Dada is the sun, Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police.



I've been tapped by the Socialist Swine for "The Dream Meme." So here goes:

1. If money were no object, what would you be doing with your life?

Honestly, I'd probably be devoting my time to opening as many animal shelters as I could. Also, I'd be raising funds for research into cultured meat.

2. Money is just that - an object, so why aren’t you doing it?

This is kind of a puzzling question - the first one asked what I would do if money were no object, and now it's telling me that money is an object, but the tone of the question seems to indicate that the above counterfactual is, in fact, true. So I'm confused.

3. What’s better: horses or cows?

This is a tough one, because they are both pretty cool. I'd have to give the edge to cows, though. Cows are one of only a handful of animals (along with cats) that have been seen as divine by various people, and it kind of makes sense in a way - doesn't a cow seem, like, totally at peace? Horses have a lot going for them, but I can't see anybody worshipping a horse.

4. What do you think the secret to happiness is?

Know thyself!

5. When was the last time you had a dream that you either remember well or did not want to awake from? Can you share a bit?

The last time I dreamed that someone I love who is deceased was still alive.

6. When you were a little kid, what did you want to be when you grew up?

I have vague memories of wanting to be a major league baseball player.

7. Complete this statement: Love is . . .

... an appreciation for others, and a desire to ease their suffering.

8. Can you tell a good story? (write one!)

"A young man in what is recognizably the fashion- and celebrity-obsessed New York is gradually, imperceptibly drawn into a shadowy looking-glass of that society and then finds himself trapped on the other side, in a much darker place where fame and terrorism and family and politics are inextricably linked and sometimes indistinguishable. At once implicated and horror-stricken, his ways of escape blocked at every turn, he ultimately discovers — back on the other, familiar side — that there was no mirror, no escape, no world but this one, in which hotels implode and planes fall from the sky."

(Plagiarism counts as writing a story, right?)

9. Can you remember your last daydream? What was it about?

I can't tell you but I know it's mine.

10. If you were to thank someone today, who would you thank?

I'd say thank you to everyone who reads this blog on a regular basis, for stopping by and listening to what I have to say.

Okay, I think I'm supposed to pass this on to three others. How about...

Cannot Be Trusted

Sweet Decline


(only if you guys feel like it, though).

Anti-ham = anti-American

ACLU sues Homeland Security for arresting, spying on vegans who protested ham

Via Discussion about 9/11/2001.


One reader at a time, I corner the herpes-infected demographic

A comment left at an old post of mine about Jerry Falwell:
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a herpes and oral sex site/blog. It pretty much covers herpes and oral sex related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

By NYCGuy12, at 9/30/2005 9:12 PM
Well, there you go folks; if you're interested, the guy's got a herpes and oral sex blog, which pretty much covers herpes and oral sex related stuff.

Beyond parody

I have become convinced that "Blogger for Bush" Mark Noonan is actually engaged in an elaborate, highly unorthodox form of performance art.
Well, what an interesting day. I write a small article expressing my dismay over the tactics the Democrats have chosen in lieu of, you know, engaging in politics and some of our leftwing friends go absolutely nuts. As I detailed in this thread, the comments we've received were heavily laced with obscenity and, of course, the random threats against my life and limb.

...In addition to the written threats, it appears that Air America radio hosts also take an interest in seeing physical violence directed at sweet, little bloggers like me...

As for me, I turn away from wrath - I am a Christian; I love my enemies, and I pray for those who hate me. No anger here - a great deal of dismay, but no hatred. It is, to say the least, alarming to be on the receiving end of death threats - but it seems to be in the nature of the left to issue such threats and use other hateful tactics and words. The left, after all, was born of a rejection of Judeo-Christian values...meaning, at bottom, a rejection of the divine love underlying the Judeo-Christian religious ethic. Born of a rejection of love, the left could do no other than disintegrate into a fanatic hatred of all things.

The people of the left will tell us of their love for mankind, their tolerance of diversity, their willingness to see another point of view...but this is the lies of people attempting to mask their true, hate-filled nature. I've never seen - not even on the worst of the racist sites - such a plethora of vulgar terminology. This is especially true of the use of anti-gay obscenities. I pray for the redemption of these poor people - that they can set aside their hatred, if even for a moment, and thus get the smallest ray of light into their lives.

As the left currently controls the Democratic Party, we must presume that the answer to the question - do the Democrats want a civil war? - to be, "yes". People who hate that much will not long be held to any standards of civilised behaviour - they are not walking towards perdition; they are over the doorstep and starting to pick up the strange things they see lying within. It is still my ernest hope that wise Democrats will purge their Party of the left - force them out; make them create their own Party of hatred, and be exposed for what they are...rather than, as now, continuing to hide behind the still-honored name of Democrat.

Time will tell the ultimate result of this boil of hatred latched upon the Democratic Party - as for we of the right, we can only continue to fight for what is right, and do what we believe to be the right thing.


This is fucking cool.
I've been reading about the MRL mouse, a lab-bred strain which has been discovered to have an unusual property: amazing powers of regeneration. They weren't bred for that, though; instead, they were selected for large size, and were then discovered to have a defect in the cell death gene fas, which made them a useful model for autoimmune research—they had excessive proliferation of lymphatic cells.

One way to mark individual mice is by punching small holes in their ears (it sounds cruel, I know…fathers with teenage daughters also think it is a terrible thing to do). The mice of the MRL strain do something remarkable, though, as you can see to the right: they heal right up. There is no detectable scar tissue, either—these mice regenerate.

Regrowing ears might be a very big deal to a mouse, but not so much to us. However, their powers of regeneration go deeper. Damage their livers, their kidneys, and many other tissues, and they grow right back. They can regrow lopped off toes and tails. Here's the big one: take a fine wire, stick it in their heart, and burn a hole in it with extreme cold, a process called cryo-damage which mimics the damage of a myocardial infarction, and in the MRL mouse, heart tissue regenerates.

Whoa indeed.

Atrios channeling Kent Brockman: "I, for one, will welcome our mutant mice overlords."


Chavez proposes to expand oil alliance

From Business Week via DU:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Thursday he is seeking to share his country's oil wealth with every nation in South America, aiming to strengthen ties while offering an alternative to the U.S.-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Chavez says his "Petroamerica" initiative is intended to reach countries across the hemisphere, and that Venezuela has ample reserves to help the region deal with high oil prices for generations to come.

"With this mission of energy integration, Venezuela guarantees petroleum and gas for the South American continent for at least 200 years," Chavez said as he arrived for a South American summit in Brazil's capital of Brasilia.

...Chavez, a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, has said the regional energy alliances are aimed at challenging U.S. economic domination in the region and distributing fuel directly to avoid costly intermediaries.

The Venezuelan leader has been a harsh critic of capitalism and accused U.S.-backed free trade policies of helping American companies at the expense of Latin countries by drawing away their natural resources, while doing nothing to confront poverty.

Some have accused Chavez of taking advantage of a tight oil market to buy political alliances.

"Who doesn't do that? ... Venezuela uses its petroleum at critical moments," said Professor Mazhar al Shereidah, a Venezuelan oil expert and professor at Central University of Venezuela. "Why would it lose this opportunity?"
A few of the DUers are worried about Venezuela over-extending itself via preferential terms, the way the Soviets supposedly did, but so far Chavez seems to have proven himself to be pretty astute about these things.


If Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" were a feel-good comedy, its trailer would look like this.

(Via NRO.)

Get your civil war on!

I know I said I was going to stop reading Blogs for Bush, but this is just too funny. Mark Noonan is accusing Democrats of agitating for civil war!!!
...the "indictment" of Tom Delay is entirely bogus - from what I've read, Tom Delay didn't know about the perfectly legal transaction he is accused of conspiring to make. We have now left entirely the field of normal political conflict and entered a twilight world where fantasy is presented as fact and the only standard of conduct is "will it work?". This is not the actions of a political Party engaged in seeking a majority - it is the action of a Party determined to destroy its opponents entirely and sieze all power for is, in short, the stuff from which civil wars are made.

In a normal democratic society, the political parties argue it out, resort to the voters and abide by the results - in our very abnormal society, there is no argument. There is accusation and innuendo, and the count of the voters is considered null and void unless it comes to the "correct" conclusion as determined by one Party. The Democrats do not like Tom Delay - and that is natural and normal given that Delay is a senior leader of the other side, and a damned effective one at that. But this quest to destroy Delay goes beyond the pale - it is an outrage; a negation of all that America is about...a betrayal of American political institutions.

I really do urge our Democrats to step back from the edge - you are sitting in a lake of gasoline and you are playing with fire. We on our side will only put up with so much before we start to pay back with usury what we have received. If you can't defeat Tom Delay in the electoral field, then you will simply have to accept him as Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives - and you'd better start accepting political reality before things get really bad.
On a completely unrelated note, approximately what percentage of right-wing bloggers do you suppose are really and truly out of their minds? I mean, not just "crazy" in the way all right-wingers are crazy, but actually padded-room-worthy, certifiably, batshit insane.

Or are most of them just scumbags who are capable of doing a remarkably accurate impersonation of a batshit-crazy person if that is the only way they can defend their leaders?

Just wondering.

The height of absurdity

I was going to post this last night, but I forgot.

I was listening to the radio, flipping from station to station, and I stopped on Sean Hannity's show. I then heard Mr. Hannity go off on a brief rant about the "main stream media" ("main stream" has to be two separate words; otherwise you couldn't abbreviate it as "MSM," and "MM" just doesn't have the same ring to it).

That's right - Sean Hannity was talking about the "main stream media" as if he were outside of it. Sean Hannity, one of the biggest stars on talk radio and on the highest-rated cable news channel, and a best-selling author at that.

Yes, Sean's voice has truly been marginalized.

The Divine Tuckpointer

Intelligent Design ... because science is hard!TM
The good people of Dover, Penn., are in court this week fighting for their right to tell high-school students that evolution is an elective, not a requirement. Intelligent design isn't just your great-grandpa's creationism, they contend. Instead, it fills in the myriad "gaps" and "problems" in Darwin's theory of evolution with an unnamed, omnipotent "designer." (Hint: His name rhymes with "Todd.") For this exceedingly pluralistic and tolerant worldview, Dover School Board members have gotten themselves into a world of trouble with parents, the ACLU, and pundits across the land.

But the critics are missing the beauty of this new theory. Because the really great thing about intelligent design is that it takes all the awkward uncertainty out of science. It says, "You know those damn theoretical gaps and conundrums that send microbiology graduate students into dank basement laboratories at 3 a.m.? They don't need to be resolved at all. Go back to bed, sleepy little grad students. God fills those gaps."

Let's face it: The problem with science has always been that each new discovery unleashes thousands of new questions and ambiguities. So really, the more we discover new stuff, the stupider we get. Clearly, that isn't working. ID says we shouldn't bother ourselves with resolving scientific inconsistencies or untangling puzzles. We should recognize that what God really wants is for us just to stop learning.

Think of the applications. Science is, after all, teeming with unresolved conundrums. What if we just recognized, for instance, that we can't make the Standard Model of particle physics work? This theory, which purports to describe all known matter—including subatomic particles, such as quarks and leptons, as well as the forces by which they interact—is plagued by scientists' failure to observe something called "proton decay." Now, if we apply the ID principle to particle physics, no one ever needs to put on a lab coat again. Quarks and leptons? They're made of God.

And so are quartz and leprechauns.

There are many thorny medical mysteries doctors can't explain: How can pluripotent stem cells give rise to any type of cell in the body? Why is the genetic marker for Huntington's disease characterized by an excess of trinucleotide repeats? What accounts for the phenomenon of spontaneous remission in some cancers? With intelligent design, we don't ever need to find out. Years from now, we'll all lie in our hospital beds while ID-trained doctors hold our hands and assure us that we are merely dying of God.

...My modest proposal would be that, instead of using intelligent design merely to fill in the gaps and inconsistencies of our most intractable scientific puzzles, we roll back what we've already learned about science and plug God into the equation at the outset. Kind of cut out those annoying scientific middlemen. That apple didn't fall onto Sir Isaac Newton's head because of gravity. It was God. God didn't want Newton to study science, and he doesn't want us to, either. And I, for one, am relieved. As Galileo famously said, and Teen Talk Barbie famously paraphrased: "Science is hard."


When reality and propaganda collide...

Ann Coulter called Pat Tillman "an American original — virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be."


Anyway, asked how she feels about Tillman now, given the news that he was actually a terrorist-loving, anti-American, Kerry-supporting moonbat who wanted to meet Noam Chomsky, Coulter says she doesn't believe it.

Of course, the source for this information was Tillman's own mother, but as Ms. Malkin demonstrated, wingnuts have a special ability to communicate with dead soldiers, and are therefore in a much better position to comment about the political sentiments of the deceased than are their own parents.

Welcome to the moronosphere

The Discovery Institute has created a Creationist blog!

Jesse at Pandagon says it "reads like a ninth-grader's lab report cribbed incomprehensibly from a website done by an inattentive undergrad."

That's not good.


The era of effective government is over, and other jokes

From the Daily Show via Bill in Portland Maine:
"The president believes the government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited government we've ever had."

--Daily Show correspondent Rob Corddry
And from a commenter at AMERICAblog:
Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the president exclaims. "That's terrible!" His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the president sits, head in hands.

Finally, the president looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

Guy In Philosophy Class Needs To Shut The Fuck Up

From the Onion:
Guy In Philosophy Class Needs To Shut The Fuck Up

HANOVER, NH—According to students enrolled in professor Michael Rosenthal's Philosophy 101 course at Dartmouth University, that guy, Darrin Floen, the one who sits at the back of the class and acts like he's Aristotle, seriously needs to shut the fuck up.

His fellow students describe Floen's frequent comments as eager, interested, and incredibly annoying.

"He thinks he knows about philosophy," freshman Duane Herring said. "But I hate his voice, and I hate the way he only half raises his hand, like he's so laid back. We're discussing ethics in a couple weeks, but I don't know if I can wait that long before deciding if it's morally wrong to pound his face in."

"Today he was going on and on about how Plato's cave shadows themselves represent the ideal foundation of Western philosophical thought," said freshman Julia Wald moments after class let out Monday. "I have no idea what Plato's ideal reality is, but I bet it doesn't include know-it-all little shits."

Wald added: "If he uses the word 'dialectical' one more time, I'm going to shove my copy of The Republic down his throat."

Although he demonstrated a familiarity with Peter Singer's view on famine relief during a discussion of John Locke's theory of property, Floen is reportedly unfamiliar with the theory of cramming it for a change and giving someone else a chance to speak.

"Just last week Professor Rosenthal was talking about Russell's Paradox, and that jackass starts going off: 'But what about Heraclitus' aphorism: Everything flows, nothing stands still?'" classmate James Luers said. "At first I was like, 'That's totally irrelevant,' but then I was like, 'Well, actually, it does apply to the nonstop flapping of your trap.'"

Among the 40 students who regularly attend Philosophy 101, the one who has endured the most suffering is freshman William Deekes.

"Some people know Darrin as just 'that guy in philosophy class who needs to shut the hell up,'" Deekes said. "I, however, also know him as 'the douche in African history who seriously needs to chill' and 'the a-hole in environmental sciences who could really use a girlfriend.'"

"I enrolled in this course because I was fascinated by the question of God," said sophomore Miriam Blank. "After spending six hours a week in the same room as that unbearable windbag, I think I have my answer. Life is as long as it cruel."

The outspoken student has not gone unremarked by the course's professor.

"Mr. Floen is a valuable contributor to our in-class discussions," Rosenthal said. "His tendency to question and challenge everything before him captures the very essence of philosophy itself."

Rosenthal added: "Having said that, I do wish he would occasionally do me the valued service of shutting his damn cake hole."


I think I have a new favorite band, and their name is Smoosh. This sister-sister duo (ages 11 and 13!) is apparently one of the hottest bands on the indie circuit right now (according to Wikipedia, they've opened for Sleater-Kinney, Death Cab for Cutie, Cat Power, and Nada Surf). From ANABlog:
Smoosh are a duo whose average age is 12, and happily, there's more notable about their music than their age ... there's just nothing quite like hearing these girls shriek like they do on "Bottlenose". We all know a few art rock chicks who would pay dearly to sound that genuine.
ANABlog provides a few mp3s:

"It's Not Your Day to Shine" (I especially like this one.)

"La Pump"


Smoosh also has a cool claymation video (from which the above image is taken). Check it out; it's real keep-your-head-out-of-the-oven stuff.

No quarter for Sully Pooh

Via Atrios, The Poor Man has a great post on why Andrew Sullivan, a thoroughly wretched figure, should not be accorded credibility simply because, once in a while, he admits that torture is bad.


More on the "other" war party

The problem of the Democratic party leadership's inexcusable (and somewhat inexplicable) refusal to vocally oppose the Iraq war has become something that anti-war activists need to confront. Counterpunch's Joshua Frank thinks that since Democrats are fleeing the peace protests, those who are anti-war ought to flee the Democrats:
Just this past weekend antiwar rallies were held across the country and the Democratic leadership was nowhere in sight. They had high-tailed it out there. They hid in their holes and were afraid to be seen.

In all fairness, a few elected Democrats did show face, mainly two: Reps. John Conyers and Cynthia McKinney. But I wouldn't constitute either as party leaders. The better-known Democrats, like Senators John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, two likely candidates for 2008, were nowhere to be seen. Even more striking were the absences of DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Russell Feingold and Ted Kennedy -- all occasional critics of the Iraq war.

Of course the Democrat's collective criticism only goes so far. They certainly don't want to be photographed with any militant protestors. By God, that would taint their reputations! They've got campaign contributions to worry about here. No, the Democrats aren't about to take to the streets. They'd rather sit back and project the illusion that they care.

...This isn't to say that the Democratic grassroots don't oppose the war. The majority does--but then so do nearly half of all Republicans. So this begs the question: why are anti-war activists so loyal to a Democratic Party that supported Bush's war and still refuses to oppose it?

Much of the Democrat's cognitive dissonance has to do with the success of Howard Dean at the DNC. He's been able to corral anti-war Democrats into the fold, making sure they don't flee en masse over the war issue even though they should. Many still see Dean as a sign of future hope, where party leadership stays in touch with the grassroots. Plus, Dean's early criticisms of the Iraq war earned him significant street-cred with party advocates.

It was un-deserved. Dean, like the rest of the Democratic leadership, is pro-war and pro-occupation, and it couldn't be more damaging for the peace movement to continue putting faith into this futile party. If Democratic activists really want to make some change -- the best thing they could do would be to get up and leave their party. Only then will Democratic leaders start to think twice about the monstrous policies they endorse.
I hesitate to fully endorse Frank's conclusions, though not the significance of the problems he addresses, in part because I don't really know quite what it would mean for anti-war people to "leave the party." Does he mean they shouldn't vote Democratic? That brings up a host of problems, a la Nader 2000, which I'm not particularly interested in re-hashing, and anyway isn't particularly relevant in a non-election year.

Maybe he just means that if the anti-war movement is actually going to succeed, it is going to have to do so by mechanisms other than the Democratic party. This certainly seems plausible. There's really no indication that the Democrats, as a party, are at all inclined to stop the war, at least no more so than Republicans (as Frank notes). Some Democrats have actually called for stepping up the war (Biden, Kerry, Clinton), though I've noticed that not much noise has been made on this front recently.

Personally, I'd like to see a takeover of the Democratic party by its progressive, anti-war rank and file - but then, I'd also like to see George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, et al. put on trial for war crimes, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. Barring this kind of dramatic development, I think we have to come to terms with the fact when it comes to the war, the top brass of the Democratic Party is on the other side, aligned not with Cindy Sheehan but with Dick Cheney.

Haute couture

More fashion show weirdness:

The real Pat Tillman

Prepare for a posthumous swift-boating. From The Next Left:

Pat Tillman, true patriot: "You know, this war is so fucking illegal ."

Those were Pat Tillman's words about Iraq. He opposed the war, was highly critical of Bush, urged a fellow soldier in his platoon to vote for Kerry, and planned to meet with Noam Chomsky following his return. He was killed by 'friendly fire' before this could happen.

A must-read article in the SF Chronicle (via Cunning Realist) offers numerous new details on Tillman's life, his death, and the coverup that ensued.

The other war party circles its wagons

Justin Raimondo:

War Party Mobilizes to Protect Pelosi

The sickening manipulation of ethnic and religious passions by the War Party is nowhere more dramatically demonstrated than in this "rapid response alert" sent out by someone in the office of the Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco, the Peninsula , Marin, Sonoma Alameda and Contra Costa Counties:


"Monday, September 26, Noon - outside Pelosi's office at the Federal Building - 450 Golden Gate, San Francisco.

"United for Peace & Justice and ANSWER, two Anti- Israel groups, will gather outside Nancy Pelosi's office at the Federal Building, to protest the Iraq War, and 'the atrocities and crimes of the Israeli state.'"

The email goes on to cite a quote that does not come from UJP or Code Pink, the two co-sponsoring organizations, in an effort to link the protest -- which is about the Iraq war, and nothing else -- to "anti-Israel" activities. This is a lie, and a shameless one. I saw the same nonsense going on at the San Francisco antiwar rally on Saturday: there was a group of counter-protesters holding Israeli flags. I went up to one of them and said: "What does any of this has to do with Israel? After all," I averred, "this demonstration is about the war, not Israel." The guy told me that he had gotten an email saying that an "anti-Israel" demonstration was going to take place, and that it was his duty to show up and show the flag.

It's interesting how the War Party lies, and manipulates ethnic-nationalist feeings to its advantage -- when, in reality, the overwhelming majority of Bay Area people of the Jewish faith support the antiwar position. This email is a fraud perpetrated on the Jewish community. What in the name of all that's holy is the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Bay Area doing acting as a shill for the War Party? An interesting question, which you might want to ask them yourself. Just call them up. Here's the number:

The M.O. of pro-war Democrats is clear: discredit the anti-war movement by any means necessary, preferably by linking it to various unseemly things like anti-Semitism and Stalinism.  Meanwhile, the majority of the American public supports these "fringe" activists, and the mayhem in Iraq continues.


What is it about "the Democratic Party supports the war" that you don't understand?

Wow, something I would have thought completely self-evident is apparently a bone of contention with some. Brian Leiter, noting the conspicuous absence of the Democratic party leadership from the anti-war protest this weekend, titled this post "American Democracy at Work: You Can Choose Between Two Pro-War Parties," the point being, of course, that there is no anti-war party.

Obvious, right?

Apparently not, because this numbnuts takes it upon himself to call Leiter out (emphasis added):
A typical silly Leiter effort. I mean, what possible reasons might a Democratic leader have to avoid an anti-war rally organized by Stalinists? Seriously, isn't it possible that having major Democratic leaders at the these rallies might, you know, harm the anti-war movement?

Kerry attends event. ANSWER fucktard carries sign saying, "North Korea uber alles" or some such nonsense. Imagine the press event:

* "Senator Kerry, you were at the same event as those who advocate the violent overthrow of the American government? Do you think this sends the wrong message?"
* "Er...well, we accept a diversity of opinions. It's a big tent, and we shouldn't associate the entire movement with fringe elements."
* "But Senator Kerry, they organized the event."
* "Well, erm, damn."
* Cue image: "Kerry talking while a "Death to Israel' sign waves in the foreground and an American flag is on fire while a guy wears 'Bush is an international terrorist' t-shirt."

Man, I bet that would go over really well with the moderates who are turning against the Bush Administration. I really can't imagine why Democratic leaders might want to avoid that scene. Yup, it must mean they are secretly pro-war. Those bastards.

Leiter reminds me of the snarky movie executive in that West Wing episode who tries to force the President to take a public stance on a homophobic measure, despite the fact that the measure would never come to a vote where Bartlett basically says, "Back off. I am not the president of Lalaland like you. This is a serious business and you are an amateur."

Leiter is a moral purist, and that's nice for him. But we live in the real world. The only way that the disaster in Iraq will end is if the Democrats win substantial victories in 2006 and 2008. Period. End of story. Creating a national dialogue about Iraq is good (cue Cindy Sheehan). Creating yet another process story about how the Democrats are in the sway of extremist special interests is bad.

Now, it is possible that Democratic leaders are making a tactical error, that they are reading the politics wrong. But goddamit, it is fairly obvious that their refusal to attend doesn't mean they really pro-war, and it is stupid to suggest otherwise.
You stupid fucking asshole, Leiter wasn't suggesting that the absence of prominent Democrats from the protest was evidence that they are "actually" or "secretly" pro-war. THEY ARE OPENLY PRO-WAR. It's no fucking secret. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass for five minutes and stopped ranking science fiction shows and started paying attention to what is going on around you, you wouldn't make such stupid and embarrassing mistakes. Talk about Lalaland ... in the universe I inhabit, most of the Democratic leadership has been enabling the war monger Bush since day one. We don't need their lack of attendance at anti-war demonstrations to realize this.

You're calling Leiter "silly"? You're the silliest, stupidest mother fucker I've come across all day (I come across a lot of silly, stupid mother fuckers, too).

And by the way, the people at ANSWER aren't Stalinists; they're Leninists. At least get your facts straight if you're going to make an ass of yourself. I mean, I realize that's what they told you at Daily Kos (which you probably also think of as a bastion of progressive, anti-war sentiment, right?), but try doing some of your own research.

People will do anything for free movie tickets

Humans are strange creatures. Kevin Drum:
I'll confess to a certain amount of curiosity about whether the extensive blog marketing campaign for Serenity actually works (see here, here, and here for examples). However, what I'm really struck by is the fact that bloggers can apparently be bought so cheaply. I mean, a free movie ticket? That's what, ten bucks? Sheesh.
You don't understand, dude. I know someone who manages a movie theater, and one thing I've learned from him is this principle: people will do ANYTHING for movie tickets. This person gets favors constantly, just in exchange for letting people in to a fucking $8 movie or whatever it is nowadays.

I have no idea what is so appealing about this. I hate going to the movies: the picture quality is always shitty, people are always talking, etc. Even for free you have to drag me to the theater. But other people, they'll give you their first born if you'll let them see Shrek 2 without having to buy a ticket.

Go figure.

Bush's poodle

Boy, Karl Rove must have pictures of Tony Blair doing something truly heinous.
Blair falls into line with Bush view on global warming

Tony Blair has admitted that he is changing his views on combating global warming to mirror those of President Bush - and oppose negotiating international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol.

His admission, which has outraged environmentalists on both sides of the Atlantic, flies in the face of his promises made in the past two years and undermines the agreement he masterminded at this summer's Gleneagles Summit. And it endangers talks that opened in Ottawa this weekend on a new treaty to combat climate change.

The U-turn will inevitably bring accusations that he has, once again, sold out to Mr Bush, just at the time that the US President is coming under unprecedented pressure to change his policy in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Last week the UK Government's chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, said that global warming might have increased their severity.

Over the past two years Mr Blair has consistently claimed global leadership in tackling what he described as "long term, the single most important issue we face as a global community" and has stressed that it "can only properly be addressed through international agreements". President Bush repeatedly expressed anger at his position.

Sharing a platform with the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, in New York this month, Mr Blair confessed: "Probably I'm changing my thinking about this", adding that he hoped the world's nations would "not negotiate international treaties".

This contradicts his assertion in a speech a year ago - which drew a private rebuke from the Bush administration - that "a problem that is global in cause and scope can only be fully addressed through international agreement".

...instead of endorsing agreed limits on the pollution that causes climate change, Mr Blair told this month's meeting at the Clinton Global Initiative that he was putting his faith in "developing science and technology" - precisely Mr Bush's position.

He justified his change of heart by saying that countries would not negotiate environmental treaties that cut their growth or consumption - another of the President's main contentions. But in another speech last April he said it was "quite false" to suppose that environmental protection would inhibit growth.

Last night, Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, called the Prime Minister's volte-face "unbelievable": "Having failed to practise what he preaches, he is now changing his preaching to match his practice."

Fuzzy math

WaPo headline:
Smaller but Spirited Crowd Protests Antiwar March

More Than 200 Say They Represent Majority
Via DU.

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Sanity is not statistical.