NO WMD!! NO DUH!! a vote for Bush is a vote for LIES...

On msnbc.com, this bewildering sentence appears:

The inspector's report could boost Kerry's contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.

It could boost Kerry's contention? It goes way beyond that...it proves Kerry's point. Listen, Georgie, that sound of locked-up, grinding gears is the sound of your outmoded F-102 of a chance of a second term flaming to earth where it will be grounded forever...

Mutually Assured Destruction

I mean, c'mon. If this latest report from the top weapons inspector doesn't change things in Kerry's favor, what the hell will? It's also somewhat suspicious that this report was released after the presidential debate on foreign policy instead of right before or the day of. You mean to tell me that they didn't already have this information last Thursday? Please...

So tonight Joe Lockhart will be laughing in Ben Ginsberg's face on Hardball, but Ginsberg will point out that the report says Saddam was still a threat because he had the intention of getting WMD. However, civilized and rational people understand full well that all national leaders want to have the best available weapons to achieve their ends, nefarious or otherwise. If they don't, they're not very good leaders. And since this is true, this means that Saddam was no special threat, especially not to the U.S. But Bush and his minions will scream mindlessly "Saddam was a threat! That's why we had to invade!"

But what of North Korea, who instead of denying that they have nuclear weapons or want to acquire more nuclear weapons, come right out and say they have them. Why haven't we invaded them, Republican talking-point parrots? Not that I'm in favor of invading more countries.


This Week's Letter To The Editor

I sent this one to several Mississippi papers rather than just my hometown paper:

Come now, Mr. Cheney. Do you really expect us to believe that John Edwards, the man who will replace you, has such a poor Senate attendance record that you have never met him until the night of the vice-presidential debate? Or do you
just suffer from the same affliction as "Mr. Short-Term Memory," the character
portrayed by Tom Hanks on "Saturday Night Live"? Do you honestly not remember
addressing Sen. Edwards by name at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2001? Or do
you take the American public for fools?

It must be the latter, because you also denied having said in the past that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda. Did you really expect the public to believe that whopper when in fact, you said that very thing on June 14 of this year in Florida at a reception for the James Madison Institute (to cite but just one occasion)? Are you not aware that your public statements are recorded in full at the website whitehouse.gov and
countless other places online?

Did you bother to read or even be briefed on the 9/11 Commission report, which stated flatly that there was no "collaborative operational relationship" between Saddam and al Qaeda? Even if you somehow were oblivious to the 9/11 Commission report, your administration's own Secretary of Defense recently said: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

Come now, Mr. Cheney. The American people are not fools, don't take kindly to being misled, and will have the good sense to retire you and your running mate this November 2.

EDWARDS TAKES THE DAY a vote for Bush is a vote for death...

According to most punditry I've seen post Edwards/Cheney debate, Cheney won. That's that damn liberal media you've heard so much about--they're always pulling for the liberal, Democratic candidate and declaring them the winner of debates. Yeah, right.

Well anyway, Edwards won because he has more energy, charisma, virility, charm, and downright sex appeal. He's also right on the issues (except that part about submitting malpractice suits to a board to see if they're worthy of going to trial), and Dick Cheney is a liar. And I quote:

CHENEY
(VP debate, 10-5-04): The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested
there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established
Iraqi track record with terror.

CHENEY
(Orlando, FL 6-14-04):In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in power,overseeing one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century. He had started two wars [not unlike G.W.B.] -- produced and used weapons of mass destruction against Iran and the Kurds, and was in repeated violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. He was a patron of terrorism -- paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, and providing safe-haven and support for such terrorist groups as Abu Nidal and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He had long established ties with al Qaeda.

And as Chris Matthews berated Ben Ginsberg, that argument is the crux of the biscuit--if there was an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection, the Iraq war would be much easier to justify. Ginsberg tried to insinuate yet again that the 9/11 Commission report hinted at an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection, but Matthews corrected him and shamed him. Good! But the problem for Bush/Cheney is that there was no connection, and even Donald Rumsfeld said as much yesterday:

Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: ''To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.''

That's the Bush/Cheney strategy: obfuscate and fudge the truth as often as possible. Cheney tried to do it again, and Edwards called him on it sharply and precisely. So therefore, since Edwards is on the right side of the issues and didn't lead our troops into an unnecessary, illegal war on bad information and then lie about it, he won this debate and wins every debate.

Fahrenheit 9/11

Bought the DVD today. The clerk asked us if it was "funny" and said she'd never heard of it before but that a lot of people had come in to buy it. Watching Bush's 7 Minute Gap at the Booker school, I was reminded of his performance in last Thursday's debate--just kind of clueless, lots of blinking and lip-tightening. He's on the way out. Kerry will get the most votes--no question about it.

SPANKED! a vote for Bush is a vote for the loser in the first debate...

John Kerry kicked Bush's ass in this debate. No question about it. On style, substance, composure, grasp of the issues, and whatever else you can think of, Kerry won hands down. Any rational person can see that.

From the first moment Bush was on edge--he jerked his hand away from Kerry in the greeting handshake. Bush spoke haltingly and repeated phrases over and over even when they had no relevance to the question asked. He seemed irritated and his face showed it--he frequently furrowed his brow (it reminded me of Michelle Malkin) and his lips and eyes twitched quite a bit. He sputtered through non-answers and sounded nervous throughout the entire ordeal.

By contrast, Kerry was authoritative and calm. He definitely benefitted from the side-by-side comparison the debate gave him. Just as Bush tried to inject his new propaganda phrase "mixed messages" into the public discourse (a cause in which he will be ably abetted by the likes of Chris Matthews), Kerry had some great lines as well, i.e.,

"Don't confuse the war with the warriors"--a great line that dovetails nicely with his experience in Vietnam

"I've had one position on Iraq: Saddam had to be disarmed, and there was a right way and a wrong way to do that. The president chose the wrong way." Very nice--succinct, forceful, presidential.

Spin

So the pundits said before the debate that the winner of the first debate will be the winner of the election. Therefore, Kerry will win the election. But we knew that already. But there could still be spin that we're not expecting, like this Newsmax article that whines that moderator Lehrer favored Kerry with his questions.

However, even if that were true, Bush was very pushy and violated the rules of the debate. When Kerry would finish a point, Bush began to just start trying to refute it. He didn't ask the moderator for permission (OK, the first time or two he did), he just harrumphed and started whining.

Kerry, on the other hand, raised his hand twice attempting to ask for one of Lehrer's extensions and was ignored both times. Kerry was being polite and following the rules, Bush was being pushy.

Bush also seemed to think that if you talk louder, it makes what you say more believable. I must say, Bush didn't come off like a bad person, he just came off like an imbecile who shouldn't be president. And I don't mean that in a bad way--I'm an imbecile who shouldn't be president.

But Kerry is not an imbecile and he should be and will be our next president.

Oh, and one other spin I heard the right wing try to trot out--Bush spoke from the heart and just let people see how he truly is while Kerry brought out facts and figures and was all formal and stuffy. Bullshit--anybody who saw the debate knows that pure bullshit.

I GOT POLLED a vote for Bush is a vote for Satan...

I answered the phone even though the Caller ID said "out of area." Turns out it was a woman from "ICR"--International Communications Research.

I thought it might be a survey about the election once she assured me that she wasn't making a sales call. However, she started off with questions about whether I had a)taken on a lot of debt, b) taken on a little debt, c) paid off a little debt, or d)paid off a lot of debt. And then more debt questions. And then age range questions. Then health insurance questions. Then lifestyle questions.

Then, finally--who would you vote for, Kerry or Bush? I said "Kerry, baby! Now go put that on CNN!"

Then there were a whole bunch of follow-up questions, among them, what is my preference of copying machine in the office in which I work, etc. She asked a few more election/policy-related questions, like did I agree with the abolition of the inheritance tax (no) or what do I see as the biggest problem in the country (job market, health care cost, war in Iraq, etc.)

Anyway, I've never been polled before for an election. And I've never heard of ICR before. Hopefully the survey will serve some good purpose.

My interview with Thomas Frank went well and will hopefully air on Friday...

CALLING BULLSHIT a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

Well well...they made Dan cave...you know the only reason this stupid CBS memo story is getting so much play is due to schadenfreude...

The other networks and news organizations are pissing themselves with glee because at least for this one shining moment they can tell themselves "Hey, at least we're not as bad as CBS!" Then they can have a giant porcine laugh and go back to ignoring important stories...

Like the one that came out on Friday, about the Navy's internal investigation into the issuing of John Kerry's medals. Here's what they found:

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed," Route wrote in the memo sent Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England.

Not that anyone ever questioned the validity of Kerry's medals...except creepy liars who want to pretend they're "saving the country" from Kerry when all they're doing is helping to put more young people into the meat grinder of the "war on terror." Don't they fucking get it? These Vietnam veterans are helping a man who has started his own Vietnam--a pointless, misguided, catastrophic miscalculation--for today's kids.

It's almost as if the thoroughly discredited Swift Boat Devils are saying to today's armed forces--"Hey, we had to fight in a war that did nothing but tear our country apart and maim and kill us and our friends--so now it's your turn." What bitter, evil bums these anti-men are...they are soulless sellouts who would rather pay a few dollars less in taxes than let Iraqis and Americans live in peace because these Swift Boat Assholes are fervently working to get Bush a second term...

But I Digress

But I was saying--I didn't hear about the Navy revalidating Kerry's medals until today on Media Matters' website. I even read the fucking news off the AP wire all day today and Friday and never saw a mention of it.

What the hell is going on here that Dan Rather has to eat crow over some faked documents that don't even really add anything to the story about Bush wimping out on his guard service while nobody reports the story about Kerry's medals being for real?

Long Story Short:
Kerry--decorated Vietnam veteran
Bush--AWOL from National Guard
Advantage: Bush?

What the fuck?

HOW DO THEY DO IT? a vote for Bush is a vote for dope, guns, and fucking in the street...

How do the Rape-ublicans get gays to go along with them? Is it sort of the Michelle Malkin syndrome--have the person pimping against a cause be the kind of person who would be hurt by it?

So David Dreier is gay...I hate to say it, but I had no idea. He really is a slick politician--his confident, party-line-toeing appearances on "Hardball" always annoyed me, but you have to admit the guy comes across as charming, knowledgable, and highly partisan. It's just so great that Mr. California Republican has been outed. But will this make Republicans see how disgraceful their party is? Of course not.

Michelle Malkin Blows

Speaking of disgraceful Republicans, Michelle Malkin's appearance on BookTV today was awesome...protestors outside the building caused quite a stir...the best question from the audience was "In the unlikely event that the U.S. goes to war with the Philippines, would you advocate rounding up and imprisoning Filipino-Americans (which is what Malkin is)?"

She wrinkled her brow in that way that she does quite often that makes her come off as really angry and sarcastically said "Yeah, if the 9/11 hijackers had been short Filipino women, then I'd volunteer..." or something to that effect. As if the question was so outrageous that it isn't even worth considering. Then she continued with a sarcastic, dismissive "PLEASE!! That is so ridiculous!"

Except that that question goes directly to the heart of what is wrong with her argument and what was wrong with the Japanese internment in the first place. And her argument is, OTHER people are bad and should be hounded by the police and locked up and beaten and interrogated. But when she is asked to consider a hypothetical situation in which she would be seen as the "other," it's absurd, impossible, and not worth a moment's consideration.

And what was wrong with the Japanese internment in the first place? Malkin cited the existence of many Japanese double agents working in America, and yada, yada, yada. Were there no German double agents or Italian double agents? We declared war on those countries as well--why didn't we imprison all the German and Italian immigrants?

Well, the obvious answer is because German and Italian immigrants are white (or could pass) while Japanese immigrants are very noticeably different and it allowed the government at the time to say, "Look, we're doing everything to protect you" even though they were rounding up the German and Italian double agents. That's the problem--Malkin's argument is based solely on race/ethnicity. She also blew off a question about Timothy McVeigh and why radical whites weren't rounded up after Oklahoma City.

Malkin and Dowd and "Civil Rights Absolutists"

Anyway, Malkin is also laughable because she wants to be Maureen Dowd so badly that Malkin brought Dowd's name up time after time. Everything bad in Malkin's world seems to come from Maureen Dowd. She's kinda like Jan Brady--it's always "Maureen, Maureen, Maureen!"

Malkin just needs to break down and ask Dowd out. Enough of this stalking Michelle! Just let Maureen know how you really feel...

Oh yeah, and everything bad not spewing forth from Maureen Dowd (which granted, is almost everything) comes from the ACLU. Malkin disparaged "civil rights absolutists" a few times during her talk, with her commentary adopting a leftist feel--talking about how kids aren't taught the real truth in school (about Japanese internment) and how she has "unpopular ideas" and how you'd think at Berkeley they'd understand what a "liberal education" was all about.

But isn't America founded on "civil rights absolutism?" I mean rhetorically, of course, given that the poor, women, slaves, etc. didn't have the same civil rights as rich white men for hundreds of years. But in principle--"all men are created equal," "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc.--aren't those indicative of a strong commitment to civil liberties? The right to be free from unreasonable searches, the right to a speedy trial, the right to not have to testify against yourself, the right to not have to endure cruel and unusual punishment--don't these all suggest "absolutes" of civil liberties?

And people like Malkin and crazy right-wingers who suggest that in "this post-September 11 world" we'll all have to sacrifice some of our civil liberties are the real enemy. They would rather that this country go on intimidating the world, pre-emptively starting wars at our whim, and taking what we want when we want it from anyone in the world. These policies are why Sept. 11 happened in the first place, and don't let anyone tell you any different.

But rather than address these root causes (which are but a few), she'd rather deny U.S. citizens their rights to allow the corporatists to ravage the rest of the world when maybe a better thing for everybody would be to change our foreign policy so that people in other countries have no motivation to attack us, and then no one would have to try to curtail anyone's civil rights.

THANK YOU IVAN a vote for Bush is a vote for the smell of urine (and that's just gross)...

Thank you Ivan, for moving just to the east of Mobile Bay so that we here in South Mississippi missed the brunt of it. But we boarded a few windows...I think with this busy hurricane season we're just going to leave 'em boarded up for the time being.

I watched half of "Hardball" half-heartedly...I hope The Daily Howler does a piece on today's episode...This whole mess about CBS documents and Bill Burkett and all of this is too much. Damn, these Rapepublicans are pros at media manipulation!! They've got everyone talking about "apparent forgeries" and this document expert and that secretary all recanting or acknowledging one thing while denying another and they forget the whole point of it, fake memos or not, which is:

...Rather said CBS' critics have never attacked the thrust of the network's story: that Mr. Bush received preferential treatment to get into the National Guard and stay stateside during the Vietnam War, and failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.

That's from the CBS website. That's the whole point, and no one seems to have the inclination, or the energy, or whatever to even discuss Ben Barnes' admission that he pulled strings to get Bush into the Guard.

Dodging the draft and dodging the truth

All of this reminds me of the Republican woman who called in to "Washington Journal" last week to report that Kerry had "dodged the draft" by enlisting in the Navy and volunteering to go to Vietnam. Say whaaaaa!?!?!

But while all this stupid shit is being dissected down to its infinitesimal protoplasm, I didn't hear word one on any cable news show about Kofi Annan synthesizing all the latest info about pre-war Iraq intelligence into the declaration that the Iraq war was "illegal." But I guess that's because the U.N. is nothing more than a dirty toilet for us to take a piss in whenever we feel like it--or so Bush and his disgraceful followers seem to feel.

Sweet Jesus, come on back and bring your children home...

IVAN THE TERRIBLE a vote for Bush is a vote for the hurricane...

When is this hurricane gonna hurry up and get it over with? It's taking its sweet time and screwing up my week...

Traffic through our town was bumper to bumper on Highway 49...it took a friend of mine an hour to go a couple of miles yesterday...damn...

We've got family here at the house--we're north of Ivan...my sister-in-law, her boyfriend, her two daughters, another niece and her two daughters, and two dogs plus my dogs...

whoo...that's close quarters...

This CBS "forgery" story is out of hand...the Swift Boat Veterans may not have forged anything, but they just made shit up...but one Republican thug puts out the meme that the documents may have been forged, and suddenly Dan Rather can't be trusted...what's the frequency, America?

My band got asked to do a "Rock The Vote" show a week from now...we can't do it because it's while we're at work and one of our guys can't do it...I suggested some other bands to the woman and she wanted to know if the bands I was telling her about were Democrats...I told her I didn't know for sure, but probably so...she knows it's supposed to be a non-partisan organization, but she still didn't want to put Republicans up there...

Republicans already have their own related organization: Rob The Vote...

END THE WAR a vote for Bush is a vote for the terrorists...

Why won't they let anyone on TV who'll say three simple words: "end the war?"

Even the Guardsmen's wives on "Deborah Norville Tonight" wouldn't say it...instead, they talked about pride, not questioning their husbands' deployment, etc.

Why are we allowing this happy talk to continue?

Why are we maintaining a massive standing army?

Why do most mainstream pundits and reporters act like it may or may not be true that America antagonizes the world?

One lesson of the Cold War that is rarely brought up is that perceptions of threats differ. By which I mean, the conventional wisdom here in America is that we had to keep the
Soviets in check because their ideology advocated world domination. But what never seemed to acknowledge much then or now is that the Soviets felt the same way about us.

After all, the only country that has ever used a nuclear device in a war is...uh...us. Is it impossible to see how that might make say, everyone in the world afraid of us. While Bush goes on and on about the nuclear threat that MIGHT ONE DAY materialize and then never does, WE are the ones posing an actual, very real nuclear threat to the entire world.

Colin Powell admits WMD won't be found--he is a jackass.

John McCain says we can't give "sanctuary" to the "insurgents" in Iraq--he is a jackass. Would he rather we just took out the whole civilian population in order to kill a few bad apples?

And why are we letting this happen? What is wrong with us? Why aren't we all yelling and screaming for the end of the war?

Scalia's thugs kinda apologize....

And the hurricane approaches...

DO EVIL DEAD REPUBLICANS NEVER SLEEP? a vote for Bush is a vote for the end of the world...

"Stolen Honor?" Angry P.O.W.s accusing John Kerry of making life worse for them in prison camps? What will they think of next? Who the fuck knows?

I mean, this just gets more and more ridiculous. First the Swift Boats and now this? And the cable/radio people are gonna give it more free airtime?

When are they gonna run out of ammo? When are they (by which I mean the Re-fuck-licans) gonna feel shame? It looks like never!

They've done Dukakis, Clinton, McCain, Cleland, Gore, and now Kerry...are they trying to provoke open riots in the streets?

Kerry--please take off the gloves and lay into these motherfuckers. No, wait, JFK...we know you've killed men before, but wait. That's what they want...you gotta get some surrogates to do it for you. But get some real surrogates with some real points and some real thirst for blood, not these namby-pamby nicey-mice we've been seeing.

Hard To Get Traction In Mud

Just when I was hoping that the Bush Guard failure was going to get some traction, Chris Matthews does two segments on "Stolen Honor." John Kerry didn't steal these men's honor. John Kerry was trying to END THE WAR SO THEY COULD COME HOME! And he did it (with lots of help of course).

And by the way ONCE AND FOR ALL...Kerry's Senate testimony, his remarks on "Meet The Press," etc. all point to the White House and the Defense Department as the war criminals, not the rank and file. AND, when he talked about atrocities, he specifically said he didn't see them personally, but he merely repeated what other people had already ADMITTED to. Chris Matthews, please understand this now rather than having to write a mea culpa about it after the election...

Shut Up, They Say

And you know what all this stolen honor bullshit is about, don't you? All this talk of how Kerry's service during the war was perfectly honorable and legitimate (they say, trying to pass themselves off as civil and courteous) but it was speaking out against the war afterward that deserves revulsion--what they're collectively saying is--don't question Lord King Bush at all, ever, but particularly not during a war!

And we will be "at war" all the time, so that criticism will be frowned upon, and Kerry will be used as an example of that--like, don't be like John Kerry, who undermined the troops who were still in harm's way. That's the worst, they'll argue...oh, they especially want to use this as an example to soliders returning from Iraq who might be moved to speak out against our current campaign of terrorist recruitment.

It's a not-so-subtle object lesson for the new veterans, i.e., see John Kerry? He thought he was doing something good, but it hurt people and it's never left him, not even when he's trying to run for president. Just think what we can do to you, Mr. and Ms. Iraq Veteran, if you dare to speak out against this war. Do you want to get the Kerry treatment?

This Is Chilling

It's chilling, is what it is. And I don't know what to do about it, except hope that the voting public's better nature will prevail. But it won't, I know...

But even with all of this, I'll say again with utmost confidence--Kerry will get the most votes. We learned this last time with Gore. Kerry will get the most votes. I'm not saying he'll be inaugurated, but he'll get the most votes, despite all of this.

Because Kerry and Vietnam Veterans Against The War did the right thing in working to end the Vietnam War. Everyone knows it, even Karl Rove and George Bush. But the warmongers can't admit that, especially now, when we're embroiled in our own mistaken war. Bush can't afford to have people questioning that--not right when he's trying to get re-elected.

So the Republicans are treating Vietnam and opposition to Vietnam as a symbol for Iraq. Vietnam was necessary and opposition was wrong, they say, knowing that the unwashed will pick up on the signal that that's the way to feel about Iraq, also. And just like Vietnam, Bush isn't doing the right thing in Iraq...He is a disgrace and so are all who vote for him.

OUTRAGE IS THEIR SPECIALTY a vote for Bush is a vote for Satan himself...

Let's see if this story about Bush's ditching of National Guard service makes it onto "Hardball" or "Hannity & Colmes" or "Crossfire" or any show that would bring it to the public's attention. If not, it should be proof enough that the media are not only not liberal, they are completely
derelict in their duty to be impartial and are out to get Kerry (just like they
were out to get Gore).

After all, all of the above shows have covered, recovered, analyzed and
re-analyzed the Swift Boat "controversy" over and over, when all official
records support Kerry's story. In contrast, none of the official records
support Bush's story. But I bet this story will just be allowed to die.

Although there are plenty of sites devoting a lot of energy to this subject, such as:

The AWOL Project

The AWOL Letters

AWOL Scandal

Watched "Hardball" tonight with the head of Texans For Truth and some smug Republican Congressman from Texas...and what struck me about the Congressman's defense of Bush is that in essence, his argument and the Republican party's argument boils down to this: Bush was given an honorable discharge, so it's all good. End of story.

Why, they say, should we go on and on about whether Bush was in Texas or Alabama during this time or that? Why should we take the word of a few people who were in either place about whether or not he served with honor over 30 years ago? After all, Mr. Bush got an honorable discharge. That's the essence of the Republican defense of Bush's piss-poor Guard service.

If it's good enough for the goose...

Well, John Fuckin' Kerry also received an honorable discharge and in fact received a medal for each of Demonic Dick Cheney's deferments. So why do the Republicans insist that we should go on and on about whether Kerry was in Cambodia or not? Why do they insist that we should listen to 250 soldiers (the vast majority of whom weren't around to witness Kerry's medal-winning incidents) about whether or not Kerry served honorably over 30 years ago? Why is Kerry's honorable discharge not allowed to cover any sins he may or may not have committed?

Well, for one thing, it's because Republicans are evil. The standards they apply to everyone else don't apply to them. And all of this will come out after the election. There'll be some buried stories in all the major newspapers about how, yes, Kerry really did serve honorably and deserved all his medals and Bush was a shirker. But, hey, you know, Bush just ran the better cover-up operation and shrewdly attacked the Democrat on his strong points. It may have been dirty, the stories will say, but hey, that's our political culture.

Yes, I said Republicans are evil

And they don't care about the average person, you, me, our mommies, our babies, or anything. They care about one thing and one thing only: profit. They know Kerry and the Democrats will raise their taxes, thereby eating into their precious profits. Not that the Democrats don't also suckle at the corporate teat, they just think a fat and happy middle class helps keep the system more orderly. If the Republicans want to keep going ahead with their master plan to impoverish everyone but the top 1% of the population, then so be it, but they'll soon find themselves at the business end of the pitchforks of the poor revolutionaries they will have created and of the devil himself.

And One More Thing

And I was gonna say some more stuff about some other things, but that'll do for now... except for, when Dreadfully Dangerous and Demonically Disastrous Dick said that we should "make the right choice" in November, I took it to mean that he was encouraging us to vote for Kerry.

Because who was in office when "the worst tragedy in American history" occurred? George W. (for Wimpy, Wasted, Washed-up, We-tarded, Waffler, Womanly, Wfucked-up-motherfucker) Bush!! He already let us "get hit" once! Does he think that the "American people" want to give him the chance to ignore more intelligence that he may get in the future that spells out a terrorist's intentions along the lines of "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S."?

Hey America! 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch! Don't be a dumbass! Don't vote for this guy! He thought Iraq had WMD (or at least told us he thought they did)! Don't let them tell you "everybody thought he had WMD!" Scott Ritter didn't! Hans Blix didn't, and he was the one on the fuckin' ground in fuckin' Iraq looking for them!

I mean, for a guy whose father was head of the CIA, George W. (Wuss, Wanker, Whore) Bush cannot get the intelligence thing right. That's two instances of bungled intelligence--9/11 and Iraq. And those are just two of the ones we know about.

This is what the fuckin' Republicans do--they take their weaknesses and not only don't cop to them, they claim them as strengths! And we (and our press corps) let them!

It's a brilliant strategy, but only as long as people say, "Well, we have to trust our President and be faithful" or whatever the fuck Britney Spears said. They just deny, deny, deny. They tell the big lie and get people who are on the radio and TV every minute of every day to deny, deny, deny for them and suddenly it somehow becomes the truth.

OK, I'm almost done

But the truth is this--Bush was warned about terrorists wanting to hit America at least a month before it happened. And then he sat in a Florida classroom for seven minutes after he was informed that it was happening. And then he claimed a country that the rest of the world knew to be a complete weakling was the gravest threat to us. And that he could prove it--he knew where the WMD were. And then he's WASTED hundreds of billions of dollars of your money and my money and thousands of lives on it--and, whoops, come to find out, no WMD, no links to Al Qaeda, just a lot of sand and Iraqi prisoners for us to torture.

And then his people imply that they're the right choice for keeping us safe from anything? Who the fuck is gonna keep us safe from them? I swear, if Bush wins, it means that this country will have been given over to the idiots, the perverts, the unschooled, and most of all, the predatory rich...

Except for this one other point

And why does everybody keep saying Bush is so "likable?" And why does anyone care if the president is likable? Supposedly the "American people" care deeply about whether or not their politicians are likable.

I would rather the president was the most intelligent being on earth. I couldn't give a fuck about his personality. As long as he knows what's best for the country and gets it done, I couldn't give two shits about whether the president is "likable." Yes, it would be nice if the president could be both super-intelligent AND likable, but if it has to be one or the other, I will take the super-intelligence.

That's why I'm voting for Kerry, by the way. Compared to Bush, Kerry is super-intelligent. And supposedly Bush is so very, very likable and normal and just like us--he can't talk right, and his sentences are all jumbled and he misspeaks all the time and doesn't read newspapers and can't pronounce words right and doesn't understand concepts very well and has a potty mouth and plays at religion and comes across as normal as your next-door neighbor, etc.

Well, would any of us want our next-door neighbor running the country? I think the vast majority of the country shudders at that thought. That's why people like John Kerry exist--accomplished, well-spoken, brave, degreed, published, fair, and in every way superior to George W. Bush.

On paper, it's no comparison. Kerry kicks Bush's ass. But then you get Bush's little "heh, heh aw shucks" routine and everybody talks about how likable he is while Kerry towers over his every achievement. I mean, Kerry's never been elected President, but then neither has Bush...


And with that crude blow, I bid you adieu...yeah, that's French, motherfucker...

CHENEY IS A DICK a vote for Bush is vote against all humanity...

See Dick campaign.
See Dick impugn.
Impugn, Dick, impugn.
Dick can impugn with impunity.


Dick is a dick.
Don't vote for him.
His lies are responsible for at least 1,000 deaths.

Why would you vote for such a bad, bad man?

CHENEY IS A DICK a vote for Bush is vote against all humanity...

See Dick campaign.
See Dick impugn.
Impugn, Dick, impugn.
Dick can impugn with impunity.


Dick is a dick.
Don't vote for him.
His lies are responsible for at least 1,000 deaths.

Why would you vote for such a bad, bad man?

CHENEY IS A DICK a vote for Bush is vote against all humanity...



See Dick campaign.
See Dick impugn.
Impugn, Dick, impugn.
Dick can impugn with impunity.


Dick is a dick.
Don't vote for him.
His lies are responsible for at least 1,000 deaths.

Why would you vote for such a bad, bad man?

STICKER THIEVES a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

So my band played a gig this weekend at a really swank deer camp in bum-fuck this weekend. After traveling 10 miles (more or less) on perilous muddy red dirt roads that were built up out of the cotton fields they cut through, we arrived at the remote location.

Of course, with the topsy-turvy way things are today, what with 9/11 having ripped a hole in the space-time continuum and what have you, when you go out in the middle of nowhere in Yazoo County, Mississippi (home of big fat "governor" Haley Barbour), you know people are gonna worship three things (besides a lily-white Jesus): 1) guns 2) more guns and 3) the Republican party.

So I pull my muddy van down the muddy hill and leave it there for the duration of the 5.5 hour gig. That's right, five hours and change we played for these moonshine-swillers, who were actually very cordial. To our faces.

Where's John Kerry?

So during a break I had to get something out of the van and notice that my giant John Kerry sticker has been removed. There is also "fuck" written in the filth that I recently acquired from driving through the mud above where the sticker had been, as though some mischievous soul thought it would simply be enough to have people (mainly me, I guess) read my back window as "Fuck John Kerry." But one of the bolder ones probably decided that wasn't enough and then ripped the sticker right off my window.

They also removed my "Bush Lied, Thousands Died: Impeach Bush" sticker, and then later, my "Rock Against Bush" sticker. And then, they drew the Grateful Dead's "Steal Your Face" logo. Which strikes me as odd--while I don't know of the Dead ever really taking a political stance, I have a feeling they didn't and don't vote Republican.

Well anyway, I didn't really appreciate the removal of the stickers, but I do like the fact that at least these fellow Mississippians aren't illiterate--they knew enough to realize my stickers didn't say "George W. Bush." And it's also a nice thought that the stickers bothered them so much that they couldn't just leave them there, they had to take them off.

What the removal means

If it's true, as everyone seems to be saying now after the Republican convention, that Bush has double-digit leads in the polls and is all but invincible, why bother taking off the stickers?

I mean, if Bush is so kickass and so clearly dominant, why take the trouble to peel off some John Kerry stickers? And that's another thing--the stickers were peeled of very cleanly (except for the "Impeach Bush" one--they left a little corner). Wouldn't it be better to let me drive down the road with a giant loser's name attached to my car? Wouldn't that be more of an insult to me since Bush is going to win without question, and I'm shilling for the obvious loser with my sticker there for everyone to see and therefore I'm a loser by association?

Well, the reason they had to take the stickers off is because none of that is true. Bush is the loser, he's the one with no credentials, he's the one on whose watch 9/11 occurred. He's the one who sat endangering children's lives on that day, "projecting scared-shitlessness" (I mean, "projecting calm"). He's the one who was too chickenshit to shoot out his eardrum or volunteer for service in 'Nam.

Fuck him. And fuck anyone who votes for his sorry ass, because they're the ones who are voting for the downfall of this great country. And I hate to say that, because there are some people in my family who are voting for him, but they have got to wake the fuck up. Bush and the Republicans are jerking them around, taking them for a ride, whispering Bible verses like sweet nothings in their ears while stifling science, redistributing wealth to the rich, letting more people go without health insurance, and slowly but surely erasing our civil liberties.

OK, that's enough...

A great name for a metal band: GRINDSTAFF. Apparently that's someone running for some office in Yazoo or perhaps Madison county.

DEAR BABY JESUS... a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

As my friend Emily would say, dear baby Jesus is this a cluster-fuck of propaganda and disinformation. And by this I mean the Republican national convention, which I spent with Sam Seder and Janeane Garofalo on Air America's "The Majority Report."

My wife and I participated in the Great American Shoutout...I didn't hear anybody else yelling, but I saw some figures across the street that had to have heard us...

And when I say it's a clusterfuck of propaganda and disinformation, I say that because...

1. No mention of the one that got away--OBL.

2. Claims that economy is stronger because of his tax cuts. I was going to say "economic policy" instead of "tax cuts" but "economic policy" is not very descriptive of Bush's redistribution of wealth to the top.

3. And speaking of how well the economy is not doing, why, just today it was announced that second quarter productivity estimates were too high at 2.9% and had to revised downward to 2.5%.

And so on.

What The Matter With You?

If you haven't yet bought, downloaded, borrowed, checked out, stolen, photocopied, or just sat at the bookstore and read "What's The Matter With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank, you are really missing out. I have just begun to get to the really good part, and I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but if you've ever wondered why people who are hurt the most by Republican policies are the ones who seem to be the most dedicated and vocal Republican supporters, this is the book for you.

Basically, Franks' argument (from what I've read so far, anyway) is that the conservative movement, which he refers to as "the backlash" in the book, has drained economics from its critiques of politics and focused only on cultural issues. In other words, by focusing conservative true believers on opposition to say, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and averting their eyes from how tax cuts lead to cuts in social services and large deficits and so forth, backlash leaders allow the creeping corporate fascism in the door a little bit more every year.

Which, now that I read my understanding (again, I haven't finished the whole book) of the basic premise of the book, it doesn't seem that profound, but when you read it, you will experience its profundity.

For me, the money quote (so far) is on p. 121:

"While most of us think of politics as a Machiavellian drama in which actors make alliances and take practical steps to advance their material interests, the backlash is something very different: a crusade in which one's material interests are suspended in favor of vague cultural grievances that are all-important and yet incapable of ever being assuaged.

Which of course basically renders my appeal to self-interest in my epigram on every entry useless, but I shall soldier on.

Why I'm Voting For Kerry


I don't have time to write this right now, but I intend to go through the reasons I'm going to vote for Kerry and put them in writing in the best way I can. Not necessarily because anyone cares to read why I'll vote for Kerry, but it will help me when I have to defend my preference on an upcoming visit with my parents and when I go out and try to talk to people about why they should vote for Kerry. So hopefully something along those lines will appear here in the near future.

Although I could quickly sum it up right now--Kerry ain't Bush and Nader can't win. But that's oversimplified and the Limbaugh types would try to use that against me to say that I don't really even like Kerry, and that's just how fake and empty "the libs" are--they'll vote for someone they don't even like out of spite. And that's not true, there's plenty to like about Kerry.

And his rebuttal speech to Bush's hogwash was pretty damn hot...it looks he's getting ready to BRING...IT...ON...

WAR IS PEACE, HATE IS COMPASSION, AND SO ON a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself…

So today’s Republican message at the convention (or as Air America is calling it--the "Republican National Debacle") is “compassion.” I don’t know if I’ve written about this yet or not on this blog, but here goes. As a general rule, whenever people have to spell out something and repeat it over and over, the truth is the opposite of what they’re saying.

Example: “Fox News, fair and balanced.” This slogan doesn’t come up every hour or so in just a quick graphic with some hip music in the background, like a mandatory FCC ID. No, they beat you over the head with it--every host or newsreader says it going out of every segment into commercial on top of the ID every hour. They all say they are "fair and balanced" several times during a given program.

Therefore, it is not true.

CNN is not quite as bad, but their slogan is “CNN: The most trusted name in news.” Says who? The fact that they try to make trustworthiness part of their marketing identity lets me (and now you) know that they aren’t trustworthy at all. I mean, news networks are by definition supposed to be fair and balanced and trustworthy, and for these organizations to take pains to paint themselves that way is precisely because they’re aware of one or both of two things: 1) they know they don’t live up to those qualities, or 2) they’ve been told they don’t live up to those qualities.

One more example: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. I mean, that's so laughably transparent that it's not even worth discussing.

Compassionate Conser-fascism

And that brings me to my point. The same principle holds true for political parties, especially the Republicans. Tonight’s theme is “compassion” and all the pundits are speaking warmly and wistfully of the days of yore four years ago when Bush used that slogan to great effect and assure us yokels that he really means it.

So what tonight is really about is getting away with ripping people off. Tonight is supposed to provide cover for illegal, immoral pre-emptive wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, anti-labor deregulation, the decline in the ranks of the insured, and the increase in those living in poverty. Us rubes are supposed to be just out of it enough that all we remember is to connect three things: 1) G. W. Bush 2) the term "conservative" and 3) compassion.

When your job gets shipped overseas, just thank sweet Jesus that our president is a compassionate conservative.

When you're lucky enough to get a job in fast-food manufacturing and can't afford health insurance or even prescription drugs for your family, thank our Lord in heaven that we don't have a liberal, abortionist wacko for a president. No, no we have the great George W. Bush, and why, he's a compassionate conservative.

When you finally break down after years of slipping on stray grease at Whataburger and can't work anymore because your back "done give out" but no disability checks are available because we "can't afford" to give health care to every American because we're spending our billions in a "war on terror" that even the president doesn't think we can win after antagonizing the "evil ones" to begin with. But you know what? You'll have a good ol' compassionate conservative running our country. Straight into the ground.

But I Digress...

As I was saying, look for Bush to do the opposite of what he says he's doing. He says he's protecting us from terror, meanwhile our antagonization of Iraq has only brought terrorists to Iraq that weren't there to begin with and helped radicalize young Muslims to consider giving terrorism a try.

Again--Bush generally does the opposite of what he says he's doing. That is, unless he's promising his big donors that he will provide them "relief" from "excessive" regulation and "burdensome" taxation.

Senator Tom Harkin said it well in this piece, to which I've already linked above:

To understand what the Bush administration is really up to, it pays to watch what it does, not what it says.

What happened on "Hardball"?

I was half-watching the lame "Hardball" from today, but I happened to look up right as someone was being tackled onscreen and then Matthews later referred to someone trying to attack him. Someone hip me to what happened...

Ride The Blinds

Heard a kickass new band at the end of last week. They're called Ride The Blinds and they're from California. I wrote them an email to tell them how much I dug their record, and I came up with the only comparison that springs to mind right now--like Jimmy Page playing with the Dexateens.

And thanks, Democratic Underground, for linking to me!!!

"I DON'T THINK YOU CAN WIN IT" a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

Bush said today that he doesn't think we can "win" the "war on terror." Well--no shit, Sherlock.
Then even more amazingly, Wesley Clark argues that we can "win" the "war on terror." He said "I believe this war is winnable -- we won the Cold War," he said.

Jesus H. Christ, how are we in this mess? Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com has it right--9/11 must have ripped a hole in the space-time continuum and hurled us into a bizarro world where up is down, down is up, Democrats are pro-war, and Republican generals are going Democrat(which I guess makes sense if the Democrats are now pro-war).

None of this makes a bit of sense--Bush says we can't win but still must fight, Democrats say we can too win and therefore still must fight. When can we stop fighting, for fuck's sake? Not until we change our belligerent, hypocritical foreign policy, that's when. Charley Reese, as usual, tells it like it is on that matter, here.

I mean, if it's true as Bush says that the reason terrorists attack us is because they hate our democracy and our freedom, is that why he's trying to take that away from us? Could it be that Bush really does want the so-called war on terror to end and in his fucked-up mind really believes that "terrorists" hate freedom and that since we can't win the war on terror, the only way to get them to leave us alone is to get rid of our freedom?

Antiwar Blues

I wanted a candidate who was unequivocally against the war. The majority of the protestors I saw on C-Span's coverage of yesterday's protest seemed to want that too. But our only hope of getting rid of warmonger Bush is to replace him with slightly less warmongering Kerry. I do like Kerry, but I of course don't agree with everything he says--but, he's our only real option. I just wish that weren't so. But that's who I'm voting for, by God.

Speaking of Kerry and Bush both being warmongers, I watched a few minutes of VH1's "The Fabulous Life" and the episode basically pitted Bush against Kerry in conspicuous consumption. They talked about Kerry's $12,000 bicycles and Bush's $14,000 suits and then I just couldn't take anymore.

I mean, how obscene is it to parade these guys' wealth in such a boorish, starfucking manner when the number of people living in poverty and without health insurance increases by a million or more a year (even though apparently poverty in my state decreased ever so slightly--don't try to take credit for that, Whaley)?

How obscene is it for these guys (or anyone) to be that wealthy in the first place? It reminds me of a really good quote I ran across last night in "What's The Matter With Kansas" by Thomas Frank. I'll sign off with that (p.47):

"Growing up here [Mission Hills] teaches the indelible lesson that wealth has
some secret bond with crime--also with drug use, bullying, lying, adultery, and
thundering, world-class megalomania."

Oh, one more thing--watching "Gandhi" (speaking of wealth and the lack thereof) tonight and I liked the line when the priest gets on top of the train with the Indians and after confirming the priest's Christianity, one of the Indians says "I know a Christian--she drinks blood. The blood of Christ – every Sunday!"

HEY HEY HO HO GEORGE BUSH HAS GOT TO GO a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

Watched the big protest today on C-Span...it looked mighty peaceful to me. They had some catchy chants also...God, I wish I could be there...

And it struck me that, as cool as C-Span is anyway, the fact that it's just simply unedited TV is awesome. They don't edit out swearing, they don't edit out boring stuff--it's just like life...it is life. Brian Lamb is a genius...

Don't have much to say except this Ben Barnes video and story by Greg Palast all look very interesting and very incriminating. But will Chris Matthews talk about it? No. Why? I'm not sure. Yes, it could be dangerous for networks to air the "allegation" that as a favor to Bush Sr., Bush Jr. was in fact placed in the National Guard as a pilot over thousands of other applicants because it would invite lawsuits and the networks don't care for that.

But it seems to me that this Swift Boat stuff is exactly the same and the crap that they are accusing Kerry of is in fact directly contradictory to contemporaneous military records. But all the pundit shows blather endlessly on about that situation, when everyone knows that what the Swift Boat Liars are saying is untrue. So why won't they book Ben Barnes and Greg Palast on Hardball and Hannity and Colmes and Washington Journal and see how the doctrinally unfair righties like a left hook?

FUCK THE POOR a vote for Bush is against yourself...

So read this:

The nation’s poverty rate rose for a third straight year in 2003 and the ranks of the uninsured swelled, the Census Bureau said Thursday in a report sure to fuel election-season debate over President Bush’s handling of the economy.


Although the economy completed a second full year of expansion in 2003 after a recession that ended in November 2001, median household income just barely kept up with inflation and was statistically unchanged at about $43,300, the bureau said.

The number of people living in poverty rose by 1.3 million to 35.9 million people, or 12.5 percent of the population, up from 12.1 percent in 2002.

This is "compassionate conservatism?" This is "turning the corner?" This is evidence of a growing economy and job creation?

No.
It isn't.
It's the complete opposite of all those things.
It is failure--it signals the rise of mean-spirited, anti-Christian, corporate fascism.

That's why I wrote this tune a few months ago, as a decoder of sorts for the right-wing rhetoric (with apologies to the Dead Kennedys):

FUCK THE POOR (copyright 2004, Clinton Kirby-BMI)

1. When they say we're going to war
When they ruled on Bush v. Gore
When they say "end the war on poverty"
You realize how cruel they can be

What they mean is "Fuck The Poor"
"Fuck 'em 'til they are no more"

2. When they say it's a WTO decree
When they say we'll rule compassionately
When they say gotta open up Brazil
When they say free trade is God's will

What they mean is "Fuck The Poor"
"Fuck 'em 'til they are no more"

3. When they say gotta kill the New Deal
You have to ask can they be for real
When they say gotta work for what you get
That's how you know they're full of it...

Because what they mean is "Fuck The Poor"
Fuck 'em 'til they are no more"

WOW...I TALKED TO ONE... a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

I got home this evening and my wife told me I had a message from a person neither one of us knew. When I listened to the message, I figured the gentleman (who sounded like he'd seen some years) was calling to take me to task for the following letter to the editor, which appeared today in our local paper:

The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" should be more accurately named "Swift Boat Veterans for Selective Quotation."

In their new television ad, they have a tape of Kerry saying the words, "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," and then an offended Vietnam veteran appears onscreen to admonish Kerry for those words.

But what the ad's selective quotations leave out is that Kerry was paraphrasing honorably discharged, decorated Vietnam veterans who had testified that these rapes and decapitations happened. Kerry was not accusing these soldiers of anything. In fact, in their statements to which he refers, they themselves admitted to the rapes and decapitations.

Kerry was referring to the statements of these soldiers in his 1971 testimony to the Senate; he wasn't saying anything about them that they hadn't said about themselves.

But you don't have to believe me, just go to a search engine and type in "John Kerry testimony April 22, 1971," and you will get a transcript (C-Span has it in its entirety). You will see that in the Swift Boat veterans' latest ad, they are trying to create the impression that Kerry was accusing his fellow soldiers of something horrible, when in fact anyone who actually reads the statement will see that he did no such thing.

In fact, if you read it, you will learn that Kerry's antiwar group had a lot of support from soldiers in combat at that time.

Finally, given the statements made by the soldiers Kerry paraphrased, Kerry and his group were right and in fact had a moral duty to work to end the Vietnam War. And he had every right to speak up about it because he volunteered to go there and was decorated for his service.

He was calling in reference to the letter, but he was calling to express solidarity with my sentiments! He went on to say that he had been a long-time Republican, but Bush had changed his mind! I talked to an actual former Republican--or at least a Republican for Kerry! I had heard tall tales about them and their disgust with Bush, but I thought such people were an urban myth--too good to be true!

He himself is a veteran of Korea, and he has no stomach for the way the Swift Boat Liars are trying to discredit Kerry. He went on about that and related how he had written several letters to the editor himself (one in response to the father of a high school friend of mine), even as recently as two weeks ago.

Broken Camel's Back

The gentleman said that the final straw for him was Bush's Medicare card fiasco. Being in his early seventies, this man qualifies for Medicare and is offended by the ruse of the prescription drug "benefit". He pointed out how prescription drug costs had gone up at 3.4 times the rate of inflation in the first quarter of 2004, essentially negating any savings from Bush's plan. He actually said "Bush isn't for me, he's for the pharmaceutical companies!"

My new friend didn't like the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq, either. He said, "One or two kids a day are coming home in body bags, and none of them are named 'Bush'--they're all 'someone else's kid.'" He also felt that Bush and Cheney's sensitive handling of the Najaf situation was tying the hands of the troops and he agreed with me that even though it's not popular to say it, that situation is like Vietnam all over again.

He doesn't like our new governor, either. He said Haley Barbour is "a joke!" He said that Barbour will be lucky if people don't end up harming him physically! He is contemplating putting a sign in front of his house that says "Screw W. and Haley--I'm voting for someone else if that's the best you can do!"

I mean, this guy was amazing! He said a friend of his told him that he wouldn't vote for Kerry because Kerry is "unfit to serve." He told the friend to go watch the Swift Boat ad and then read the transcript to get just how out of context Kerry's remarks are being taken. He said the friend hasn't yet emailed him back.

The gentleman said that he wants to educate himself rather than be spoonfed all the crap from the Republican goon squad. He said that since 2000, Bush has lost four votes--his daughter and son-in-law, his son, and himself. He said his son has always been a Democrat and told him "Dad, you just don't get it--Bush is not helping you." He finally took his son's words to heart when he saw the crazy things Bush has been doing.

Simply amazing...I've never received such a call. The fact that he took the trouble to look up my phone number and actually call me...Kerry on!

"HE'S MADE THIS THE CENTRAL THEME OF HIS CAMPAIGN"

Buchanan just defended the Nixon White House on Scarborough Country and made the claim for about the 10,000,000,000,000,000th time that Kerry's 'Nam reocrd is fair game because he's made it the central issue of his campaign. But, say Buchanan and his fellow travelers, Bush has not done the same.

Wrong.

Bush made his own military service a campaign issue the second he declared his illegal war on Iraq. And he deserted. Went AWOL. Got special consideration to get in and special consideration to get out. It is shameful the way his spokesmen throw up their hands and say "Gee, who are we to trample on the constitutional rights of veterans--what they're doing is perfectly legal and we have nothing but utmost respect for John Kerry's noble service." They only trample on the constitutional rights of "terrorists" who are American citizens, holding them without charges or allowing them to see an attorney, and so forth.

John Kerry VOLUNTEERED for Vietnam. Bush did not. Nor did Cheney. Only in rightwing echo chamber America would some fat guys with a 35-year-old grudge (but whose noble service the Left-Handed Leftist respects utterly) be allowed to get away with this.

OK...They don't like ANTIWAR KERRY

One of the guys in the latest Swift Boat ad says "John Kerry gave the enemy for free what they tried to take from us in torture" or words to that effect. He says "Kerry demoralized us." If you're being tortured and held in a tiny cell in the Asian jungle, how is John Kerry demoralizing you? Did Charlie beat these guys with bamboo and then force them to listen to Kerry's testimony on the radio as further torture? Was Kerry's testimony even on the radio? Would American news even be broadcast into Vietnam on a frequency that VC could easily pick up? Could the VC risk tuning a radio into a frequency to pick up an American broadcast without giving away their position?

Antiwar John was trying to do everybody in Vietnam and the United States a favor--he was trying to help end a senseless war that by most accounts we should have never been fighting in the first place. He was trying to get hostilities to end so the POWs could be released. How in God's holy name is that demoralizing?

The New Swift Boat Veterans Ad

The new ad, debuted on cable news shows tonight, is highly disingenuous--in fact, it's perfidious in the way it "quotes" Kerry's testimony before Congress in which he said:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several
months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably
discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of
command....

OK, pay attention here, because that paragraph above is very important and is always left out by rightwingers when they bring up the next paragraph. When you read the next paragraph, remember that Kerry is paraphrasing what "over 150 honorably discharged...veterans testified to." PAY ATTENTION--Kerry is not making the accusations that follow himself--he is quoting OTHER PEOPLE.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped,
cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot
at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle
and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and
very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this
country.

ONCE AGAIN--Kerry is PARAPHRASING what other people said. Yes, it helps his antiwar argument, but Kerry himself IS NOT making these accusations. But when you see the new Swift Boat ad, you will hear Kerry's voice saying the words that come up on the screen devoid of context.

For example, the ad shows a picture of Kerry before the Senate, and you hear his voice saying "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads..." and though I can't remember exactly what the narration is, it gives the impression that Kerry is accusing the soldiers who then appear in the ads of these horrible things.

But you can see for yourself that that is not at all what Kerry said--not in letter or spirit. These Republican types are scarily good at this sort of smear. They know most people will not take the time to look up Kerry's actual statement and will just shake their heads in disbelief at how Kerry could say such a thing about his fellow soldiers. BUT HE DIDN'T.

Here's another quote from Kerry's Senate testimony that you don't hear about--soldiers in combat, under fire, SUPPORTING Kerry. Not everyone likes the fantasy of a Buchanan or a Hannity (neither of whom served in the military) of the noble soldier who only wants to fight to the last, no matter the lack of righteousness of the cause, in blind obedience to his country's leaders. That is fascism. There were then (and are now) soldiers who don't wish to fight anymore, especially after the realize the wrongheadedness of their mission:

...I don't want to get into the game of saying I represent everybody over there,
but let me try to say as straightforwardly as I can, we had an advertisement,
ran full page, to show you what the troops read. It ran in Playboy and the
response to it within two and a half weeks from Vietnam was 1,200 members. We
received initially about 50 to 80 letters a day from troops arriving at our New York office. Some of these letters -- and I wanted to bring some down, I didn't
know we were going to be testifying here and I can make them available to you --
are very, very moving, some of them written by hospital corpsmen on things, on casualty report sheets which say, you know, "Get us out of here." "You are the only hope he have got." "You have got to get us back; it is crazy." We received recently 80 members of the 101st Airborne signed up in one letter. Forty members from a helicopter assault squadron, crash and rescue mission signed up in another one.

Antiwar Then Vs. Antiwar Now

And make no mistake, all this rightwing yammering about how Kerry's service in Vietnam was noble, but it's "what he did afterward" that was so bad has a purpose for us in 2004. What Kerry "did afterward" was what many of us are trying to do right now--stop an illegal, unjust, and unnecessary war. And the rightwingers are saying tacitly, "See how we're sliming John Kerry? That's what you can expect. Hell, John Kerry actually fought in the war and we're still able to make him look bad--just think what we can do to you."

If anybody reads this, please forward it to everyone you can think of. I'm not saying it's the best essay on the subject or anything, but if you don't want to forward this particular essay, at least forward a link to the Kerry's statement so at least people can see what he actually said, not a selective edit of it. This Swift Boat smear campaign is a disgrace to our country, to our military, and to the next president of the United States.

PREDICTION a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

I will go on record as saying that John Kerry will get the most votes in the upcoming election. Will that make him the winner? That's harder to say, what with a majority of Republican governors (like our own senior-citizen-hating big fat Haley Barbour) and congresspeople. But just like Gore, Kerry will get the most votes. And hopefully that will translate into a win...

IN A TIME OF WAR a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

Listening to Mike Malloy on Air America this evening...I've developed a taste for him. He certainly is a passionate guy. I like his frequent references to the "Bush crime family."

Saw pieces of "Hannity & Colmes" tonight. Hannity promised a tribute video to liberal Democrats or some such. Anyway, he showed Tom Harkin calling Cheney a coward and Al Gore asking "How dare they?" and so forth (I'm sure there was more, but that's all I saw).

Then they cut to his smug, porcine face and he said something like--"Well, there you go. This is the liberal, strident Democratic party, engaging in the character assassination of a sitting president in a time of war while our troops are in harm's way. Remember this when you go into the voting booth" and blah blah blah.

Well, I got to thinking about it, and that phrase "in a time of war" sure has been used a lot by Republicans to heap shame and scorn on anyone with which they disagree. As in, "In a time of war, people shouldn't criticize the government," or "In a time of war, it's inappropriate to question the veracity of the commander-in-chief" and so on.

Which War?

But these creeps are using that phrase to invoke associations with WWII, a war in which we were attacked by Japan and then we declared war on Japan. In this war, Iraq did not attack us, could not attack us, and probably never would have because of the memory of the ass-kicking they received in 1991 (another war I didn't agree with). But Iraq is the country we fought and are fighting--even though we were attacked by Islamic extremists based in Afghanistan.

So my point is, the whole idea that one shouldn't criticize the leaders of our country "in a time of war" is somewhat defensible as impolite (but not illegal, immoral, or unconstitutional) if our country was attacked and then we had to lash out in self-defense against the country that attacked us. But when we are the ones picking the fight, being the bullies? The more criticism the better in that case.

And these chest beating jingos also want to connect this Iraq war with WWII in terms of nobility of purpose, saying that we're fighting against a vicious dictator who killed his own citizens and bringing freedom and sweet, sweet capitalism to their benighted souls.

But when it comes to casualties, they say that the Iraq war is nothing like WWII or lots of other really keen and popular wars. They point out that we've only just now had almost 1,000 casualties--we lost many more than that in Wars X, Y, or Z. George Will argued that in a column today.

So the Iraq war is exactly like WWII. Except that it isn't. Well which is it, you rat bastards? You keep telling John Kerry he can't have it both ways so you can't either!!!

Bloodshot Bill

Heard Bloodshot Bill today for the first time...if you check out his site, you really should download at least "Bloodshot Man"...what great lyrics-- "I been kicked outta school since the 6th grade/for cutting the teacher up with a switchblade" (I know it sounds bad, but when you actually hear it, you can hear his tongue in his cheek).

Looking forward to the new Camper Van Beethoven..."New Roman Times" I believe it's going to be called. Just read about that in the latest No Depression (the one with Willie Nelson on the cover).

Did I already say that the new Mooney Suzuki record kicks ass?

I'll leave you with this thought for the day:

"Dreams are free, motherfucker!"-The Minutemen

ROCK AGAINST BUSH Vol. 2 a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...
Got the new "Rock Against Bush" comp. at the station...The music is good but doesn't do a whole lot for me. The companion DVD is awesome, though. There are six political shorts, one of which features my new heroine Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. I'm not sure if what's included on the DVD is her "Independent Media In A Time Of War" in its entirety or if it's truncated, but what's there is awesome. There is a transcript of it here. Just to give you an idea of its brilliance, here's an excerpt from the transcript about Iraq war coverage:

AMY GOODMAN: You have not only Fox, but MSNBC and NBC, yes owned by General Electric, one of the major nuclear weapons manufacturers in the world. MSNBC and NBC as well as Fox titling their coverage taking the name of what the pentagon calls the invasion of Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. So that's what the pentagon does and you expect that, they research the most effective propagandistic name to call their operation. But for the media to name their coverage what the
pentagon calls it. Everyday seeing Operation Iraqi Freedom you have to ask, if
this were state media how would it be any different?

Wow...one more for good measure...

AMY GOODMAN: For awhile in talks before the invasion, I've been saying as we see the full page pictures of the target on Saddam Hussein's forehead that it would
be more accurate to show the target on the forehead of a little Iraqi girl
because that's who dies in war. The overwhelming majority of people who die are innocent civilians. And then what happens on the first night of the invasion?
Missile strikes a residential area in Baghdad. They say they think they've taken
out Saddam Hussein. Independent reporter May Ying Welsh who stayed their as the
bombs fell, who you heard on Democracy Now! on a regular basis, went to the
hospital right after that first attack and there was a four-year-old girl
critically injured from that missile attack and her mother critically injured
and her mother's sister. That's who dies, that's who gets injured in war. Ghandi asking, you know when he was asked what do you think of Western civilization? He said I think it would be a good idea.

The Greg Palast and Robert Greenwald film excerpts on the 2000 election are very good (in one of them, Vincent Bugliosi describes the five majority justices in Bush v. Gore as "criminals in every sense of the word" who should be behind bars). Patton Oswalt's apocalyptic comedy routine is obscenely hilarious.

The Revolution Starts...

Played "F The CC" from the new Steve Earle album "The Revolution Starts Now" on my program today. A listener called and expressed her dissatisfaction that our station would play such a song. Now to be fair, the song does say "fuck" about twenty times. But in the edited version I played, the word is very carefully and totally bleeped out. The listener said "Your station is better than that. That's why I listen to you and not to other stations that play that kind of stuff all the time." I thanked her for her comment...

But for Pete's sake, when did adults get so damn sensitive? I mean, "fuck" is just a word. It only has as much power over a person as that person lets it have. How do people with such delicate sensibilities expect to get through life? You're going to hear someone swear at some point--are you gonna shrivel up and wither away upon hearing it or are you gonna be tough? I mean, come on...

Not only that, but whatever one thinks of him, Steve Earle is a critically-acclaimed, challenging, straightforward artist and his music deserves to be played on the radio. No other station in this godforsaken town is going to play it, so that's why we will. Granted, we don't have to play that particular song, but I feel that our listeners want to hear such things because they've probably read about it and want to experience it for themselves.

KERRY KERRY QUITE CONTRARY PT. 2 ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

A little more on my smear ideas...

I know that some on the left might say that my suggestions to smear Bush are all fine and dandy, but they're just about little piss-ant issues. They might say that we should take him to task on bigger things, like the war, the deficit, etc.

Well, that would be nice, but it is better to stick with the piss-ant issues, because that's what the befuddled public can relate to. For example, everyone can relate to alcoholism, but most people have a hard time getting their head around federal budget numbers. That's why Bush's drunkenness makes for a better smear issue than his lying about the tax cuts helping the middle class.

OK, another thing...When this smear campaign gets going good, what should be done if a reporter or a TV host or radio interviewer tries to call us on something or bring up some pesky facts? What should be done is to defend your position. Defend it. Don't acknowledge that the person trying to harangue you might have a point. Defend your assertions even if the proof that you're being faced with is incontrivertible. People like to see someone who has the "courage of their convictions" even if they're dead wrong. Even your defense descends into nonsensical gibberish, defend it. Do not admit you're wrong.

Also, always accuse those who don't agree with you as partisan hacks, i.e. O'Reilly's attacks on Krugman on Russert's CNBC show recently. Don't be afraid to associate anyone who opposes you with history's worst political leaders. If someone says something openly right-wing, dismiss it immediately as partisan rubbish, which supposedly drains any statement of its validity. Interrupt the person if you can. Then say things like, "you would've loved living in Germany in the 30's, huh?"

After all, like the Daily Howler will tell you, the press corps is asleep. They won't or don't check facts, they just report what each candidate says--like a stenographer (I can't remember where I read this comparison, but I like it). That leaves any candidate--theirs or ours--to pretty much say what he wants without much hassle.

And so...

And it seems that the public as well as the media expect dishonesty and dissembling. Everyone decries it, but believe me, people want blood. If every candidate for office really went out of his or her way to be civil and rational, you'd start seeing snarky articles complaining about how much of a goody-goody everyone's being.

I mean, the press wants sensational claims--sensationalism gets viewers, or readers, or listeners. The press sells audiences to advertisers, that's their main function. We've all been led to believe that fearless journalists hound those in power for the truth. But alas, the reality is not so noble (there are exceptions, of course).

Vigorous, exhaustive documentation of the veracity of a candidate's claims can get tedious and wordy, and that turns off the casual audience member (which is most of the audience). If audience members get turned off, ad sales decline and media organizations lose money, which is of course unacceptable. So such pieces are not run, or not run very often, or not given much prominence. And then the smear campaign can very smoothly.

So let's get it on...

Oh, and one last interesting article about the history of Republicans and smear campaigns (the relevant section is "The GOP of 1936 and Today's Dirty Politics")...

Books And Music

I'm quite enjoying Carville's "Had Enough?"...

The Rolling Blackouts rock...really smart, inventive, garage rock...maybe Stooges crossed with Led Zep...

The Red Krayola's "Singles 1968-2002" has some really good stuff...if you like experimental, decade-and-genre-spanning music that has a logic unto itself...and/or if you're a fan of Beefheart or Hampton Grease Band...

KERRY KERRY QUITE CONTRARY ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

So Kerry takes the bait and says he wouldn't change his vote on this illegal war in Iraq even knowing that Iraq had no WMD...

Alas...he won't denounce the Swift Boat Motherfuckers For Evil (or hasn't yet), but he takes this challenge from Bush. What is he thinking? Is he actively trying to turn off his antiwar supporters? Is he actively trying to give Bushies more proof that he's a "flip-flopper?"

Maybe he thinks he's actually combatting the flip-flopping charge by reaffirming his Iraq war vote because he's being consistent now about his vote then. But now the Republican Noise Machine has moved on past "flip-flop" as the attack du jour and has moved on to accusing him of being too "nuanced." As in, "While Kerry is poring over every nuance of every decision, Bush is striding forward decisively." The grim Reaper-publicans are trying to paint nuance-divination as the polar opposite of gung-ho, ideological decisiveness.

How Elections Are Won

And unfortunately, that's how elections are won. That's how products are sold. Not by any carefully reasoned argument that is scrupulously sourced and expertly argued. Elections are won by meaningless sloganeering and simplifying. Coca-Cola is "the real thing" (as if other soft drinks are fake?) as much as George W. Bush is "a compassionate conservative," and so on.

That's what Democrats didn't have the hang of in 2000 and don't have the hang of now. Michael Moore has the hang of it--he said Bush was a deserter. Why should our side have to prove whether that's actually true or not? Just send surrogates on every cable program and have them say it over and over again, in response to questions related to the topic or not. Let Bush have to prove that he wasn't a deserter. The job of a campaign is to make the other guy have to defend the things he can't or would really rather not have to defend.

No, it isn't moral to do that. It's disgusting. But until further notice, that's how the game is played. You have to pick out 3 or 4 uncomfortable points about the opposing candidate and repeat them endlessly in every possible venue. It helps immensely if you can distill it into one folksy phrase--"flip-flopper," most liberal Senator," "war criminal," etc.

Now these charges may or may not be true in Kerry's case, but the truth of the charges has no bearing on the election. A campaign just has to make the public think such things are true until victory is certain, and then the truth will be quietly examined and published in the ensuing years.

I thought Kerry was going to "bring it on" and not let the Republiquors get away with any of this crap. It's probably a little late to begin a smear campaign against Bush, but better late than never. We're trying to win here, not get a "satisfactory" in deportment on our campaign report card.

Some Smear Suggestions

1. Bush was arrested for drunk-driving and was an alcoholic for many years by his own admission. Note: it always helps when a candidate has admitted to something, as Kerry did with "committing atrocities." Even if Bush has been sober for decades, the point is to hammer home that Bush was a lush, and that's addictive behavior. How may such proclivities manifest themselves in the future? Just put it out there--if Kerry committed atrocities, Bush was an alkie. Just say it over and over.

2. Bush was investigated by the SEC for his Harken stock sale. Therefore, he's an inside trader. Say it over and over. Remember, it's up to Bush to disprove it. The public has a right to know that he's an inside trader.

3. Bush flip-flopped on abortion. He used to be pro-choice. How can a true conservative Republican have ever been pro-choice? Was he telling the truth about his views then or now? Hard to say. Even if he protests that he's now pro-life, well gee, it's hard to trust the word of a flip-flopping, alcoholic, inside trader, isn't it. Because that's what he is. Take a lesson from Goebbels--God knows the Republicans have. And the lesson is: a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth in the minds of the public.

4. Bush is a deserter. He didn't finish out his National Guard service. He was grounded from flying because he didn't show up for a physical. His document dump on the subject was designed to make him look like he's transparent and has nothing to hide. It actually does nothing of the sort. The Dems tried to take up this cause for a while but got cowed too easily. Bring it back up and repeat it all the time.

5. Smear Republican funder Richard Mellon Scaife like O'Reilly does Soros. Over and over.

6. Bush is rich and powerful. He's out of touch with the American public.

And so forth...

There are others, send in suggestions. I gotta wrap up for now...if I have some time this evening, I'll try to think of some more.