Over at Kiko's House:
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Cheney went hunting and did not shoot his best friend in the face. But not to be completely lapped in hilarity, he did decide to go use a hunting grounds with a confederate flag hanging from the doorway.
UNION VALE, N.Y. (Oct. 30) -- Vice President Dick Cheney spent about eight hours hunting Monday at a secluded Hudson Valley gun club where well-heeled enthusiasts shoot ducks and pheasants.
It was Cheney's second visit to Clove Valley Rod & Gun Club in Dutchess County, about 70 miles north of New York City. The previous trip was in fall 2001.
Although a heavy police presence kept the media and curious local residents at a distance, Cheney's visit did stir up a bit of controversy when a New York Daily News photographer snapped a picture of a small Confederate flag hanging inside a garage on the hunt club property.
The photo was shown to New York City civil rights activist, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who issued a statement demanding that the vice president "leave immediately, denounce the club and apologize for going to a club that represents lynching, hate and murder to black people."
In general, I'd say this is a "meh" issue. It was a tiny flag, he could have easily not realized it was there, and there are reports that the door wasn't even open when Cheney entered the compounds. Regardless, however, in the wake of Kanye West's "George Bush doesn't care about black people," Katrina, and the recent overwhelming response to the San Diego fires and touting how FEMA is now reformed and working well, Cheney should still apologize to send the message that black relations are taken into account for small things as well as for big things. It's a small gesture that I believe he has to do.
But he won't, since he's probably asleep.
(photo from helpbuythebeer.org)
Monday, October 29, 2007
This is a bit of a late post - but the story is that FEMA, in an effort to try to show they are doing better with the media (and their response to disasters), set up a fake news conference last week complete with fake reporters (FEMA employees posing as members of the press) and fake, easy, soft questions so that Harvey Johnson, the deputy administrator for FEMA could answer as many questions as possible by praising FEMA's response to the fires.
Not surprisingly, most of the press conference was shown on Fox News.
To read up on the whole back story, check out this article by Al Kamen of the Washington Post.
However, the White House actually did something right - at least semi-right. As of today, Pat Philbin, the FEMA external affairs director will not be promoted to director of public affairs as originally scheduled. However, it is the feeling of this website that anything short of being immediately fired is inadequate. Michael Chertoff himself said "I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I've ever seen since I've been in government."
If Chertoff thinks that, you know it must have been Katrina.
Bad... I meant "Bad." You know it must have been bad. I don't know how I wrote Katrina.
Posted by Librocrat at 8:05 PM
Often times you see on personal ads or on television someone describing themselves as a person who "likes to have a good time." People say "I like to go out and have a good time." Or "I like watching movies and having a good time."
Is there anyone that does not like to have a good time? Is there someone who is getting ready for a date and thinks to themselves "This better not be another god damn good time. I want a bad time, or I'm going to be really pissed off."
I want to read the personal ad that goes: "I like to stay inside and be absolutely miserable with someone, so that I retch in their company."
See? That's honesty. I would never talk to that person, ever, but at least you know they're honest.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
This has to be one of the greatest plays in all of football/sports history. 2 seconds left in the game, with Trinity losing and Trinity with the ball for the final play of the game. Lateral, Lateral, Lateral. That's all I'm saying.
Sorry this isn't about politics, but I had to share it.
Friday, October 26, 2007
He got what he deserved:
Man gets 3 years for tossing puppy from balcony
By The Associated Press
CHARLESTON, S.C. — An incredulous judge sentenced a man to three years in prison for tossing a 10-week-old puppy off an apartment balcony during an argument with his girlfriend.
The puppy was in a soft-sided container, suffered head injuries and had to be put to death.
Javon Patrick Morris, 22, apologized for throwing the puppy off the balcony last March and pleaded guilty to animal cruelty.
"You mean he threw a helpless animal off three floors because he was mad at someone?" Circuit Judge Edward Cottingham asked a prosecutor before sentencing Thursday.
The judge, who has owned nine dogs, said he was obligated to issue a tough sentence.
"There is nobody in this world that can understand that," Cottingham said.
He sentenced Morris to five years, suspended to three years in prison and two years of probation. He also ordered Morris, who will be eligible for parole in 20 months, to get anger management counseling.
"I've got to send a message to all dog lovers that we are going to protect that interest in our courtrooms," Cottingham said.
New rule -
If the Republicans want to make battle weapons legal in the United States, then they should restrict those rights to this gun only:
That way, if they decide to go on a murderous rampage, they have to be okay with their gun making them look soft. And, since they're already okay with teaching their kids that guns are your friend, they may as well have a fun design so that the kids can play with them when they're away.
Maybe they can get a child size version of The Back Up and then they can give this gun to their baby girls. That would be super.
"Hello Kitty says 'Yippee Ki-yay mother fucker.'"
This is the sickest crap ever. It's called "The Back Up" and supposedly it's a gun rack for your shotgun, as per the 2nd amendment, that rests next to your bed... in case the British attack in the night? All I see is some child shooting themself in the face when their parents slept through their alarms and are running late for church. What a stupid piece of crap this is.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sorry for the light posting, I'm working on a few side projects unrelated to the awesomeness that is this blog (Oh yes, I said it).
I've been meaning to write about this for a while. A study by researches and NYU and UCLA, reported in the journal of natural sciences and written about in the Seattle Times, says that a certain part of the brain related to decision making, flexible thinking and problem solving strategies reacted differently between liberals and conservatives. "The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking."
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." Scientists instructed them to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.
M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.
Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in their anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.
Researchers obtained the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when they saw W.
The results of the study were not meant to apply to the correctness of either strategy or to indicate the correctness of either political belief (there is no "ideal" brain functioning strategy, so that it is not better to be conservative or liberal when it comes to flexible decision making or vice versa).
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times more likely than conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts and were 2.2 times more likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
Read the whole article here.
Friday, October 19, 2007
A Mock Columnist, Amok
by Maureen Dowd
I was in my office, writing a column on the injustice of relative marginal tax rates for hedge fund managers, when I saw Stephen Colbert on TV.
He was sneering that Times columns make good “kindling.” He was ranting that after you throw away the paper, “it takes over a hundred years for the lies to biodegrade.” He was observing, approvingly, that “Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream is driving a bulldozer into The New York Times while drinking crude oil out of Keith Olbermann’s skull.”
I called Colbert with a dare: if he thought it was so easy to be a Times Op-Ed pundit, he should try it. He came right over. In a moment of weakness, I had staged a coup d’moi. I just hope he leaves at some point. He’s typing and drinking and threatening to “shave Paul Krugman with a broken bottle.”
I Am an Op-Ed Columnist (And So Can You!)
By STEPHEN COLBERT
Surprised to see my byline here, aren’t you? I would be too, if I read The New York Times. But I don’t. So I’ll just have to take your word that this was published. Frankly, I prefer emoticons to the written word, and if you disagree :(
I’d like to thank Maureen Dowd for permitting/begging me to write her column today. As I type this, she’s watching from an overstuffed divan, petting her prize Abyssinian and sipping a Dirty Cosmotinijito. Which reminds me: Before I get started, I have to take care of one other bit of business:
Bad things are happening in countries you shouldn’t have to think about. It’s all George Bush’s fault, the vice president is Satan, and God is gay.
There. Now I’ve written Frank Rich’s column too.
So why I am writing Miss Dowd’s column today? Simple. Because I believe the 2008 election, unlike all previous elections, is important. And a lot of Americans feel confused about the current crop of presidential candidates.
For instance, Hillary Clinton. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to be scared of her so Democrats will think they should nominate her when she’s actually easy to beat, or if I’m supposed to be scared of her because she’s legitimately scary.
Or Rudy Giuliani. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to support him because he’s the one who can beat Hillary if she gets nominated, or if I’m supposed to support him because he’s legitimately scary.
And Fred Thompson. In my opinion “Law & Order” never sufficiently explained why the Manhattan D.A. had an accent like an Appalachian catfish wrestler.
Well, suddenly an option is looming on the horizon. And I don’t mean Al Gore (though he’s a world-class loomer). First of all, I don’t think Nobel Prizes should go to people I was seated next to at the Emmys. Second, winning the Nobel Prize does not automatically qualify you to be commander in chief. I think George Bush has proved definitively that to be president, you don’t need to care about science, literature or peace.
While my hat is not presently in the ring, I should also point out that it is not on my head. So where’s that hat? (Hint: John McCain was seen passing one at a gas station to fuel up the Straight Talk Express.)
Others point to my new bestseller, “I Am America (And So Can You!)” noting that many candidates test the waters with a book first. Just look at Barack Obama, John Edwards or O. J. Simpson.
Look at the moral guidance I offer. On faith: “After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up.” On gender: “The sooner we accept the basic differences between men and women, the sooner we can stop arguing about it and start having sex.” On race: “While skin and race are often synonymous, skin cleansing is good, race cleansing is bad.” On the elderly: “They look like lizards.”
Our nation is at a Fork in the Road. Some say we should go Left; some say go Right. I say, “Doesn’t this thing have a reverse gear?” Let’s back this country up to a time before there were forks in the road — or even roads. Or forks, for that matter. I want to return to a simpler America where we ate our meat off the end of a sharpened stick.
Let me regurgitate: I know why you want me to run, and I hear your clamor. I share Americans’ nostalgia for an era when you not only could tell a man by the cut of his jib, but the jib industry hadn’t yet fled to Guangdong. And I don’t intend to tease you for weeks the way Newt Gingrich did, saying that if his supporters raised $30 million, he would run for president. I would run for 15 million. Cash.
Nevertheless, I am not ready to announce yet — even though it’s clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative.
What do I offer? Hope for the common man. Because I am not the Anointed or the Inevitable. I am just an Average Joe like you — if you have a TV show.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Here's a question: Without looking it up in google, what color is Chartreuse?
I know the answer, so I don't need it from you. I am only asking what people think it is when they hear the color, because as far as I can tell, most people think it is a different color than it actually is.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- Sen. Larry Craig was named Saturday night to the Idaho Hall of Fame, marking the Republican lawmaker's first ceremonial appearance back in his home state since his arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting became public in August.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Since no one reads this blog regularly anymore, almost all of my hits come from searches. In the past two months, here are some of the interesting ones:
- intelligent penis
- wrinkled penis
-"why size does matter" +penis
- blogspot jockstrap
- bill gates is a stupid asshole
- build your own kerosene refrigerator
- can you tell someone anonymously that you have an std
- erotic pictures of speaker nancy pelosi
- fat jock strap
- fuck you you stupid asshole
- gay porn obituaries
- get dick sleep
- how do i know if my bearded dragonj is giving birth
- how to money off of paper ninja stars if your a kid
- japanese ewes bushes
- lesbian sex video evacuate
- miniature poodles in bangalore
- mitt romney is a douchebag
- pix of stoned ladies in iran
- smurf amniocentesis
- why is my penis wrinkled?
What have we learned? We've learned that for some reason, I rank really high up in searches that mention the word "penis." We've also learned that google allows you to search for damn near anything.
We have also learned that by posting this, I'm sure to get searches that are just as bad. Luckily they'll get to this page and turn back.
NUMEROUS articles have been written in the last couple of days about whether or not Al Gore will and should run for president (a quick search on Google news turns up this, this, and this). In many ways, it sounds like a good idea. Al Gore has scored plenty of brownie points with not only this country but the entire world with his push toward environmental reform. He has won an emmy, he has won the nobel peace prize... At this point in his life, he is one of the most popular current or ex politicians in the world. It is understandable that people are asking if he'll run, and many are pushing for him to enter to presidential race.
But few people have asked the most important question of all: Why?
No, not "why would we want him to run?" I know the answer to that, because I'd prefer him as president to, and would consider voting for him over all the candidates in the field. No, the real questions are "Why would he run?" and "Why should he run?"
Why would he run? This is a question that sounds like it has an easy answer: Because, as president, he can do more to help the environment.
Really? Pause for a second. Do you real think that? Do you think the president can honestly do much of anything? And what about if there is a Republican majority again? Do you think he'll be able to get anything done at all?
Becoming president could easily be one of the worst things he can do for his message. Yes, he has an opportunity to be a very prominent voice in the most powerful position in the world. But I would argue he easily has that now, and without as television ad attacks.
Why should he run? This is similar to the answer of the former question. He should run if, and only if, he can do more of a significant amount of good as president than he can as a civilian - and while I'm sure many people are looking at our current president and laughing, we are talking about how much more good he can do as president than another good Democratic candidate who isn't running on that issue. All of the current candidates believe in global warming and will do something to reverse it, and while they are not as prominent in the field as Gore is, they can probably get the same amount done if for no other reason than Republicans in Congress are going to get in their way as well.
Similarly he'd be bound to many more laws and customs that would prevent him from influencing the mass public, if for no other reason that he'd become his own polarized political figure.
But this doesn't mean he should be out of politics completely. The press and the blogosphere act as though the only option for him is either to run for president or not to. I've given my reasons why I don't believe becoming president is a huge step up for his cause, but that doesn't mean I think he should not be in politics at all. What about head of the EPA? What about United Nations rep? These are two (of probably several) high ranking positions in government that he could use to oversee his important agenda while still keeping out of the political abyss that is the presidency and congress. He can use his influence behind the scenes while still remaining a seemingly non-political figure on television or in print or whatever else he'd use to spread his message (can you name the head of the EPA off the top of you head right now? If you are reading this sentence and have not yet thought of it, don't worry, neither has anyone else).
It's a conversation that doesn't make sense to me. I want to see Al Gore elected president [again] as much as anyone, but unless someone can explain otherwise, I don't see why he would see the need, nor why that is his only political option to enact change.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Because they lie a lot. From the Caucus at the New York Times:
Truth squadding the most contentious point of the debate last night, Michael Cooper, the Times’s City Hall budget reporter during the end of the Giuliani administration, notes:
In defending his fiscal record, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said that during his tenure as mayor of New York City, spending declined. But he said that it declined on a “per capita” basis, meaning that the city’s population grew faster than its spending. But an analysis by the Citizens Budget Commission, an independent group, found that during his two terms, Mr. Giuliani increased city expenditures by 13.7 percent, when adjusted for inflation.
And Mr. Giuliani boasted, as he often does on the campaign trail, that he cut taxes 23 times as mayor. But fiscal monitors have noted that in doing so, Mr. Giuliani takes credit for some tax cuts that he did not initiate – including cuts made by the state.
And Michael Luo, the Times’s reporter covering Mitt Romney, notes that Mr. Romney’s claims are subject to debate, too.
Fiscal conservatives offer mixed reviews of Mr. Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts. He contends that he kept a campaign promise not to raise taxes, even as he successfully closed a $3 billion budget gap.
But even though he did not make any broad-based tax increases, Mr. Romney increased fees by $500 million and closed corporate tax loopholes, which critics argue amounted to tax increases on corporations.
Mr. Romney also touts the fact that he sought to reduce the state’s income-tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5.0 percent, but he was stymied twice by the state legislature.
And, for those of you who are sports fans, here is why Mo Vaughn left the Angels (hint, it's 9/11).
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
In response to the skyrocketing costs of the occupation of Iraq, and the requested $23 billion in additional domestic spending, Democratic representatives David Obey, John Murtha and and Jim McGovern have proposed an additional income tax increase because "it is unfair to pass the cost of the war onto future generations":
"The war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we're shoving off on them and it is devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities, expand their job training possibilities, attack our long-term energy problems and build stronger communities," Obey said.The proposed measure will increase taxes on the lower and middle class by 2%, and wealthier people by 12-15%.
Among the many problems with this idea, one of its most glaring flaws is its inability to deter Republican attacks. Immediately after the plan was announced, an RNC spokesman responded: "Americans will reject Democrat [sic] plans to take away their hard-earned dollars."
Unfortunately, that is probably the case. Obey believes that by adding this tax-surcharge, Americans will "stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the president's bluff on fiscal responsibility." But I believe this bill falls short of doing that, and instead appears only to help fund the occupation that is growing more and more unpopular even amongst Republicans.
This action is dependent on the idea that Americans will realize that Bush's spending is out of control. Unfortunately, this assumes that the small minority of Americans who still believe in this invasion will not attribute an increase in taxes to the party they already associate with tax increases.
Basically, it gives those individuals credit for being smarter and more in-tune politically than they probably are. DailyKos supports this bill, and for our sake I hope that if it passes it works as planned, but its goal seems lofty and unattainable, and I believe its message will get lost with its effects.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
I had to post this here. Sorry DKos, but this is too funny. This is the new logo for the GOP 2008 Convention:
And yes, this is real, not an extremely clever photoshop job, and truly encapsulates what the Republican Party is all about.
Wide stance? Check.
In Minneapolis? Check.
Prison stripe-wearing? Check.
Starry eyed? Check.
As for the elephant humping the "2008"...
Are they going for a "Still screwing the country in 2008" theme, or is it a reference to hypocritical adulterers like David Vitter and just about the entire Republican presidential field?
All of the above? Check!
Apparently they ran out of space for a collapsing bridge.
Update: Can't you just picture the Daily Show and Colbert Report writers salivating at the possibilities?
Update II: From the comments:
- The Blue-to-Red ratio looks to be about 80%-20%. That sounds about right for the 2008 election too.
- [I]t looks like the elephant is wrapping himself in the flag.
- Very appropriate for 2008. The elephant has Assumed the Position
- Crapping on Minneapolis?
- Elephants only stand on their hind legs for one thing; count on the Extinction Party to know nothing of their habits.
- [N]ot to mention that the head looks like a snake coming out of a monkey's ass.
And okay, this is my new favorite:
- Total roadkill. [I]t really does look like an elephant that just got ran over by a truck and is now splattered and dazed on the ground, covered in skid marks.
And more from what might be one of the funniest threads ever on this site:
- The Lone Star eye of Texas is trained on the "con" in convention. How appropriate
- The head looks like it is partially decapitated.
- An elephant never forgets how.
- Judging by the shape of the eye, I'd say he's been shot in the face by Cheney.
OLYMPIA — A sharply divided [Washington] state Supreme Court has ruled that a law that bars political candidates from deliberately making false statements about their opponents violates the First Amendment right of free speech.
In a 5-4 ruling, the high court affirmed a state Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the law. The measure was enacted by the Legislature in 1999, a year after a similar ban on false statements involving initiatives and other ballot measures was thrown out by the state Supreme Court.
"The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment," Justice James Johnson wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders and Susan Owens.
In that case, Dave Reichert voted that middle age Republican males should be allowed to engage in Beastiality.
So Brian McGough, a former staff sergeant who was wounded in Iraq, starred in a VoteVets.org ad saying: "Rush, the shrapnel I took to my head was real, my traumatic brain injury was real and my belief we are on the wrong course in Iraq is real. Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service."
To which Limbaugh responded by comparing McGough to a suicide bomber, presumably before he wet himself and abused more drugs, but we can't be sure.
Limbaugh called the ad "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."
Yeah. How dare you Brian. How dare you listen to Rush's comments completely in context and think he had anything negative to say about the anti-war veterans. Why would you think Rush has any disrespect for you, I mean, he called you a "valiant combat veteran" before comparing you to a suicide bomber.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Which one is the girl?
This is a much bigger deal than it appears. President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea and Kim Jong-il of North Korea, the two have decided to seek a formal end to the Korean war (which never technically ended) and two work together on various economic projects after meeting for the first time in seven years.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
More Satire for your lifted pleasure.
From the Humor Gazette:
Education Accomplished! "Childrens do learn"
Mission accomplished! As recently as three years ago, America's education system was in a shambles. Millions of childrens did not even know that humans and fish can peacefully coexist.
President George W. Bush was so concerned that, on Jan. 23, 2004, he warned, "the illiteracy level of our children are appalling."
Mr. Bush had been aware of the problem since Jan. 11, 2000, when he observed at a South Carolina campaign rally, "Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?"
But as his dad's vice president, Dan Quayle, learned at a sixth-grade New Jersey spelling bee in 1992, education can easily become a political hot potatoe.
The Washington pundits misunderestimated Mr. Bush's ability to get the job done, but in January 2002 he signed into law his landmark education plan: No Childs Left Behind.
Sure, there were critics. Some say the president has shortchanged his program by more than $50 billion. But Mr. Bush knows that childrens need a good education so they can grow up to get a heckuva job and put food on their families.
In today's global war on terrorism economy, he reasons, we must help childrens realize their dreams of becoming soldiers, oil executives or OB/GYN doctors, free to practice their love. Childrens, Mr. Bush understands, must be given the tools they need to compete for those good-paying jobs on the Internets.
So it was heartening to hear President Bush tell the nation -- during his speech last Wednesday urging Congress to reauthorize No Childs Left Behind -- that, when standards are high and results are measured, "Childrens do learn."
Notably, Mr. Bush's vision has also fueled an education initiative in the extremist Muslim world. In fact, many gifted first- and second-graders in Iraq and beyond are already hating America at a ninth-grade level, thanks to a policy called No Junior Terrorist Left Behind.