sweeeet!!
Or, alternatively:
Bobby Hurley: car accident. Jason Williams: motorcycle accident. Grant Hill: chronic ankle injury. Christian Laettner: missing brain. Danny Ferry: sounds like "fairy". Elton Brand: plays for the Clippers or something. Shane Battier: wrinkled, alien head; also, sits on the bench a lot. Chris Duhon: possibly dead (?--didn't read the article).

JJ Redick: welcome to your (short) NBA career. Bitch.

3. Coach Gay--I mean, K--to Lead US Team in Olympics

Run for your life, Kevin Garnett! This is the man produced Corey Maggette, who's either trying to be the world's clumsiest assclown or else he's trying to commit insurance fraud.

Runny Cunts

This week's Runny Cunts:

1. People who put pictures of their cats, or dogs, or orchids, or feces, or badger-chewed nipples on their Friday blog postings. It's spelled
g-a-y, people, and John Aravosis from AmericaBlog gets a free pass. But the rest of you, knock it off!

2. Commenters on liberal blogs who use the term "Fitzmas" over and over again to refer to the impending indictments of Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. We get it. It's a pun. Hooray. Just sit still and wait for the announcement, Twitch. Jesus. (shakes head)

3. The president.

4. Blog advertisers who put out robots to spam blogs like mine by posting random, inane comments like, "Hey, great blog you got here! I will DEFINITELY bookmark this one! Thanks for letting me know about it! By the way, the San Diego Speedway now offers three tickets, three hot dogs, and five sodas for only $19...can you BELIVE it?! Check it out at this link!"

Anyone who knows me could tell you that nobody I talked to about this blog would type that message ("bookmark"? I'm on the internet now, bitch! There ain't no more books in cyberspace, muthafuckaaaaa!!). Furthermore, for my $19 I could get a burrito and a couple hits from the taqueria down the block, so fuck San Diego!

5. Blog-spamming robots that leave comments on archived pages--sure, it's harder to find and erase them, but who would be reading the archives of a site like this? That would be like going to a public restroom and scraping the shit off the wall to read the old graffiti.

6. Harriet Miers. Expecting "the change" any day now.

Aha! That was a cunt joke, wasn't it? Brilliant!

7. Young Republicans who won't join the armed forces (or are they "running cunts"? Gerund?)

You can't be offended if you have no pride

More evidence of the theft of the 2004 election.

Jesus, it just keeps piling up, doesn't it? Kind of like it means something...wait! I think I almost see it...no, no. I lost it. It's gone.

Guess everything was fair and square after all.

Enough bullshit: here's a few rebuttals to the apologists for GOP thievery in politics:

"Kerry and Gore sucked and it's their own fault the vote was close enough to steal."
This is loser talk. Do you know why your team always loses at sports, love, and politics? Because you let it! Republicans love this aspect of Democrats' characters: we resign ourselves to being (self-)victimized and, the whole time we're getting waled on, we dream of the perfect world wherein millions will come to our rescue for no reason at all, or if only things were "different." You're in the party, or as Danny Aiello's new inlaws from Moonstruck (I'm a confident heterosexual) would say, "don't you understand--you're part of the family now." So like it or not (and I'm guessing you don't), you have to do the dirty work to get where we want to go. Kerry was your candidate. Gore was your candidate. You let them down. YOU fucked up. Action=result. Write it down. Dream it. Eat and live it. Wank to it. Repeat.

"Let's get better candidates for next time and just forget about the vote fraud. It won't happen again."
OK, chief. If somebody robs your home and he came in through a window, why don't you buy some new, big, thick doors for your house? That might prevent the next break-in--you fucking retard. Just ignore the problem, Einstein--surely it will go away of its own accord?

"Oh, the election wasn't stolen, that's just politics--this kind of thing happens all the time. JFK did it. So did Grover Cleveland. Nothing to worry about, la la la la la la la...."
Go throw yourself down the stairs. This is a reprise of self-victimization, just with the cover of tough guy, don't-be-a-crybaby rhetoric. This is like saying "Hey, I like to lose! And, the more unfair an election is, the better I like it! Now, who can play dirtier than me?" The answer, stupid, is "somebody can." Relativizing the things that are changing our democracy into a monstrosity only helps accelerate the process. "Other people did bad things and therefore bad things are now good" is not an acceptable argument. If it were, I would not be writing this, but rather I would be out burning down Republicans' houses. But you see, here we are.

2008 promises to be compelling, if only for its potential to feature civil war breaking out when a GOP candidate who polled less than 40% prior to the election wins with 65% of the vote. Should be fun for all the Democrat bottoms out there, anyway.

White Sox or Not White Sox

This is problematic: the good liberal in me wants to root alongside Chicago's Latinos, who have embraced the Sux (uh, "Sox") wholeheartedly after the team hired a Latino manager (no shameless opportunism there!).

But the good liberal in me also wants to pour vitriol on the team and root hard as can be against it because of the overwhelming preponderance of White Sox fans who are white, fat, stupid, virulent racist shitbags.

It seems that the second option will win out. Fuck the Bridgeport Irish (some of whom are realted to me, by the way).

Go National League!

"Go ahead, ABC-NEWS-bot. Please remember that, due to my primitive hardware configuration, I cannot answer questions larger than 3 MB. And besides, I know nothing of value to you. Error! Error! Error!"

Scott McClellan: Superstar

Excerpt from White House Press briefing (this is the big, bad, resurgent media we've been hearing about):

Q But, bottom line, does (Harriet Miers) have the tenacity to weather this fight?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, let's talk about how -- the way you're approaching things. This should be based on a person's record and qualifications and their judicial philosophy, and she greatly exceeds all the standards that have been set for meeting what is needed to serve on our nation's highest court. She is exceptionally well-qualified. And I would encourage you -- I know you don't necessarily want to do this -- but to look at her qualifications and record.

Q Excuse me?

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen you out there reporting about some of her qualifications and her record, and I see by the tone of your question that you want to get into some of these side issues. Let's look at the record --

Q You divided your own party?

Q Wait a minute --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- let's look at the qualifications.

Q But, Scott, yesterday you yourself said that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not saying everybody. I'm just saying I haven't seen John report on the qualifications record.

Q Yesterday you talked about some prospective nominees who decided that they didn't want to go through this, this laborious process. The question was, is it possible that she would be overwhelmed enough by this laborious process that she might consider pulling out.

MR. McCLELLAN: Bob, anyone that knows Harriet Miers knows that she's exceptionally well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court, and no one that knows her would make such a suggestion. And no one that knows her record and her qualifications would make such a suggestion. We look forward to people getting to know her like the President knows her. She is someone who has not sought the limelight, but she is someone who has served with great distinction and has a distinguished career and record. And that's what this should be about when it comes to the Supreme Court. I welcome the opportunity to engage in this discussion, because this should be based on qualifications and experience and judicial philosophy.
Some people want to create a different standard. And, Jim, you can sit there and shake your head, but she's exceptionally well-qualified.

Q Wait a minute, wait a minute -- excuse me --

Q Scott, yesterday both you and President said that it was important for --

MR. McCLELLAN: Anyone -- anyone that knows her record and experience wouldn't be making such a suggestion.

Q Scott, yesterday, both -- yesterday the President himself said that the American --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, some of you all wanted to focus more on religion. We focused on her qualifications and record.

Q Scott, isn't the idea we ask the questions and you provide the answers?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I was providing the answer. Can I not say what I want to say?

Q Don't you wish that Scott would get back to you?

Q Can you characterize --

MR. McCLELLAN: Isn't it my right to talk and say what I want to?

Q I defend your right, Scott.

MR. McCLELLAN: You all want to focus on side issues like religion. We've said from the beginning --

Q Side issues --

Q You focused on religion.

MR. McCLELLAN: We've said -- no, we have always publicly talked about --

Q When has religion been a side issue?

Q Scott --

MR. McCLELLAN: Come on, Jim, we've always talked about her record and her qualifications --

Q You call this a side issue.

Q Scott, yesterday --

Q The opposition to her is in your own party. What are you going to do about that?

Q Yesterday, Scott, the President said that the American people did want to know about her background, and that her religion was part of that. And you pointed out repeatedly that her religion was part of that, as a means of letting the American people know more about who Harriet Miers is. The question was whether or not she is the type of person that has the tenacity to deal with any criticism in a confirmation process. Could you describe her and who she is, relative to her tenacity? The President has called her a pit bull in size six shoes. Could you elaborate?
___________________________________________

Q But you also called her a woman of faith, a person of faith, yesterday. Those words came out of your mouth, she's a person of faith.

MR. McCLELLAN: She is -- and she is. (Mental Note: D'OH!!)

Q And so we've reported on the qualifications and --

Q But what's the relevance if you're saying it's not relevant?

Q And why would -- why would you not answer -- but why not answer the question? It sounds as though you're not willing to say she's tenacious.
__________________________________________

MR. MCLELLAN: ...And I welcome talking about this; I welcome talking about her record. Let's talk about it.

Q Can I ask -- can I ask one question just before we go here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Steve said "thank you" a second time. I think the first time -- the first time --

Q I know, but my question is --

MR. McCLELLAN: The first time, we probably should have stopped it at that.

Q Right. I know. Aren't you sad that you didn't go for -- that you went past, "thank you"?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. Actually, I'm not. I'm glad we had this discussion, John.

Q Okay, good. But my only question was, the very last thing that you said there, why didn't you just say that in response to my question instead of attacking me and getting into this whole brouhaha?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I was trying to, but some people kept jumping in, including yourself when I was responding to your question.

Q Well, excuse me, you attacked me. I just wasn't going to let it sit.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not attacking. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the coverage is not focused on the record and the qualifications and the philosophy -

Q I'll bring you transcripts after the briefing.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's where it should. Did it focus on it last night? Let's look at the transcripts.

Q You spoke about a dignified process, do you think it's dignified to --

Q Are you -- let's talk about truth and honesty. Are you trying to say that the White House has not talked to conservatives and pointed them to the church that she goes to, and to her religion --

MR. McCLELLAN: I answered all those questions yesterday.

Q -- to show that she has religion -- but you're just saying right now that we're making an issue of it. You're making an issue of it by having White House officials --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying --

Q -- tell conservatives that that's a reason they should trust her. Then they tell us that --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not saying that. You're putting words --

Q -- that that's what's happening.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- in my mouth. I'm saying the focus ought to be on records and qualification and philosophy.

Q I'm not putting any words in your mouth.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, you are.

Q I have a question about judicial philosophy.

Q Scott. Scott, you used the term "dignified process." Is it dignified to pejoratively characterize the motives or tactics of a reporter who is trying to cover a story?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
__________________________________________

Yes, Scott, you are pretty damn sorry. Isn't it great when a towelboy starts acting like his time is ultra-valuable and he can't, just not possibly, no way in hell repeat himself or give any more information? That's like a butler telling a houseguest to get his own fucking coat and hat. Not in GWB's America, pal!

No doubt the media likes this ass-licking reparte and will soon begin to apotheosize little Scotty as the next Rove-like Svengali of the right. He's a virtual copy of Karl: smarmy, unable to speak without telling the most foul lies, devious, confrontational, and a complete whore. I'll be on the lookout for him on the cover of Time magazine any day now.

Students (Actually) For (Real) Academic Freedom

Get their asses kicked, apparently.

From The Nation:

Khan, 27, a four-year Air Force veteran and a junior at GMU, had been walking through the Johnson Center on September 29 when he saw a Marine recruiter. He made up a sign, "Recruiters lie. Don't be deceived," and silently stood next to the recruiter's table. Less than thirty minutes later he found himself in the chokehold. Backup police dragged Khan from the building, and one of them pulled out pepper spray. "I'm being nonviolent, and this officer is going to pepper-spray me! If you have a cell phone, please take a picture," Khan says he shouted. Aimee Wells, a junior and a library staffer, says she pulled out her camera-phone and the officer put away the canister, saying, "Don't worry. Nobody's getting pepper-sprayed today."

Thanks, War Party. In what is perhaps the one real democratic institution - public ed. - you've successfully injected your goddamned mind herpes. Students getting smacked around for peacefully protesting the presence of your manipulative, tenacious army recruiters - you call this freedom? Leave us alone - we're trying to learn to fix what you people fucked up, not add to it. Get your dirty asses away from our campuses.

It Takes Time to Train an Army to Kick Your Ass

Having just returned from hasty and yet rewarding research at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (the SECOND-best college in Charlotte), this little nugget from Democratic Underground's Top Ten Conservative Idiots caught my eye:

"In order to "catapult the propaganda," Bush has been tossing out the fantasy that "Right now there are over 80 army battalions fighting alongside coalition troops," with "over 30 Iraqi battalions in the lead."


There are about 500-600 soldiers in a battalion, so that's a minimum of 15,000 Iraqi soldiers ready to rock n' roll. Considering that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, that means we only have to train 135,000 more Iraqis (at a cost of $7 billion per month) to finish the job. It took us two years to train 15,000 so it should only take another, oh, 15-20 years or so to train the rest.

There's just one problem - when Bush says that there are 30-80 Iraqi battalions fighting in Iraq, he's talking out of his ass. Last week Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there is actually only one self-sufficient Iraqi battalion."

So, at $200 billion over two years to train one battalion, it will only take us (fun! math time!) 60 years and 6 trillion dollars to train 30 battalions and only 160 years and 16 trillion dollars to train 80 battalions! Super!

Of course, that's assuming there are no more setbacks, the WMDs are found, Saddam confesses to hiring Bin Laden, monkeys fly, Cheney avoids indictment, and the Democrats take back the Senate.

Peanut Butter, no Jelly; Ham, no Burger . . .

. . . endangered species, no habitat. Thus is the strategy of the orchestrated failure, er, evisceration of an already too weak Endangered Species Act via the Pombo Bill, or actually just a continuation of the planned conservative program to artificially render government ineffectual in order to prove their circular argument that government is ineffectual. At least they're good at something. Or consistent, anyway.

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 is a case-study in Orwellian doublespeak and the sort of vulgar sophism Plato warned about long ago. Primarily, the bill removes the power of Critical Habitat designation, basically arguing it to be both ineffective and an infringement on the rights of private landowners. This would be a valid objection, except that it actually has been a very effective provision of the ESA, and importantly, does not generally affect private landowners. Replace "valid" with "lie."

The bill is packed with loose language about using the "best science" to reform the ESA to make it more 'effective." Tell me something – what scientist would argue that endangered species can be protected without protecting their habitat? This doesn't require a PhD. in ecology to refute – it's intuitive and obvious. Replace "best science" with "Lysenkoist goddamn lie."

Enter: libertarian ideology. Support for this regressive action is based on the notion that the ESA infringes on individual property rights. The Heritage Foundation has a well-constructed pile of mendacious bullshit presenting this p.o.v. However, the ESA, as interpreted, has very little effect on private landowners. So, go back to reading Thoreau or Rand or whatever in the hell you get your childish bullshit from. Straight from the horse's mouth:

"the process of designating critical habitat will result in publication of guidance to landowners through consideration of the need for "special management and protection" of areas within the designated habitat. There appear to be public misperceptions that designation results in binding restrictions on private lands. In fact, designation forces consideration of all aspects of the habitat needs of a species and generates guidance to landowners, but has not been interpreted as authorizing direct regulation. Guidance typically addresses activities not likely to be viewed as prohibited "takes" and activities regarding which a landowner may wish to seek additional guidance to avoid takes."

Supporters of this nonsense bill also claim that the ESA promotes frivolous litigation and bureaucracy. No surprise there, and no surprise that this is false. Actually, the new version allows for reparations to corporate land owners as compensation for lost economic value of land housing endangered species. In short – taxpayer dollars will end up in corporate pockets over claims of potential economic loss and concomitant litigation. And it's the liberals who want to steal your tax dollars and piss them down the sewer?

Finally, to the 36 spineless Democrats who voted in favor of this, you give invertebrates a bad name, and fuck you too. And if anybody reckons me guilty of cooing and fawning over fuzzy bears and spotted owls, bring it on. My rebuttal to that misinterpretation is in the works.

Hey Jamie

How was the Clutch show last week? Set list, please.