Thursday, August 25, 2005


Just listening to Mike Malloy on Air America...he made a good point in his inimitable way. He said that Christianity as practiced by the majority of Americans today has turned Christianity into a "gutter religion." He said "I spit on it." Amen to that, especially after Evil Brother Pat had his say the other day about assassinating Chavez.

I don't know much about Pat and I don't know much about Chavez, but I know that Pat got all cuddly with Mobutu Sese Seko, and I know that Chavez has enacted land reform in Venezuela.

Hmmm...which would Jesus prefer...consorting with dictators or helping the poor...

Glad Cindy's back in Tejas, giving 'em hell...

Try Skype and see what you think...

Wednesday, August 24, 2005


So BRAC is closing down Naval Station Pascagoula, axing about 900 jobs...oh snap, that's fucking Trent Lott's home turf...see what a good job the "cat-herder" is doing for the good people of MS? He has already admitted that the Iraq war has diverted money away from Northrop Grumman , also in his home turf, and he couldn't do diddly-shit about it--and this has also cost 1,900 jobs in MS and Louisiana. O, what power he wields--is he not the Senator we need, o fellow Mississippians? Hath he not provided for thee and thine? Oh brother...where art thou?

How 'bout a Democrat in '06? Why the hell not--Lott's letting jobs leak like a sieve from the state and he's a giant jackass to boot. And what of our portly governor, Whaley Barbour? Was it not hammered home again and again during his racist ("Keep the flag, change the governor" yet extremely effective campaign how many jobs he would bring to MS and how being tight with Lott and Bush would be a boon to MS citizens? Oh, I think it was, good people. And now what have we got? Dead soldiers and less jobs. Thanks, all you "sportsmen/Eagles/Rebels/mindless cretins for Haley." Way to go--we're really on top now!

And then of course there's ol' Dumb-ya, Whaley's ol' pal...he said in a speech today that if we leave Iraq now, that country will become a "staging ground" for more terror attacks on the U.S.

We will stay on the offense. We'll complete our work in Afghanistan and Iraq. An immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations. So long as I'm the President, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.
Ummm, no...if leave Iraq, that will be a big incentive for would-be terrorists to think twice before attacking us...just ask Robert Pape...

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Did anyone else see batshit-crazy neocon Melanie Morgan on "Hardball" last night? She spewed a lot of stupidity, but one statement took the cake:

"By the way, we‘re still going to find weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq]."
What world must this poor woman live on? Not planet Earth, that's for sure. Our guys have searched and searched and both Kay and Duelfer said there were no WMD in Iraq. Come to think of it, even though Morgan and other loonies like her like to protest that WMD weren't the only (some would add "or primary") reason that we went to Iraq, she still feels the need to make up some shit about how WMD will be found in Iraq. People like her obviously don't believe their own lies--they're just hoping we will.

Well fuck her...and God bless Cindy Sheehan--she hasn't let the bastards get her down...

And two more quick things...

Read this about "Able Danger" and how the U.S. government knew of and was tracking 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta at least as far back as 2000...the point being that we don't need a Patriot Act squashing our civil rights to prevent terrorism--we knew who Atta was and what he might be up to way before 9/11...

And then for those of you who wonder how "anti-terror"/anti-civil-rights legislation--i.e. the Patriot Act might affect you? Look no further than the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian immigrant who was shot in the head seven times because he was supposedly running from the bobbies, jumped the turnstile at the Tube, was wearing a bulky coat, etc.

Well, guess what? None of that shit was true and you can see a picture for yourself here. This is how the "anti-terrorist" forces commit terror--they kill you or anyone else for whatever reason they may have cooked up in their overheated brains, then try to cover it up.

Which is easy for them to do, because the media will breathlessly report the story of how a "terrorist"--by whom they might someday mean you was doing such-and-such a terrible thing so they had to shoot you in the head eleventy-million times. And all the news shows and papers and magazines pick it up and sing the praises of the police and point out that well, this is just how things have to be in this "post-9/11 world."

Only in actual fact, you did none of the things they accused you of, they had no reason to suspect you except that they needed to demonstrate somehow that they have crime and terror under control and you happen to walk out of building they're surveilling...

And then the actual truth of what happened gets a sentence on page A-20 of the Post, the blogs scream about it, and no one ever hears the fucking truth...and then those same non-hearers of the truth go "oh, we have to stop terror just like they did when they shot [insert your name here] that time--you heard he was running from the cops, etc." So when Patriot Act 10: The Enabling Act comes down the pike, they're all like "Yeah, it makes good sense to me--you can't never be too safe..."

Monday, August 08, 2005


R.I.P P.J....

Heard a story on NPR about Iran and nukes and how that's a "crisis". What the hell is with that? Why are we constantly being told that if other countries have the bomb, it's a "crisis" for us?

The crisis, as non-nuclear countries see it, is us having the bomb, the only country to ever actually use nuclear weapons against another country--you never are reminded of that in these breathless "crisis" stories. But that's why they want the bomb, because they don't trust us. And for God's sake, why the hell should they?

In Iran, the CIA helped overthrow Mossadeq, the democratically elected leader (not that he was actually all that "democratic"), to install the Shah, who would give the West favorable oil deals. It's the same damn story with us over and over again.

Now we've invaded Iraq unprovoked, right next door to Iran, and are throwing out slander at Iran's new president, and so forth.

A little aside: As I predicted in this entry (6-30-05), it has come out that the CIA now says Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president wasn't one of the kidnappers in the embassy takeover in 1979.

And last week, a U.S. official told CNN that CIA analysis of a photograph of
a hostage-taker at the embassy, taken around the time of the siege, determined
the individual was not Ahmadinejad. But the official said it had not been
established whether Ahmadinejad had a role in the embassy takeover.

Note that this information is the last sentence in this story, not in the headline or first few paragraphs--it's just an afterthought, whereas the accusations of him being a kidnapper were headlines across the country, across the media, casting more aspersions and serving to demonize the country Puppet Bush will have us invading next--End of aside.

Of course they want the bomb. It's the best deterrent yet it's simultaneously useless. But it's the biggest stick you can wave around.

I say, the more countries with nukes, the better. Then everyone will be terrified of everyone else and we can finally leave each other the hell alone.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>And go Cindy go! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Monday, August 01, 2005


I will tell you what taking God's name in vain means to me. It means calling yourself a follower but not really being a follower, not really acting like a follower. A good example of this phenomenon would be George W. Bush. He takes God's name in vain every second we're in Iraq.

I bring this up because I wanted to write some more about "The Christian Paradox," the great article in this month's "Harper's Magazine." There are so many good points made in it that it's difficult to pick which ones to quote...ummm, how about this one:

Despite the Sixth Commandment, we are of course, the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate four or five times that of our European peers. We have prison populations greater by a factor of six or seven than other rich nations...Having been told to turn the other cheek, we're the only Western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in those states where Christianity is theoretically strongest. Despite Jesus' strong declarations against divorce, our marriages break up at a rate--just over half--that compares poorly with the European Union's average of about four in ten.
I actually read the Bible the other day, and I don't remember why, but I was shocked to see what I must have read a thousand times before, but just didn't remember it. Of course one always hears the part about "turning the other cheek," but the context is rarely given. Jesus says, in Matthew 5:39 not to resist evil, or ones who are evil, or evildoers, to wit:

"But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. "

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. "

More translations here.

Is this explicit instruction from Jesus why George Bush so frequently talks about "evil" and "evildoers?" Have you ever heard our great Christian leader George Bush say that we should'nt resist evil or "one who is evil?" But that's what Jesus, 'his favorite philosopher", said to do.

But hell, I didn't even plan on trashing Bush with this entry. Although did you see the news about his new lows in his approval rating? He's the least-liked he's yet been, on this the day he appoints John Bolton to the U.N. without the Senate's approval. Even people my wife and I know to have been big Bush supporters here in Mississippi are complaining about him, and that's saying something.

However, they follow such comments immediately with something inane like "Kerry just wasn't likable enough." What the fuck kind of logic is that? Were these people saying "I know Bush took us to war illegally, is fucking over the little man, giving tax breaks to the rich and all that other shit, but I just can't see myself voting against him?" People had to have been having doubts because the article about the approval rating drop points out that "Bush's previous low favorable rating came twice in October 2004, when 51% of Americans had a favorable opinion of the president and 46% had an unfavorable opinion." So something like my little screwed-up scenario must have taken place in about 3,00,000 minds (that is, if you believe the election wasn't stolen).

Gotta Go
But anyway, that's enough for tonight. But my point is that the Harper's article (written by Bill McKibben) is so right on and makes arguments so obvious that they needed to be pointed out. It's like this guy I know whose Protestant minister father made a racist remark in public. When the son pointed out to the father that maybe a minister shouldn't talk like that based on the teachings of Jesus, the father tried to explain that the racist remark wasn't really wrong and asked the son why everything has to come back to what Jesus said. And this happened only a week or so ago.

Sure, the Bible has a lot to offer the intolerant, homophobic redneck--especially the Old Testament. But Jesus, God in the flesh, contradicts a lot of that stuff. Always remember and never forget: Jesus never said the first word about homosexuality or abortion. But he did say to turn the other cheek, give people more than they ask for, treat other people how you'd like to be treated, love everyone as you love yourself, and so forth. And a lot of the most self-professed "Christian" leaders in America today are taking the lord's name in vain...for their own gain.