KFNX1100AM Listen Live
Air America


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

January 25, 2003

January 24, 2003


someone -
Tacitus - makes a valid point regarding France.
"France has confirmed that it is inviting Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe to take part in a meeting of African leaders next month.
Mr Mugabe is currently banned from entering the European Union because of doubts about the legitimacy of his re-election last year.
But French Foreign Ministry spokesman Francois Rivasseau said he was being invited in order to discuss human rights and democracy."

....As relations between the UK and Zimbabwe have deteriorated, France has been moving closer to Mr Mugabe's government. Let me see if I understand this clearly. On Iraq, France cannot conceive of any legitimate action outside the United Nations. On Zimbabwe, France does not mind bucking its own cherished European Union. Are they multilateralists? Unilateralists? I wish I could find a common rational thread to make sense of French policy. Alas that the only one that makes any sense is a willingness to defend tyrants.

Tip of the hat. I like a site that makes me think. Of course, this guys - seems to be at first glance - a non-supporter of both sides.

PS "real" AWARDS

Almost forgot. In an unholy alliance
Dever and (mostly) Dawn Olsen (yummy) are setting up a Web site dedicated to some "Real" Blog awards after being, shall we, say, upset at the results.

Go give em some love, some ideas and some support. The URL isn't up yet, they're digging for names. I hit alame moment and could only think of the Muses or the Assies.


Man. Go check out the Junk Yard Dog and his comments
Under the eye-catching (gotta give him that) "Was Dr. King Wrong" he says Sen. Hillary Clinton seemed to think so.

She talked at Trinity Baptist Church in the Bronx the other day about Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy. Seems the people there, of all races, gave her comments a ringing endorsement of applause.

But now, we have the irefutable Junkyard Dog, carrying all the import and standing that the name implies, saying these people, these god-fearing souls, are stupid. Here's what Junkyard said:
Well, not if you ask me, but Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to have a problem with him . Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned a world in which individuals would be judged by the content of their character, as opposed to the color of their skin. To Clinton, color is part of character:

“We are reminded once again by the events of the last year that there are those who don’t understand Dr. King’s dream and legacy,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Yes, we want to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. But what makes up character?” she said, quoting from Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. “If we don’t take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves.”

There is a word for that kind of thinking--making one's race an integral part of defining who they are as a person--racism. A colorblind society is impossible as long as that type of thinking exists, which may be Clinton's true agenda, to divide and exploit. At any rate, she's put herself at odds with Dr. King, but being a Dem she'll get away with it.

In case you don't go to the comments, here's what I said after a couple of other dillusional comments above.
Wow, you guys really believe this shit you're saying don't you? Without any regard for history. You can mention Trent Lott and his view that Thurmond's stance would have been good for the country -- and forget that Thurmond was a Dixiecrat only because the Democrats were trying to end segregation.

As to Dr. King's comments. "I have a dream... " That doesn't mean it's here, yet. Hence there needs to be some attempt at parity against the likes of Trent Lott minds and "legacy admittance" into colleges.
Boy, you must really think black people are stupid, what with George Bush Junior getting only 2 percent of the black vote in 2000. How could they, you must be thinking - the Democrats are the racists.
You don't do the Republican cause any favors any of you. Thank you for being who you are. It makes me appreciate myself more

As an addendum, I'd add - what Junkyard and others of a similar mind are saying is "If you act less black you'll be fine. If you don't let your race shape who you are then you'll be better off in our world."

I don't think many of them think they are saying it, which goes back to why African Americans vote Democrat in droves - the Republicans just don't get it.
Faced with the Shannon Reeve's of the world - a black official in the California GOP, who finally got fed up, and who was then told to pipe down and be a man - they choose to ignore him in favor of the quiet ones who don't point out the obvious.

And then put Judge Pickering back up as a candidate.


Not 100 percent sure how to feel about this, yet. Geoff Simpson and 17 other state Representatives in Olympia, have put together a Joint Memorial Resolution against the war in Iraq.

First question to ask is, Does the state Legislature have any right to pass such a resolution? Clearly and legally, yes.

Should it? That one is more difficult to answer. And as you consider it with me, keep in mind how you might feel if it was a resolution in support of the war in Iraq.

OK. First. Another Rep., Jim Buck, in favor of the war, said that drafting sucjh a resoltion cost about $3,000 to $4,000 in staff time to draft it and put it through the code reviser.

OK, a small waste. I can agree it might be waste.

A strong point against the effort - states elect members ot the US Congress to deal with federal issues and elect members to the state Legislature to deal with state issues.
I can agree with that. So, big picture, it's a stupid effort.

But some of the arguments against, instad, are, what difference does it make, who's gonna listen. Well, here's the answer. I, a voter in Washington State, am listening. And it makes me feel good that this state has a concience. There is power in numbers. Combine this with the protests and other elected representatives speaking out, it becomes a cummulative effect that may slow down the process. And it may reverse tactics.

It tells people who are against the war that they are not alone. Sure, it does not speak for everyone in the state or even the Legislature. But that's where we come back to the question, if it was a resolution FOr the war, how would you feel?

Me I would dearly not want it to pass, and might let my Representatives know that fact. But I would attack such a resolution on its merits, not act suprised like it never happens.

Another way to look at it is, if one or 10 Washington residents die because of this war, then the state has said - we tried to save their lives. Each Representative who feels this way should also send letters to their US Representatives and George Bush Junior.

Thoughts? I want to hear from you. I'll publish them right here.
E-mail me


Now the Rove administration is trying to
gut/limit Title IX, which has sought parity for funding and access to women's sports.

Are Americans really like this? Anti-black. Anti-woman. Anti-poor. Anti-peace. Anti-fucking common sense.

Do we really feel we're the biggest, baddest country in the world and we have to prove it? How fucking sad is that.

Increasinly we are realizing the answer is "NO." Will it be enough?

Does anti-big governmentism really extend this far? And why does it feel like another -ism, totalitarianism?

And becasue it stuck in my head here's a word and an entirely unrelated link -- antidisestablishmentarianism


!2 pages of profile on George Bush Junior - who
this NY TImes magazine article bestows the title "Reagan's Son."

I read the first (online) page. I may go back to it. But so far the author has given us nothing new on Junior. This reporter appears to be only as good as his sources. And if he wasn't at the Times, he would have far fewer.

I once thought I decried the passing of in-depth quality long form investigative journalism. I still do to a certain extent, except for the long form part. It's valuable but choose your subjects well, otherwise you will get very few readers to finish your work.

Still there's the argument that you have to catch them early while its on page 1 otherwise it's relegated or dropped off the paper.

UPDATE: I did go back to it. The article should have started with the paragraph below and bypassed 500 words and the quotage from Peggy Noonan:
[M]idway into Bush's first term, measuring the emerging president against Reagan is an instructive way of looking at Bush's qualities and of explaining his popularity. It is even, with a larger margin of error, a basis for hazarding some guesses about the course he will follow, particularly now that his hand is strengthened by a Congress of his own party, by the unlikelihood of internal opposition in 2004 and for that matter by the lack of coherent opposition from the Democrats.

UPDATE II: On reflection, i guess I'm sick of theis writer injecting his own opinions inot the article primarily because I disagree with the, yet again, kiss ass job - "We seem not only to be witnessing the third term of the Reagan presidency; at this rate we may well see the fourth."
Oh, and the fact that this adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to anyone's understanding of the world nor the entertainment of it. It ius written for Bush supporters, as if to say, "Don't lose hope. You're not, I know, but just in case

PS The next line: I began this exercise inclined to think of Bush as Reagan Lite -- that is, a president with shallower, unschooled instincts ..." gets under my skin. I don't give a flying fuck what the writer here thinks. Bill Keller? Is he otherwise gifted in another arena of talent. Is he but a reporter? The answer is the latter and he appears to be doing a poor job

So many articles could be written as well or better without putting in the dreaded "I". Maybe my studying Japanese is coing through. Or, more likely, I've just never liked people stuck on themselves. I haven't got time for that. You prove to me your worthy enough to be "stuck on" and I'm there. I don't need you telling me that.

Readers come here and to other blogs to get that person's opinions - but not their opinions about themselves. Please. Don't. The second link is not entirely appropriate because he offers a lot of angry opinions and the occasionally well-thought out one. Neither offer reporting or much research on their sites.

January 23, 2003


... and wish Laura "don't hate my momma, that's my job" Schlessinger a tortured 56th birthday party. Just another "spread the love, 'xcept not too far" Republican.

You know she used to give out fair advice to everyone. Then she fell down the stauirs and has limped right ever since. Shit,
I'm so old (31) I remember when Tom Leykus (sp?) was a liberal talk show host who actually used the "blow me up" schtick when he really didn't want to listen to the person. Now he just gets into a pissing match and shouts them down.

I seem to be on a talk radio kick. So - I again caught 15 minutes or so of Michael Savage on the radio - No. 1 on the NY Times bestseller list (?). He seems to be the most reasonable of right-wing wackjobs. Sure he still froths at the mouth about the Clintons, but he's not a freak of immaturity.

Good night. Sleep well. I'm on a Johnny Cash groove right now. "The StoryTeller."

"I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down, living on the wrong side of town..."


Yes, si... Wait a !@#$% minute.

Get this. The Department of Defense Web site
invites people to subscribe for DoD News by E-mail:
Several DoD News products are available by e-mail subscription. Follow these steps to subscribe or unsubscribe:
* Enter your complete e-mail address:

Yeeeeeah Okaaaaaaaay. I'd rather get 400 e-mails from African dictator widows. Does anyone really think you'll be able to "unsubscribe."

Circle Jerks

Howard Kurtz & Sullivan
kissing in a tree
Howie, careful how you handle me


Apparently the company that designed AndrewSulivan.com is so inovate and cutting-edge that they've discovered they don't need a Web site of their own.
"Fantascope.com does not work. Period.

Of course a Google search for Fantascope and its owner Robert Cameron gets a Salon hit:

"...Sullivan then explained that his site is maintained and managed by fantascope.com, the parent company for andrewsullivan.com, and that there is a strict wall between the editorial and financial arms of the business. But given that the primary property of andrewsullivan.com is Andrew Sullivan, that's akin to Martha Stewart disavowing herself from a business decision made by Martha Stewart Living or the line of K-Mart housewares named after her.

Of course, this hit at Licensing World says Robert Cameron is the president of the Fantascope company. .

More Questions

I only ask questions because I know how much the Rove administration hates them. Hey,
even Andrew Sullivan knows who's behind who

Long term, what is making America's future bleaker? An Iraq not particularly liked by no one who has not killed anyone outside his own country. Or a President who thinks he has a mandate as a "wartime presdident" who wants to kill wom,an children and men, but will simultaneuolsy announce a Sanctity of Life day.

Why does Bush imagine he is popular (Perhaps because right now the American public may actually be focused on serious ISSUES, and we all know that doesn't last) when he is less so right now than President Clinton was the day after his impeachment.

Are we in war yet, or are we not?

Can Jerry Spring be any worse? (In case that CNN link disappears too, he's considering running for Senate. He always seemed like a Republican to me, but he's running again as a Democrat)
Why does Helen Thomas call George Bush Junior "the worst president we've ever had?" [link thanks to, um, I'll find it - ah MWO]

Rumsfeld is an idiot
I could think of nothing more witty or appropriate for a headline.

Rumsfeld is also reportedly, acccording to the Time magazine article, also a Horse's Ass (see post below). Arrogant, disliked by all in the Department he views as his own fiefdom.

But that's not the purpose of this post.

Yesterday, Rumsfeld - he of the "no evidence is proof that Iraq is hiding weapons" fame - said France and Germany represent "Old Europe" in their position against the "war" in Iraq. It is a stance perceived by those
who it suits to take it this way, as "anti-American."
Rumsfeld here
is talking out of his ass.
"Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem," said Rumsfeld, a former NATO ambassador. "But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

Germany and France represent "old Europe," and NATO's expansion in recent years means "the center of gravity is shifting to the east," Rumsfeld said.

French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said Wednesday in Paris they were not convinced a war with Iraq was necessary while U.N. arms inspectors were still searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

"Any decision belongs to the Security Council and the Security Council alone, which will address the issue after having examined the latest inspectors' report," Chirac said. "Secondly, as far as we're concerned, war always means failure."

"War always means failure."

Rumsfeld cannot count. This USA TODAY article seems to think that of the UN Security Council's five permenant members - China, Russia, USA, Britain and France - they've serious "no" from three of them and only Britain (America's aircraft carrier, USS KISSITHARD) has voiced support from the government.

Rumsfeld dismisses two countries in Europe. Germany is the most progressive country in europe. france is old europe. Good name-calling fffffffffffffucker.

How about France and Germany representing 20 percent of the population of the European union. How about facing the debate instead of "dismissing COUNTRIES!!!!!!!" You can't "dismiss" countries like you can vietnam draftees (An aside here where he apologizes - shit I hate being fair) Rumsfeld.

You rambled - blabbed and yacked without thinking because you think you can get away with it. Maybe a few months ago. Not now.
People are starting to wake up from their stupor. Fleischer and Powell say this president will not let opinion polls and, oh, other leaders of industriliazed countries, influence his decision on whether to go to war.

Really. Well, sure that independent streak sounds good and can even be admirable for a good cause. Except the majority of Americans and the majority of the world and the majority of your cabinet (secretly) and a growing number of Republicans who are actually decising to represent their constituents - know there' sno reaosn to bring Hussein down now.

This push for Dubya Dubya III is bone-headed

Let the posting begin.

Finished writing for money. Man, don't people know how to return phone calls anymore? Back to the fun.

For instance, if you're a Washingtonian you'll enjoy this AP article about Public Initiative scion (my new favorite word) Tim Eyman:
This comes from Tim Eyman's e-newsletter, which I've received since I-695. Not necessarily because I support what he does, but because I stay informed.

UPDATE: I just realized understanding this takes a lot of background. But here's the short version. Tim Eyman has made it a dangerous pasttime to pass
any and all initiatives in Washington state that limit the ability of city, county and state government from raising taxes without a public vote.

Except half of them have been ruled unconstitutional. Eyman last year was sanctioned for pockting money out of the funds collected for the Intiatives - after he said he never made more money.

He's not evil, but he is misguided. Recently a group has put forward an Initiative of its own to label Eyman "a horse's ass." Their point is that the Initiative process is flawed, being too easy to get one in the ballot. I like that point.
Just noticed the Horse's Ass site has started posting hate mail.
Reprinted below is an Associated Press article that will likely appear
in papers over the weekend.

Eyman heads into the lion's den

By DAVID AMMONS The Associated Press 1/17/03 10:00 PM

OLYMPIA (AP) -- Initiative king Tim Eyman, newly the butt of an initiative to have him declared a "horse's ass," on Friday made his first official visit to the Legislature, where he's sometimes called much worse.

Eyman often berates the Legislature and politicians, once storming Olympia with pitchfork-wielding "peasants" to verbally jab "King Locke and the royal knights." But he was respectful, mild-mannered and even nervous as he made his debut as a citizen lobbyist.

Eyman, who has sponsored initiatives for the past six years, said he's adding an Olympia lobbying aspect to his efforts to influence policy and protect the initiative process. He met privately with lawmakers and testified at the House State Government Committee on Friday, and said he'll be back.

"This was a little coming-out party, if you will, and a chance to interact with the (legislative) process," he told reporters.

Dressed in a suit and tie, the sometimes rowdy Eyman was the soul of decorum. He said he had notified Chairwoman Kathy Haigh, D-Shelton, that he was coming and that "I wasn't going to come down here and do a circus."

What caught his attention was a little bill by Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, to allow initiative sponsors to use standard-sized paper for their petitions. Right now they have to use oversized 11- by 14-inch paper, and that usually involves spending thousands of dollars getting petitions done by professional printers.

Eyman praised the simple change, which he said would make the initiative process cheaper and handier for the average citizen. He quickly turned his testimony into an appeal for lawmakers to keep their hands off the initiative process -- unless, of course, they want to make it easier.

Eyman, fearless in front of the cameras and on the campaign trail, was "incredibly nervous" when he took the witness chair.

"Since this is the first time, I ask you to be gentle," he told lawmakers.

"We'll be as gentle with you as you are with us," shot back Rep. Joe McDermott, D-Seattle.

Mostly, the exchange was even-tempered. Eyman restrained his usual rhetoric, and lawmakers didn't use the kind of anti-Eyman wrath they often dish up in private.

Eyman's initiatives have included measures to reduce the cost of car license tabs to $30 -- which cut state and local revenue by $750 million a year -- property-tax limits and numerous efforts to require public votes on taxes.

This year, he's running I-807, which would restore the spending limits and tax supermajority votes of I-601 that passed in 1993.

Earlier this week, Gov. Gary Locke complained about "budgeting by initiative." He didn't mention Eyman by name, but said state government can't cope with all the tax cuts and spending mandates right now. He has proposed suspending or amending three spending initiatives, none Eyman's.

Meanwhile, Eyman critic David Goldstein, a Seattle computer programmer and technical writer, is pushing an initiative that says "The citizens of the state of Washington do hereby proclaim that Tim Eyman is a horse's ass." That was a line Eyman used on himself when he revealed last year that he had taken campaign contributions as a salary fund.

Eyman said Friday he's still chortling over the initiative, even though it does say that copies would be sent to his wife and mother.

"Like they don't already know," he quipped.

He said Goldstein is unwittingly helping him by giving him a huge jolt of free publicity.

"The reality is, it's a rough and tumble business and you have to be able to laugh," Eyman said in an interview.

In his legislative appearance, he acknowledged that lawmakers and initiative sponsors have a built-in adversarial relationship.

"I know there is some chafing. There is that tension there," he said.

He said initiative foes have the Legislature's ear, and that he wanted to begin giving the perspective of initiative backers. He said lawmakers seldom try to open the initiative process, but often try to water it down by regulation.

He flatly rejected the idea that the process is being overused.

"One cannot possibly argue that the initiative process is out of control, when 99.99 percent of all decisions are made through representative democracy at the state and local level -- and only a minuscule number through the initiative process," Eyman said.

"The 200,000-signature hurdle will continue to, rightly, weed out the ideas that are not serious," he said. "There is the ultimate safety net of the voters themselves. If they think it's stupid, they're more than willing to vote it down."
Regards, Tim Eyman, ph: 425-493-9127, email: insignia@greekwatch.com
-- END --

January 22, 2003

Interview NOW, not later

So witty with the headlines, I crack myself up - ok not.
Posting light today. I could get into discussing abortion today on the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision but, like I said, no time. It needs time.

Go here to read
Buzzflash's interview with NOW President Kim Gandy.
It's in real terms. As an aside, are the Roe foes really MoFo's in disguise?
The rest of Buzzflash is kind of stale today - I guess I may be actually getting on top of the news cycle. A lot of what they had there I already knew or found.


OK, everytime I try and fix the template here it almost goes back to default or something, though it keeps all my links. I had a grey background again for awhile today - sorry
Howard if you were watching.

To fix the problem I've got rid of the Site Meter javascript and cut and pasted from the source code I now keep handy on my computer. Though that has no logical connection, that usually means it will probably fix the problem.

Grrrrr. Thanks to visitors today. I really want to get comments up but I'm up against writing deadlines for articles that, you know, pay the bills.
Heres hoping BBN - Byte Back News - 05 is good news.

January 21, 2003


The Rove administration and its spokesperson George W. Bush Junior, took Lott to task for some taut and terrible talk in support of segregationist Strom. So how come, as
Josh Marshall reports admirably, George W. Bush Junior, re-started the practice of putting a wreath on Jefferson Davis' memorial on his birthday.

The truth is truthfully scary. It reveals another string to the puppet president.

UPDATE 1-22-03 00:46: Link fixed - by actually putting in a link default is back to self. thanks to reader Mr. King for pointing out what should have been obvious to me..


OK. Here's my initial reaction to the
reports of Scott Ritter's 2001 arrest in relation to an Internet child-sex ring investigation.
UPDATE 16:19 - the link above keeps on kind of changing but it's still Ritter-related.

Please let it be wrong. Right now it does not sound like it is.
However, it is strange that it took this long to get out to the press - the former UN weapons inspector has been speaking out since shortly after Sept. 11, 2001.
These kind of smear tactics also seem to come straight out of the fiction "thriller" novels where, to use Bushism terminology, the "good guy" has to fight against all kinds of obstacles and misinformation to get the "bad guys."

Still. Right now, I'm leaning toward this arrest and the circumstances surrounding it are true while keeping an open-mind because it seems just too perfect.

More facts please.


Not too sure how libertarians get talking about abortion but they
did today over at Samizdata.net.

I'd need some evidence that fetuses experience pain during the first trimester when the vast majority of abortions take place. The cost to society of thousands of unwanted and unaffordable children is high and in my mind best to be avoided.

I posted this in the comments there, meaning in part to wake people up to reality. It's amazing how many people like to look past that in their discussions:
Who says a fetus is innocent? It's a parasite.
OK It's not. But I personally am glad there have been thousands of abortions. Not glad for any pain it has caused in making the decision. Not glad that the choice had to be made. But glad that there was a choice that someone could make about their own lives.

How more libertarian could you be? Being libertarian it seems to me has never been about protecting human life. It has been about saving money and making life easier for those already alive.

You cannot logically be an anti-choice or ant-abortion libertarian. The one says every child should be born, the latter belief says there should be limited or zero government help for those families and single mothers who now have an extra child to support but did not want one.

Abortion is a reality. No one is pro-abortion. Even those who advocate a woman's choice, do not like that it happens. But it does for the overall good of society.

Abortion is a reality. And it will be even if Roe v Wade is overturned. Except then you'll have many women, but not men, (curious eh?) in already overcrowded jails.

You want that reality?


I probably failed. Still in response to a pretty theoretical and apparently overall well-informed discussion over at
Jane Galt I posted this in the comments:

In this Wrestlemania cage match, style points go to Matt Johnson for 1) staying focused to one or two, yes, points and 2) being n right. The commnets here started bouncing back and forth, stretching the argument like silly putty, so I'm glad somebody called this and tried to direct the discussion toward coherency.

This is needed for a non-expert like myself.

Unfunded mandates are the answer to why states are up the creek. Most states have balanced budget amendments so they are forced to cut, so that would probably explain the flatness of spending over the last 20 years.

You all probably knew that but didn't mention it. Yes increased property taxes mean greater revenue but that only goes so far.

In Washington state at least you have someone, Tim Eyman, who gets the people to pass initiatives that lower fees and taxes and limits the ability for tax increases, with a vote (votes cost money top, ya know). Sounds great, except there are critical areas of the budget which cannot be cut without hurting not just the government people but THE PEOPLE. That is what is happening everywhere.

Tax cuts fuel growth when they are drected toward the right people. How's that for a theory? Rarely does it fuel federal spending. I see no logic there. In fact as the states get healthier I'm sure the federal government feels more comfortable cutting funds off for various areas.

So then when state coffer revenues drop, everything is hit at once. So much for stability.
Your discussion above seemed remarkable lacking of consideration of the human element of theory. That's what journalists do. Now tell where i'm completely !@#$%ed in the head in regard to my thinking here.Still, it was informative.

UPDATE: 1-21-03:01:21 Gawd, I can be wordy.

January 20, 2003

Modern Politics
"If you want someone to take care of your money, you better vote for a Democrat because a Republican can't manage money," Howard Dean.

Anyone else see anything backward aobut this in the history of American politics. It wasn't always true. Conservatives or more correctly, Republicans, used to be the party people trusted to handle the economy - on little evidence, which people are finally realizing. Deficits, aka negative funding weigh the economy down. Now and in the future.

I decry the need to tear a man down to get to the White House. But it's what gets the candidates noticed - say something shocking not substantial. That's a general statement about the general audience these candidates are trying to reach. It's not that they never say anything substantial, but at this stage, few newspapers or news programs are going to want to sit down with the candidate to eke out all the nuances of their positions.

That is considered a waste of resources, and I would somewhat agree. You've gotta gain confidence in ideas and in who you are as a person. We're in the personality stage of the election...... I say this somewhat sardonically, realizing that the personality stage never ends and only goobers like me pay attention to politics at this stage.

But today's American voter is not typical of the typical American. i think the typical voter tends to be a little more informed, but only in the last few months of the election. Instead they let the ebb and flow of scandal and slander wash over them without diving deep into the surf.


IS give Democrats a chance.
Well, if they earn it.
A NY TIMES article again, sorry. Like you don't read it already online. But
"Democrats showing signs of confidence in Iowa" says that people who know a lot more aobut politics than I do, think bush has weaknesses. Of course, they're also supposed to say that otherwise what's the point.

Still, when the White House pollster says this (from article): "Every president whose job approval going into the election was 50 or above won," said Matthew Dowd, the Republican strategist in charge of White House polling. "His job approval has to drop significantly in some way, so there has got to be some event or some situation that would cause the public to believe it was time for a change. The only thing I could think was if the economy continued to sputter."

... you've gotta have hope. See, one, I'd bet good money RIGHT NOW that he's wrong on the 50 percent assertion. and even if he wasn't, what does that statement really mean in modern politics? Reagan and Clinton "lost" an election each because of term limits, not popularity or lack of it. That cuts out two elections of the last six elections over the last 22 years. Secondly, Dowd makes the bold claim that the economy is spluttering. Tell that to the bosses who continue to polish the rosy glow.

In relation to the post below, it's all downhill from here for the Rove administration.


I have spent a good deal of time bouncing around the internet today, enjoying the varied voices of the Intrnet. From getting involved in the drama between
Jim Treacher" and ""Red Sugar." Get background here

From naked bush protests (double entendre intended) to Salon.

From Media Yenta, who seems more entertaining than most TV critics - but that aint' hard is it? - to the NY Times telling us the sales of top-selling authors are tanking.

There's also this site where I gleaned the fact that sometime today or tomorrow will be the exact halfway point of the Rove administration.

It seems so much longer. I was not a particularly partisan person (say that eight times fast) before we entered The Bush League. I wasn't on board with everything Clinton did. The elder Bush was harmless and actually, strangely, seemed to be trying to be a stable influence on the country.
All, that changed when I realized what a buffoon (insert your choice phrase or word here) we had running for the President of the United States of America. In fact, I wasn't much excited aobout either choice, though I have come to view Al Gore in higher regard since then. But, ever since Bush' first fuzzy math tax cut proposal to his garblespeak and doublespeak all the way to his complete lack of character, the numbers haven't added up for me and the majority of Americans.

That his defenders are equally duplicitous speaks volumes. My 2004 vote will be in part an Anti-Bush vote just liek the last time. Except this time, he's earned it hundredfold. Correct me if i'm misunderestimating the man.

I don't know how any right-thinking American can fail to be upset (insert your harsher word or phrase here) at the travesty of justice that was the resolvement of the 2000 presidential election. I don't know how I'd feel if I was on the "winning" side, excpet I know of plenty who wish they had voted for "the loser." ie Gore. That includes the old couple who appeared on Jay Leno right before Al Gore came on [I'm a Letterman man, only watched Leno cause Gore was on). The old guy said. "I didn't vote for you. [pause] ... but I would now."

Honestly, and I'm sure this won't adhere me any admirers, but I felt as violated through that election error as I did when the twin towers fell. Perhaps it's because the distruction of the twin towers is on a scale my brain still hasn't gotten around. I know it's at least in part because I knew nobody involved but I was involved in the election as were millions of Americans.

I do still get sick to my stomach when I think of Osama and the hijackers getting away with KNOCKING DOWN THE TOWERS. Luckily most of them did not live. Osama has and we've forgotten aobut him as we go after Hussein. Like we couldn't wait him out another 12 months ro so. Instead we did a credible job of scaring the hell out of Afghanistan and restoring a temporary stability.

We should be going after Osama with all our might but we do not. Those who ask questions start to wonder why? They bring up the fact that he was CIA trained, that he is a multi-billionaire and that his family was and we bet is still friends with the Bush family.

My respect for the American people when it comes to politics will go up markedly if we elect Bush out of office. Not because of my dislike for him, but because the American people make a point of saying "you can't play us for suckers. Our rights mena something. If we lose those rights than really what's left for our American forces to defend.

Of course, this pic, of "geniuses" also made me laugh.