Hello 

Guest post by Jeanene Garofolo.

No one actually asked me to post here, but then again no one said I couldn't, so prepare to be Garofolized, rethuglicans!

What a surprise - the Chimp Executive Oaficer can't get his oversized head (or his undersized brain) around why it is that Muslims, who we all know are usually a peace-loving people, would actually lash out at the flocks of lilly-white Aryan sheep in the US and UK. How's this for an explanation: We're attacking them! What else can they do in the face of this regime's oppressive policies?

The whole f**king world hates us because the neocons pulling the strings of the BushCo hegemonistration decided that a good response to the events of 9/11 would be to bomb the shit out of any country that has substantial oil reserves, resists converting to their perverted fundamentalist version of Christianity, or pissed off one of their family members in the past. So they just pissed away all the goodwill and sympathy this country enjoyed on September 12, 2001. Way to go, tards.

All right, so maybe the purple-fingered zombies who voted in the rigged election in Iraq say they like us, but what else are they going to say? How honest would you be if some right-wing BushCo mouthpiece from Fox News shoved an electronic phallic symbol in your face, screaming questions at you while a trigger-happy American jarhead was standing just a few feet away with a loaded weapon?

And what about President Lame-Brain's domestic policies? Well, let's see - we have the so-called "Patriot" Act (talk about an Orwellian name - do you even know Orwell's work? Have you even seen 1984?), freedom of speech is now verboten. How else do you explain the the fact that Air America is having trouble getting sponsors?

Who said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"? Was it Orwell? I don't remember hearing that line, but it sounds like something right out of one of his screenplays. But here in Jesusland, dissent isn't allowed, so we're basically being deprived of our right to express our patriotism. And no, I'm not talking about phony, flag-waving "Oh this is the greatest country on earth" patriotism, I'm talking about hard-core dissent. I'm talking about letting people know just how much this country really sucks. Now that's patriotic.

So why can't you people see the solution? We just wait till we're attacked again - and you know we will be, the way we're pissing people off. But this time we don't do anything in retaliation. We just sit back and enjoy the goodwill. Then the real patriots launch a massive, coordinated show of patriotism by sticking it to the crooks in the White House as loudly and as often as possible. No holds barred, man - the stolen election, the ties to corporate criminals, the inescapable similarities to Hitler - we let it all hang out.

Think about it: Every country in the world will be standing in solidarity with us, one of the most patriotic - truly patriotic - and peaceful countries in the entire world.

With ideas like this, I should be the freaking president. Dream on, wingnuts.

Clear-Precise-and On Point

by L. Brent Bozell III
July 6, 2005

When Sandra Day O’Connor announced her intention to retire from the Supreme Court, Washingtonians gathered with one thought: the circus has come to town.

Reporters quickly assured viewers this "titanic battle" that is guaranteed to be knock-down, drag-out, wall-to-wall ugly. They didn’t wonder: why does this always happen with Republican nominations, but not Democratic ones? In 1993, President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was calmly approved by a vote of 96 to 3. In 1994, Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer, who was confirmed by a vote of 87 to 9. By contrast, all hell broke loose with Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, with 58 senators against the one, and 48 votes against the other. The same pattern occurs with Attorney General nominees: 42 votes against John Ashcroft, 36 against Alberto Gonzales, and zero against Janet Reno. Why?

It’s simple. Republicans have been willing to grant Democratic presidents their right to select nominees of their choice, while Democrats have used an explicitly ideological standard since the 1987 trashing of Robert Bork: if you’re conservative, you’re disqualified – period.

These Democrats are emboldened because on high-profile, non-electoral fights like this, liberal bias flies fast and furious in the newsrooms. A classic example can be found in the work product of staunchly liberal National Public Radio reporter Nina Totenberg, who has tried to ruin two conservative Supreme Court bids.

In 1987, she took a bitter ex-girlfriend’s diary and ruined Douglas Ginsburg’s nomination by forcing him to admit marijuana use at Harvard in the 1960s and 1970s, after which a parade of politicians from Gingrich to Gore admitted the same, with no career damage. (The Didn’t Inhale President came later.) In 1991, Totenberg took a bitter former employee (and according to some, wanna-be girlfriend) named Anita Hill and forced a new set of hearings around Hill’s unsubstantiated tales of sexual harassment by Thomas. But when Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick came forward with their (far more serious) charges against Bill Clinton, Totenberg’s compassion was nowhere to be found.

While partisans on both sides gear up for battle, everyone should acknowledge that the "mainstream" media are going to echo the sentiments of any liberal special interest group against whoever is nominated by President Bush. Even on the one relatively peaceful Republican nomination in recent times – Papa Bush’s awful 1990 selection of David Souter, now a solid liberal on the court – liberals in the press sounded now-comical alarms. Dan Rather panicked with Senator Paul Simon: "Is there any doubt in your mind that [Souter's] views pretty well parallel those of John Sununu's, which means he's anti-abortion or anti-women's rights, whichever way you want to put it?"

The most perverse form of media slant emerges when "reporters" warn that conservatives have a "litmus test" for nominees, implying liberals have never voted strictly on an ideological basis. Those massive Republican majorities for Ginsberg and Breyer (and Reno) ought to rebut the idea that Republican senators are "litmus test" voters, but the media are a Ted Kennedy echo chamber – boorish and predictable – on this issue.

In the first hours after O’Connor’s retirement, CNN political analyst Bill Schneider was already implying only the right used a litmus test. In a story using a graphic titled "A Litmus Test," Schneider recounted how Republicans want no more David Souters: "Conservatives were outraged when he turned out to support abortion rights. Many liberals denounce the idea that a nominee should have to pass a litmus test on the abortion issue." Then came Ted Kennedy, supposed litmus-test hater, who said with a straight face (and no CNN rebuttal): "I don't set up a litmus test for any particular nominees. I have voted for judges which have been pro-life." Unmentioned by Schneider: Kennedy voted not only against Thomas, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and so on, but also against supposedly "anti-women’s rights" Souter. (He was confirmed 90 to 9.)

In 1994, the Media Research Center’s Nexis research of the terms "litmus test" with "Supreme Court" in the three news magazines, as well as the Washington Post and New York Times, was eye-opening: 111 uses from 1987-1992, but only ten uses in Clinton’s time up to the Breyer confirmation process. Most of the disparity came from the newspapers: 54 to 3 in the Post, 44 to 5 in the Times. Translation: During the Reagan-Bush years, there was a defined ideological standard to be met by nominees. In the Clinton era, there was apparently no ideology to consider.

In 1994, Nina Totenberg sat with anchor Ken Bode during live coverage of hearings on Stephen Breyer the "centrist," with Bode complaining Reagan and Papa Bush emptied "the law schools of very conservative Republicans." Totenberg replied "the Clinton administration, at least so far, has not done that at all."

I bet you even Ted Kennedy laughed at that one.

This one's for you Tidd.

Guess when this happened

Okay, contestants, when did this news story break?

COLUMBUS, Ohio (CNN) -- The Bush administration's plan to launch a military strike on Iraq ran into plenty of flak in the American heartland Wednesday. At a town meeting held in St. John Arena at Ohio State University and aired exclusively on CNN, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice encountered a noisy, opinionated crowd and considerable opposition to another war with Iraq.

Powell was drowned out at one point by a group chanting, "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war," as he tried to explain U.S. policy to the audience of 6,000.

The heckling became so intense at one point that Powell interrupted CNN's Judy Woodruff and said, "Could you tell those people I'll be happy to talk to them when this is over. I'd like to make my point."

Similar outbursts greeted Rumsfeld and Rice as they laid out again a U.S. position that is familiar to those who have followed the building crisis in the media.

They said the United States would prefer to see a peaceful resolution and hopes that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan will make significant progress when he visits with Iraqi officials this weekend.

But if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein doesn't allow U.N. arms inspectors to have unrestricted access to all weapons sites in Iraq, they reaffirmed that a U.S.-led coalition will respond with military force.

How many times....?'

While those opposing a "racist war" were a tiny, if vocal, minority, there were many others in the audience who agreed with a veteran who asked if "we're going to do it half-assed the way we did before?"

A caller from Oklahoma echoed that sentiment, asking, "How many times are we going to send our children and our children's children to fight Saddam Hussein?"

"We've spent seven years containing him at no loss to U.S. lives," Rumsfeld said, adding that an attack would reduce the threat of "chemical and biological weapons that will pose a threat to your children and grandchildren for the future."

Another caller noted that the U.S. encouraged an uprising in southern Iraq but did not help those who responded, and that they were subsequently "slaughtered" by Iraqi troops."Our policy has been to support opposition groups, and it continues to be our policy," Rumsfeld began, but he was drowned out by chants of "Bull----! Bull----!"

Another member of the audience screamed at the chanters, "Shut up!" One young man asked Powell why the United States is willing to attack Iraq while ignoring actions by other countries. Powell responded, "No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Powell scolds questioner
As shouts erupted from the audience, he added, "I'm really surprised that people feel they need to defend the rights of Saddam Hussein." "You're not answering my question, Mr. Powell," the questioner said. Powell said, "I suggest, sir, that you study carefully what American foreign policy is. Every one of the violations has been pointed out on what is not right, and I would be happy to spend 50 minutes with you after the forum to explain it."

Rice told the audience that should military action be necessary, "the cardinal principle of the planning of this operation has been to seek to minimize civilian casualties." Obviously, that's not possible (to eliminate them altogether), especially when you're dealing with someone who uses people as human shields. But we have no intention of trying to wreak havoc on the Iraqi people."

One heckler who made his way to a microphone asked how Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice could sleep at night, knowing that innocent Iraqis would be killed and injured by any military strike."We will not send messages to Saddam Hussein with the blood of the Iraqi people," he said. "If you want to deal with Saddam, deal with Saddam, not the Iraqi people."

'What democracy is all about'
"What we are doing," replied Powell, "is so that you all can sleep at night. I am very proud of what we are doing. We are the greatest nation in the world ..." He stopped as the audience rose and applauded.

"... and what we are doing," he resumed, "is being the indispensable nation, willing to make the world safe for our children and grandchildren, and for nations who follow the rules."

A caller from Germany who identified himself as a member of the U.S. armed forces, told the panel that he agreed with what they were trying to do. "And if lives need to be lost," he said, "let it start with mine." Although surprised by the opposition they encountered, the officials adjusted to the noise level and the probing questions.

"This is a tremendous example of what democracy is all about," Rumsfeld said. "People expressing opposition ... would not be allowed to do this in a number of countries, including Iraq."

A State Department spokesman played down the tone of the meeting, and said Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld "enjoyed it. They came away feeling that the overwhelming majority of the audience was very supportive of the goals of the administration."

If you guessed 2002, you're wrong. In fact, this whole exercise is a cheat.

The story is from Feb 18, 1998. And the cast of characters was not Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld. It was Madeleine Albright, Sandy "Scissorhands" Berger and William Cohen.

Fascinating how evil and dangerous Saddam Hussein was during the Clinton presidency. As Albright said:

No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.

But today's historical revisionists say Saddam was no threat, and that Bush lied (Downing Street memo, blah blah blah).

Hypocrisy is always ugly.

The Man who would be President 

John Kerry Has Bush's Number (Satire Alert!)

Along with windsurfing, bicycling, and sucking the morale out of our armed forces like an industrial vac, John Kerry has the uncanny ability to predict the content of Bush's speeches and rebutt them in advance. There was little point in me watching Bush spew his jingoist propaganda last night, for Big John had it all covered. He knew that Bush would defy 200 years of presidential tradition and attempt to rally the nation with "Happy Talk" in a time of war. He knew that Bush would try to make us have faith in our country and pride in the troops, despite everything democrats have taught us. And he knew he had to do something about it.

Fearful of coming off like a sore loser, yet he finding himself unable to tolerate Bush's littany of lies, he tookpen in hand to criticize Bush's poorly planned war. A Vietnam war hero thrice wounded in combat, he courageously expressed his disatisfaction with a war he himself supported before he was against it, and that he boldly sort of supports now.

The New York Times was, of course, hesitant to risk their reputation of objectivity by publishing a partisan hit piece. But after going over Kerry's article with a fine-toothed comb and triple-checking all the facts, they threw caution to the wind and printed the article as a service to the American People.
Ever the optimist, Kerry predicted a gloomy outcome for the War in Iraq, unless Bush followed some key advice. Gleaned from previous Bush speeches and policy already in effect, Kerry's bold new ideas are perhaps our best chance to end the Quagmire in Iraq:

1. Bush must announce that the U.S. will not remain in Iraq permanently.

2. The Iraqis must be encouraged to form their own government and hold elections.

3. The Iraqis must be trained to defend themselves.

4. Saddam must be captured and held for trial.

Most importantly, a plan must be set for the withdrawal of our troops and presented to democrats in Congress or, cutting out the middle man, given directly to Al Zarqawi so he can get a jump on the killing fields when we depart.

Oh, America! How wrong you were to send such a brilliant mind back to Boston! What fools you were to toss this bright beacon of hope away like a handful of someone else's war medals! I weep for you, America, for you've missed the John Kerry swift boat of love!

Cancer Blogging

It has gotten to the point where I am just not able to answer all the emails about Deb. And so, I will begin the “CancerBlogging” entries to give all of you the updates rather than try to keep re-doing and adding to the mass mailing list.

For some background for those of you who read my tripe and don’t know what in the hell I’m yakking about here is the quick and dirty briefing.

Several months ago, Deb (my wife), was diagnosed with breast cancer. Having gone through all of the examinations, CAT scans-PET-scans-MRI’s, Ultrasonics, X-Rays, blood work, Muga-scan, etc. the final diagnosis for Deb was IDC (inductive ductal carcinoma) with some additional metastasis in the thoracic region of her chest and spine.

Deb had a dual port surgically placed in her chest for the administration of Chemotherapy, about three weeks ago. On Monday June 13^th, Deb began her first cycle of Chemo. She is getting three different drug combinations which take approximately 6 hours for the entire process. It begins with hydration and anti-nausea medicine through an IV followed by the Chemo drugs. This is followed up the next day with IV hydration which takes another 3 hours to administer as they throw in some anti-nausea medicine too.

Over the past 11 days she has had the normal and customary effects of an aggressive Chemo regimen. Beginning this Tuesday she has had to go in every day for a shot of Nuperine (sp) which is a drug that will help the production of white blood cells as her white count fell far below normal. This too is considered a normal side effect of the Chemo. And for the record, she still has all her hair at the moment.

All things considered (Pardon me NPR) Deb has done pretty god-damned good this first cycle. Her attitude is great and she has not suffered any real debilitating circumstances from this first cycle. She goes back for a second round on July 5^th. After this second round we should have some indication of whether the Chemo is doing its job. Deb had some markers placed on the tumors and we are hoping that after the second round there will be either some softening or shrinking.

I will be taking my laptop to the Chemo Center for some live ChemoBlogging.

Lastly—For all you ladies, PTA members, friends and relatives of Debbie who will be reading this Blog to get the Debbie Updates please be advised that the right wing ranting and tasteless humor I write on this blog was never intended for your eyes or sensibilities. I suggest that you only read the Debbie Updates and skip the rest, unless of course you are as sick, demented, and libertarian as I am. What and how much of this tripe I write that you read will only be between you and your God as no one will know what you read and what you skip over.

That assumes of course that there is indeed a God.

The genius of Karl Rove

Once again, Karl Rove has tied the Democrats in knots. With their own rope.

Karl Rove's statement costs the GOP no political capital. He's not head of any party, he's not running for anything. No one can hang anything on him in an election.

But in one fell swoop, he has simultaneously stuck a thumb in the Democratic Party's eyes, and as the fools run screaming from the hive, demanding an apology, every stupid thing Reid, Rangel, Durbin, Byrd, Dean, McKinney, Donna Brazile (Who once called Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom," and all the other lefty bloviators ever said percolates right back up into the headlines, as the media tries to compare what Karl Rove said (Every word of which is demonstrably true. Susan Sontag alone validates Karl Rove's point) to those boneheaded things each of the Democrats said.

And now people are digging into the archives and finding that what Rove said is true - liberals were calling for "Restraint and moderation" from day one. They can't deny it. It's in their own rhetoric.

What's more, Karl Rove is genuinely speaking for conservatives, here. The Republican Party's not splitting over his words, the way the Democratic bird-brains all tried to snipe at Dean, for example.

The Democrats are so predictably incompetent, they couldn't find their ass with two hands and a flashlight.

Rove is, as usual, three steps ahead of the Dems. The Dems would be better off just writing him off as a political hack, not bothering with demands for apologies or resignations, which bring their own legion mistakes back to haunt them, saying they pity him, and be done with it.

Instead they play right into GOP hands.

They would never be able to defeat the Mujahedeen. They can't even defeat the GOP.

And these guys want to take over responsibility to run a war?

They couldn't run the frigging shuttle bus to the PX!

Durbin the "DICK" got this confession. 

Liberal in waiting 

SATIRE ALERT (for the terminally dumb)

Despite the promise of resigned acquiescence in the spirit of compromise, repugs in congress still insist on backing Bush's idiotic nominees. Now the Shrub is threatening to force a recess appointment down everyone's gullet unless Congress hands a highly unqualified thug an ambassadorship to the United Nations.

A UN ambassador should be kind, gentle, and opinionated only in a curmudgeonly grandfather sort of way. He or she should have an unintimidating mustache and refrain from speaking bluntly, brusquely, or in any fashion that might make Sen. Voinovich blubber like Michael Landon during sweeps week. In other words, a U.N. ambassador must be everything that John Bolton is not.

However, there is one man who meets all of the qualifications for the position and then some. I'm talking, of course, about deposed Iraqi leader, Saddam "Cuddles" Hussein. While Bully Bolton is a bullying bully who bullies his subordinates, Saddam jokes with and gives fatherly advice to his captors. Bolton holds grudges against those who don't march lockstep to the beat of his drum, but Saddam has no hard feelings for the chimp who bombed his palaces in the incorrect order and then chased him down a spider hole. Bolton belittles the very organization he seeks to work for, yet Saddam has a long record of cooperation with the UN, and would sooner eat a bowl of Fruit Loops than defy France.

Call me a radical if you must. Tell me I'm ahead of my time. But if a UN appointment can in some small way repay Papa Saddam for Bush's destruction of his country, murder of his gentle sons, and theft of his oil, then dammit we owe him that much!

Number of Terrorist death caused by US Troops at Guantanamo Bay---0 Number of Young Women killed by a US Senator at Chappaquiddick, MA: 1  

Then--why no bone in her nose?

Oprah Winfrey is a women enjoying a uniquely American success story.

Uniquely. American.

There is no society in the history of civilization where Oprah's unbelievable success is possible. Where someone with no talent other than sucking up to celebrities, producing awful movies, and making absolutely everything under the sun all about her can become the most wealthy and powerful woman in the world.

And what does she do? What does she say? She goes to Africa AFRICA (!) and proclaims, "I wish I was born here" and proudly states she's a Zulu.

1. Has she ever proudly stated she's an American?

2. Has she ever said she was glad to be born in America?

3. If I called her a Zulu I'd be up on hate crime charges.

4. If she really wishes she were born in Africa, we can do the the next best thing: We'll snip her clitoris, make her a slave, starve her, plague her with AIDS, and then machete her to death in a genocidal rampage.

Because if you were born in The Motherland, you ungrateful *controlling myself here*, you wouldn't be Oprah, you'd be lucky to be a statistic.

And don't worry, after you're gone and nobody notices -- we'll be sure to get some other ungrateful liberals together to blame America for what's happening an ocean away. We'll be sure to blame the country who provides the most aid and food. We'll be sure to blame everybody but, you know, the actual people who live in Africa, for the atrocities of genocide, starvation, and a depraved indifference to AIDS and slavery.

Oh, and anyone nostalgic for those "Owning a Darkie" days need only move to Africa. Because it's only in "The Motherland" the abomination of slavery's still tolerated. Because "The Motherland" is being ravaged by it's own "Mothers" and "Fathers" -- but of course, that's Americas fault.

And Oprah, don't think all of us have forgotten how you whored your way to fame. Some of us still remember that you are the Queen Of Trash TV. No, it wasn't that long ago you were Mrs. Jerry Springer with your own parade of trailer trash and neo-Nazis. And it was only after you spawned the legion of imitators who continue to degrade our culture that you were able to rise above.

You wish you were born in Africa? Well, gee Oprah, that makes two of us.

Hi There---My name is Dick Durbin---That makes me a Dick-donchaknow. And just for the record I want it known that I am a complete and total ASSHOLE> 

A new democrat voter 

Actual Caption of the above photo:

Gregory Despres is shown in this image from television. On April 25, 2005, Despres arrived at the U.S.-Canadian border crossing at Calais, Maine, carrying chain saw stained with what appeared to be blood, a homemade sword, a hatchet, a knife, and brass knuckles.

U.S. customs agents confiscated the weapons, fingerprinted Despres, and then let him into the United States.

Despres ... was arrested in Mattapoisett, Mass. and is being held in a jail there, charged with two counts of first-degree murder.

Memo to U.S. Customs and Border Protection:

Putting aside, for the moment,

the blood-stained chain saw,

the sword,

the hatchet,

the knife and

the brass knuckles,

was there anything ... anything at all ... about this guy which might have cause you to think twice about letting him into the country?

You too can be National President of the US Jaycees. 

The Jimmy Carbs "Anorexic-No-More" Diet

• Breakfast- 6-pack of beer (any beer you choose, but avoid Michelob Ultra and the like), 1 dozen deep-fried pierogies (serve with sour cream and cheese fries), 1 loaf of bread
• Mid-morning snack- 2 pizzas and a ham
• Lunch- 12-pack of beer and 3 bags of potato chips (generic brands are acceptable)
• Afternoon snack- Bagels with lox (a baker's dozen)
• Dinner- A family of migrant workers (season to taste)
• Bedtime snack- Sheet cake (just one)

I mean---Come on---this is funny! It takes art to a new level. 

Dean Vindicated, Most Republicans Do Not Make Honest Livings

DNC Chairman Howard Dean has come under fire recently for comments he made regarding the employment propensities of Republican voters. Dean was quoted as saying that "a lot of (Republicans) never made an honest living in their lives." A new study has shown that Dean may in fact be correct.

"We took a look at the types of jobs that Republicans hold and were frankly surprised," stated pollster Lemuel Fontaneaux. "Bankers, doctors, laborers even a few teachers and social workers. They covered the whole gamut. Finding registered Democrats who were employed was a bit more difficult. However, among the ones we contacted the most commonly held jobs were conscientious objector, political activist and coffee shop clerk. Interestingly, almost without exception every one of them aspired to become a college professor."

Fontaneaux went on to say that for the purpose of this particular study, the criteria for a "dishonest living" included the following:

• actually being employed
• accepting money for employment from a small, medium or large sized company
• using the money from said employment to take care of your family and pay your bills
• being employed in a field that does not involve the legalization of marijuana
• driving an SUV to work
• voting Republican

In a related story, a whopping 68% of Republicans reported that Dean is their number one choice as the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate. Michael Moore remains second and Al Gore and Gary Busey tied for third.