I didn't know until this morning that the word "disassemble" means "to lie."
Especially endearing was the patronizing tone this smarmy know-it-all took when misinforming the assembled press corps.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Thursday, May 26, 2005
politics: TRMPAC troubles
Oh, goodness, what will my old neighborhood's representative, shameless right-wing toady John Shadegg do if TRMPAC goes down? They do seem to be taking on water.
How many more of these things do they have to decide/find/discover before they can actually do something with DeLay? I mean, this is getting serious.
How many more of these things do they have to decide/find/discover before they can actually do something with DeLay? I mean, this is getting serious.
Monday, May 23, 2005
misc: Blinding Flash of the Fricking Obvious
I swear, I had to look at the first couple of paragraphs of this article a couple of times before I was convinced it wasn't fake. But no, it ain't fake, just stupid.
"Mothers' genes contain bald truth about hair loss"
What gets me about this is that this is news. What gets me about this is that they had to do fancy-schmancy genetic research to find out what we've already known for decades and then they have the balls to try to pass it off as news.
OMFG, people are stupid.
Yes, OK, so the news in the story is that they actually figured out which genes do it. But you don't get to that till you're halfway through the story.
The lead is truly precious. "Sons have long blamed their fathers when they start balding prematurely ..."
I don't know about you, but whenever I've been at any sort of social gathering where someone hinted that he were becoming bald because of his father, or would lose his hair because of his father, or wouldn't because his father never did, that person has instantly been the subject either of polite education or outright ridicule. One wonders what moronic circles this writer moves in.
Maybe I'm just feeling mean this evening.
"Mothers' genes contain bald truth about hair loss"
What gets me about this is that this is news. What gets me about this is that they had to do fancy-schmancy genetic research to find out what we've already known for decades and then they have the balls to try to pass it off as news.
OMFG, people are stupid.
Yes, OK, so the news in the story is that they actually figured out which genes do it. But you don't get to that till you're halfway through the story.
The lead is truly precious. "Sons have long blamed their fathers when they start balding prematurely ..."
I don't know about you, but whenever I've been at any sort of social gathering where someone hinted that he were becoming bald because of his father, or would lose his hair because of his father, or wouldn't because his father never did, that person has instantly been the subject either of polite education or outright ridicule. One wonders what moronic circles this writer moves in.
Maybe I'm just feeling mean this evening.
Friday, May 20, 2005
personal: Oh, crap.
In searching for some more online information about a festival at which I'll be vending this weekend, the Prescott (AZ) Highland Games, I discovered something very alarming. The Stormfront White Nationalist Community will apparently be in attendance. I won't link to them -- I don't want to give them the traffic -- but you can probably figure it out.
I remember reading an article about a year or so ago saying that they were very actively recruiting at New England and East Coast Highland games. They've apparently spread out.
I remember reading an article about a year or so ago saying that they were very actively recruiting at New England and East Coast Highland games. They've apparently spread out.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
politics: Oh-so-close to slanderous
I think I may just reprint the entirety of this e-mail I got two days ago, also from the RNC (why is that all my rants these days seem linked to the right-wing misleadmail I'm always getting?). Note that it carefully avoids directly saying that the Democrats stole the Washington gubernatorial election. But note, also, that they don't actually say where they got their numbers, what they mean or how they compare to other elections that weren't disputed. But there's enough crap-slinging here that, really, it speaks for itself. Enjoy:
Dear Chris,
More and more reports are emerging of the extent to which Democrats were willing to go to try to influence the 2004 election.
Well, their tactics worked in Washington State.
Our Republican candidate for Governor, Dino Rossi, actually won the election. Then he won the recount.
Then Democrat-controlled King County "found" 566 new votes just in time for the second recount, enough to overturn the results of Election Day and the first recount.
The new result? Dino Rossi "lost" by 129 votes. But consider the following facts in Washington state;
Also, at least another 1,600 ballots are still in question:
Dino Rossi is fighting, and voters of good conscience from across this country should stand with him. For more info on Dino Rossi and his ongoing fight, please go to www.dinorossi.com.
Sincerely,
Michael DuHaime
RNC Political Director
Dear Chris,
More and more reports are emerging of the extent to which Democrats were willing to go to try to influence the 2004 election.
Well, their tactics worked in Washington State.
Our Republican candidate for Governor, Dino Rossi, actually won the election. Then he won the recount.
Then Democrat-controlled King County "found" 566 new votes just in time for the second recount, enough to overturn the results of Election Day and the first recount.
The new result? Dino Rossi "lost" by 129 votes. But consider the following facts in Washington state;
- 943 felons illegally voted
- 49 dead people voted
- 3 people voted in Washington and another state
- 2 illegal aliens voted
- 12 people voted multiple times
- 174 provisional votes were counted but later found to be cast people who had already voted or were unregistered
Also, at least another 1,600 ballots are still in question:
- 875 more absentee votes were cast in King County than there were absentee voters
- 95 more ballots in King County and 50 ballots in Whitman County were "found" after both recounts, and have never been counted
- At least 660 provisional ballots were improperly counted in King County.
Dino Rossi is fighting, and voters of good conscience from across this country should stand with him. For more info on Dino Rossi and his ongoing fight, please go to www.dinorossi.com.
Sincerely,
Michael DuHaime
RNC Political Director
politics: Zell Miller
The RNC was kind enough to alert me that Zell Miller has a new book out. Hurrah.
No, really, this is exciting! It's called A Deficit of Decency. I mean, this is fantastic! He's finally coming clean! He's admitting what a putz he's been! Really, it warms my heart.
...
What do you mean, that's not what he means?
*sigh*
No, really, this is exciting! It's called A Deficit of Decency. I mean, this is fantastic! He's finally coming clean! He's admitting what a putz he's been! Really, it warms my heart.
...
What do you mean, that's not what he means?
*sigh*
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
politics: George Galloway's statement (a public service)
Norm Coleman, Mr. Galloway would like to hand you your ass now. Read this in its entirety. It's important. After some digging, I found the transcript at commondreams.org, though it originated at Times Online:
"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defense made of his.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.
"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.
"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.
"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.
"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.
"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].
"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.
"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?
"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.
"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.
"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.
"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defense made of his.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.
"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.
"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.
"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.
"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.
"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].
"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.
"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?
"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.
"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.
"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.
"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
politics: Fundie hyperbole
Yes, kiddies, it's time for another installment of AFAmail!
This week's is headlined, "The Time Is Now! Phone Calls To Your U.S. Senators Have Never Been This Important! Call Today! Get Others To Call!"
"Never been this important." Every word capitalized. All those exclamation points. Wow.
In a similarly modest tone, the e-mail opens with the proclamation, "We have come down to the final days and hours in the fight for our destiny."
I'm sorry, but if your destiny hinges on breaking longstanding Senate rules about changing longstanding Senate rules to eradicate the longstanding Senate custom of unlimited debate, a standard carefully observed to ensure that the majority never steamrolls the minority and that the Senate takes every action with due deliberateness and regard for the opinions of all its distinguished members, so that you can ramrod a couple of judges who are so ludicrously outside the mainstream in terms of political allegiance and judicial temperament that they can't even garner significant support in a mostly right-wing Senate ... you really need to get out more.
*breathe*
Sorry for that last sentence.
"Call your two Senators today and ask them to vote to kill the filibuster. If they do not, only those nominees who would become a liberal activist judge will ever get a vote on the Senate floor."
Uh, yeah, right. How conveniently they ignore the 95% of Bush judicial nominees who've already been confirmed. Were they liberal activist judges, you morons?
OK, rant over. Except for the call to action that closes the letter:
"Get others to call. Give out this information at church, work and with other family members. Our children's and grandchildren's future is at stake."
If anyone tried politicking to me at work, they'd get a tongue-lashing the likes of which is very rare from me.
And church. These American Taliban are utterly shameless in their attempts to turn America into a theocracy. Shameless. God doesn't play politics, and you shouldn't play politics in God's house.
This week's is headlined, "The Time Is Now! Phone Calls To Your U.S. Senators Have Never Been This Important! Call Today! Get Others To Call!"
"Never been this important." Every word capitalized. All those exclamation points. Wow.
In a similarly modest tone, the e-mail opens with the proclamation, "We have come down to the final days and hours in the fight for our destiny."
I'm sorry, but if your destiny hinges on breaking longstanding Senate rules about changing longstanding Senate rules to eradicate the longstanding Senate custom of unlimited debate, a standard carefully observed to ensure that the majority never steamrolls the minority and that the Senate takes every action with due deliberateness and regard for the opinions of all its distinguished members, so that you can ramrod a couple of judges who are so ludicrously outside the mainstream in terms of political allegiance and judicial temperament that they can't even garner significant support in a mostly right-wing Senate ... you really need to get out more.
*breathe*
Sorry for that last sentence.
"Call your two Senators today and ask them to vote to kill the filibuster. If they do not, only those nominees who would become a liberal activist judge will ever get a vote on the Senate floor."
Uh, yeah, right. How conveniently they ignore the 95% of Bush judicial nominees who've already been confirmed. Were they liberal activist judges, you morons?
OK, rant over. Except for the call to action that closes the letter:
"Get others to call. Give out this information at church, work and with other family members. Our children's and grandchildren's future is at stake."
If anyone tried politicking to me at work, they'd get a tongue-lashing the likes of which is very rare from me.
And church. These American Taliban are utterly shameless in their attempts to turn America into a theocracy. Shameless. God doesn't play politics, and you shouldn't play politics in God's house.
Monday, May 16, 2005
politics: Idiots.
Newsweek retracts story on Koran under pressure.
Yes, the story sparked riots. And yes, people died. But you know what? I find their anger quite justifiable. Rioting, murder ... those things I can't abide. But here's what people seem to be missing: This is not a new story, and the story was accurate.
If people want to be angry, they should be angry with the people who defiled the Koran and the command structure that directed it. Find out how often this occurs and has occurred ... hundreds, maybe thousands of interrogators across the face of the globe didn't, simply and coincidentally, arrive at the same choice of tactic by accident.
When I think of what these people are doing in my name it makes me sick, it makes me feel defiled. It makes me very angry.
And bad luck to the spineless suits at Newsweek who lost their concern for the truth back around the same time they lost their souls.
Yes, the story sparked riots. And yes, people died. But you know what? I find their anger quite justifiable. Rioting, murder ... those things I can't abide. But here's what people seem to be missing: This is not a new story, and the story was accurate.
If people want to be angry, they should be angry with the people who defiled the Koran and the command structure that directed it. Find out how often this occurs and has occurred ... hundreds, maybe thousands of interrogators across the face of the globe didn't, simply and coincidentally, arrive at the same choice of tactic by accident.
When I think of what these people are doing in my name it makes me sick, it makes me feel defiled. It makes me very angry.
And bad luck to the spineless suits at Newsweek who lost their concern for the truth back around the same time they lost their souls.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
politics: Slacktivism
Oy vey. It's really been the week for e-petitions (and other chain letters, come to think of it). People really need to read this.
I've gotten that stupid name survey (I swear, somebody somewhere's got a list of everyone's first name on earth, listed twice). I've gotten that 'Dammit, Dubya, lower our gas prices!' one. I've gotten at least two of those get-to-know-your-friends things.
Then, thanks to my presence on right-wing-nutjob e-mail lists, I've gotten petitions from the RNC and the American Family Association.
Yes, the RNC, which you would think would know better, is trying to get people to sign an e-petition to get the Democrats to allow a vote on Priscilla Owen. It urges the Democrats to accept Bill Frist's 'compromise', about which I quote from the e-mail:
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has offered Senator Reid a compromise that would give Democrats 100 hours to debate each judge and then guarantee each judge a floor vote, but he continues to reject this common-sense offer."
It's like a 'Free Speech Zone' for senatorial debate. Rather than open-ended deliberation, Frist wants to force debate into a little razor-wired area which, though big, is still fenced in. After the debate (which, of course, the Republicans will little heed, even if they bother to attend), the cons get to force their judicial activists down the throats of an unsuspecting public. Yeah, that's compromise. How about reevaluating the nominations, eh?
Dumbasses.
And another thing. The e-mail makes much of how Priscilla Owens has had to wait "4 years or 1,460 days" for confirmation, and that it's too long to wait.
I know it's not exactly related, but how long has it been since Dumbya said he wouldn't rest till we captured Osama bin Laden "dead or alive"? Is it too long yet?
OK, so moving on to the AFA ... It's a petition to the 109th Congress relating to the Marriage Protection Amendment. I shan't belabor either the content or, well, my wide-ranging amazement, amusement and distaste for the American Familay Association.
Given the latest addition to the long-accumulating evidence that, in terms these people may understand, God made us this way for purposes beyond our understanding, how is it wrong for us to seek out love, fall in love, grow in love and want to declare our love in a lasting and meaningful way?
Explain how it's wrong without resorting to Biblical verses about sexual conduct that have about as much relevance as exhortations against women who wear red dresses in church or proclamations against pork and shellfish. Explain to me why my love is wrong, and where it says so in the Bible. I have yet to hear a good explanation that isn't fixated on sex.
If you can't find one, maybe you oughta think about that before telling me I'm not allowed to get married.
I've gotten that stupid name survey (I swear, somebody somewhere's got a list of everyone's first name on earth, listed twice). I've gotten that 'Dammit, Dubya, lower our gas prices!' one. I've gotten at least two of those get-to-know-your-friends things.
Then, thanks to my presence on right-wing-nutjob e-mail lists, I've gotten petitions from the RNC and the American Family Association.
Yes, the RNC, which you would think would know better, is trying to get people to sign an e-petition to get the Democrats to allow a vote on Priscilla Owen. It urges the Democrats to accept Bill Frist's 'compromise', about which I quote from the e-mail:
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has offered Senator Reid a compromise that would give Democrats 100 hours to debate each judge and then guarantee each judge a floor vote, but he continues to reject this common-sense offer."
It's like a 'Free Speech Zone' for senatorial debate. Rather than open-ended deliberation, Frist wants to force debate into a little razor-wired area which, though big, is still fenced in. After the debate (which, of course, the Republicans will little heed, even if they bother to attend), the cons get to force their judicial activists down the throats of an unsuspecting public. Yeah, that's compromise. How about reevaluating the nominations, eh?
Dumbasses.
And another thing. The e-mail makes much of how Priscilla Owens has had to wait "4 years or 1,460 days" for confirmation, and that it's too long to wait.
I know it's not exactly related, but how long has it been since Dumbya said he wouldn't rest till we captured Osama bin Laden "dead or alive"? Is it too long yet?
OK, so moving on to the AFA ... It's a petition to the 109th Congress relating to the Marriage Protection Amendment. I shan't belabor either the content or, well, my wide-ranging amazement, amusement and distaste for the American Familay Association.
Given the latest addition to the long-accumulating evidence that, in terms these people may understand, God made us this way for purposes beyond our understanding, how is it wrong for us to seek out love, fall in love, grow in love and want to declare our love in a lasting and meaningful way?
Explain how it's wrong without resorting to Biblical verses about sexual conduct that have about as much relevance as exhortations against women who wear red dresses in church or proclamations against pork and shellfish. Explain to me why my love is wrong, and where it says so in the Bible. I have yet to hear a good explanation that isn't fixated on sex.
If you can't find one, maybe you oughta think about that before telling me I'm not allowed to get married.
Friday, May 06, 2005
social issues: Yes, but are they still giving $20,000 a month to Ralph Reed?
Microsoft realized that promulgating discrimination is not a good business practice.
It just looks to me like they're trying to hold up a shiny object for people to focus on so they can continue consulting with bonafide nutjob Ralph Reed. But maybe I'm just needlessly cynical.
It just looks to me like they're trying to hold up a shiny object for people to focus on so they can continue consulting with bonafide nutjob Ralph Reed. But maybe I'm just needlessly cynical.
misc: Quote of the month
Bitove declared "the facts are `Stacked'" against Anderson and said he wanted her to be "kept fully abreast" of KFC's ethical practices.
What an incredibly suitable, if rude, way to be dismissive. I know nothing about the merits or lack thereof of the protest, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't ask Pamela Anderson to be a spokesperson for any cause in which I was involved.
On a related note, do straight men actually find this plastic bimbo attractive? I mean, seriously, she looks like a comic-book heroine whose body defies the laws of physics.
What an incredibly suitable, if rude, way to be dismissive. I know nothing about the merits or lack thereof of the protest, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't ask Pamela Anderson to be a spokesperson for any cause in which I was involved.
On a related note, do straight men actually find this plastic bimbo attractive? I mean, seriously, she looks like a comic-book heroine whose body defies the laws of physics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)