Hate to say he told you so...

Photo Courtesy of CNN

At approximately 1:36 GMT today, North Korea allegedly performed an underground test of a nuclear weapon. The blast registered a 3.6 on the Richter scale according to South Korea, and China was apparently given a 20 minute warning on the test. This will most likely signify the end of the six-party talks that had been off and on for the past years, and will actually probably be an October surprise in favor of the Republicans.

Why? Because: a) It gets the Mark Foley / Dennis Hastert / WTF is wrong with Republicans scandal entirely out of the news and public discourse, b) It gets talk of Homeland Security and fear mongering back at the forefront of everything as had been planned by the Republicans just before the Scandal came out. Naturally, the Democrats will not have any coherent response to this whatsoever. Look for Pelosi to make another quip rather than an intelligent statement.

Anyone remember the first debate between Kerry and Bush? North Korea came up as a topic. Kerry advocated one-on-one talks between the U.S. and North Korea, and stated that the six-party talks the Bush administration was half-heartedly engaged in would actually weaken our position with North Korea which would lead to an ultimate failure to prevent North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The response from Bush was, and this is just barely paraphrasing, "but see, if we do two-party talks, then that will screw up our six-party talks."

What we see now is something that had been exactly predicted by Kerry, and something Bush has seemed wholly oblivious about. CNN has now opened a poll on their front page asking if the voters support these bilateral talks. Nearly 30,000 votes (65%) support them. This is, of course, more reason to detest the American public when it comes to voting since issues like Nuclear Proliferation took a back seat in November 2004 to such flashpoint issues as whether or not gays should get married.

This should be yet another defeat for the Republicans as it further demonstrates their utter inability to lead on the world stage both with soft as well as hard power. The Republican plan specifically lead to a constant breakdown in negotiations until a nuclear test happened in a country that is also testing missile technology capable of striking the West Coast. That, in and of itself, should mean the Republicans don't dare talk about Homeland Security or protecting the nation; however, the average voter will most likely see this as a reason to vote Republican. Fantastic.

Say it, Nancy!

The N.I.E. (National Intelligence Estimate) managed to leak a report yesterday that said, in a nutshell, that the war in Iraq is actually strengthening terrorists and terrorism (as in not just Al Qaeda) rather than damaging. In other words, we're losing the War on Terror, and are even enhancing the strength of our enemies with our policies in Iraq. John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence (and formerly the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. before he was the U.S. ambassador to Iraq), panned the report with this quote:

"only a small handful of those judgments distorts the broad strategic framework the NIE is assessing -- in this case, trends in global terrorism."

Well, glad he cleared that up. The report was only referring to global trends in terrorism; specifically, the trend of terrorism becoming more and more threatening ever since we went in to Iraq. What was the New York Times thinking presenting a small handful of judgements, and leading us to believe that the report somehow concluded that terrorism has become more threatening since we went in to Iraq? The secondary argument from the Right is that this is old news, and that the report is over five months old. The argument there? The timing of this leak is political so big bad Democrats are politicizing the war. I've yet to see someone even make a convincing argument that the war is not inherently political let alone demonstrate why it is bad to speak politically about it.

What really gets me, though, is that Nancy Pelosi (Democratic House Minority Leader) has yet to say the one thing that came to my non-politician mind first. First of all, she gets pissed off at Hugo Chaves (President of Venezuela) called Bush the devil at the U.N. General Assembly. Freedom of speech is supposed to be an inalienable right to citizens of humanity, but apparently commies can't just go and say anything when they are on U.S. soil. The citizens of humanity thing really only means legal citizens afterall, or something. Right, Nancy? O.K. I'll let you go with just being vexing with that call on your part, but why the hell was this your response to the N.I.E. leak?

"President Bush should read the intelligence carefully before giving another misleading speech about progress in the war on terrorism."

Ooo, zing, Nancy. Go for the whole "he's a misleading guy" since you don't have the guts to call him a liar. That's a great stance to take when you were just handed a political A-Bomb on a silver platter. You can even put it in a sound byte. Here goes:

"The course Republicans have put us on is losing the War in Iraq, losing the War on Terror, and strengthening our enemies rather than defeating them. The response from Republicans is stay the course. Voters have to choose between losing both wars, not to mention being in more danger of terrorism than ever, and changing course for the better".

That takes all of 10 seconds to say, and can be belted out by every Democrat alive for the next six weeks. You'd probably have a sound byte that, in itself, could win both houses of Congress for you. You could take the credit for being a brilliant politician that put this whole ordeal in to such clear and concise light, and would thereby strengthen your own political clout among voters.

If you wanted to keep elaborating, then you could say that Bush knew this officially, at least, five months ago while he still claimed just weeks ago that the situation in Iraq is the exact opposite. Then you can even call him a liar with some confidence, eh?

Instead, Nancy, you played things reserved, and went for a smug jab at the President's credibility. Well done there, he's doing really great on credibility right now, and we probably need to keep trying to chip away at it. Nancy, why haven't you used this report as a death knell for the Republican Party on the whole in November?

Sorry You're Such an Ass

Photo Courtesy of CNN
Above: Pope Sidious I threatens to wipe Islam off the face of the earth for reasons of "academic interest"

In case you've been living under a rock for the past week or so, the Pope got himself in trouble with the general public of Islam. What could such a warm and cuddly chap say to get people mad? "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Wow. That could only be taken offensively by radical islamic fascists that hate freedom, if you ask me. Naturally, the "radicals" went to town protesting the pope with their insidious tools of fascism such as picket signs and beards. No lie. Check these extremists out:


Above: Look! Not a clean shave among them!

So, we get an apology from Palpatine, right? Well... kind of. The "apology" stated that the Pope deeply regretted the outrage expressed at what he said. Fiasco avoided, eh? How many times have you seen a politician on the hill (Dick Durbin comes to mind) apologize for the reaction to his statements only to be blasted by the other side for it being such an underhanded non apology that he should have said nothing at all? They're right when they make that criticism, too. If I shoot somebody and then apologize to the family for taking it so hard, that does not express any remorse or apologetic attitude towards what I actually did.

The pope went on to say that he was just reading a quote from Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, and didn't believe the words himself. He even went so far as to say that he was trying to open a dialogue based on academic interest about the dichotomy between religion and violence. In a nutshell, his explanation of that explanation was that he meant the opposite of the quote he read. Now, naturally, the West is running the new story: "why are they still mad at us?" "radicals don't think apologizing is enough" and "jesus freedom liberty rawr!". O.K. I'll bite.

Fuck the Jews. They all have big noses, take all the money, hoard it ALL, and then perform miracles without the permission of their own god. Those fucking hypocritical swine.

What? You think that might have upset somebody? Wow you people sure are crazy in this post 9/11 world. Don't you realize that I was just quoting Hitler so that I could outline my position as being exactly the opposite of what he said? I wanted to pursue an academic interest in the dichotomy between bullshit and sincerity.

CSPAN Induced Ranting: Episode I

So, as you may have guessed by now, I was watching CSPAN earlier today, and I got pissed off. Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy (a Regan appointee) and Clarence Thomas (a Bush I appointee) were giving some sort of a Q&A with the House Appropriations Subcommittee. I missed the part with Thomas, and, given how pissed I got at everyone in the room when Kennedy was speaking, it was probably best for my health that I did.

For some inexplicable reason, Ted Tiahrt of Kansas (guess which party) was given a fair amount of time to speak. Frankly, politicians from Kansas just don't deserve that kind of treatment. He asked Kennedy if he felt that judges should recuse themselves from cases based on their faith. That's a bit of a misnomer actually... Tiahrt asked Kennedy if he agreed that faith is important to our culture and should therefore not be grounds for recusal. The analogy given? There are 435 members of the House, and they're from all sorts of ethnic and religious backgrounds, and they still get things done! This is why I say the things I do about Kansas politicians. There aren't nine members of the House, making each one's decision vital to the outcome of the case as well as the direction of the country; instead, there are 435, and I doubt that 434 of them would ever take Tiahrt's analogy seriously.

O.K., so I'm a dick and think Tiahrt said something idiotic. No big deal there. I think lots of people say things that are idiotic. That's another misnomer. I think I say a lot of things that are idiotic, and sometimes other people do too. I was ready to let things go until Tiahrt went on, and said as if it were a granted matter of fact that we have a big increase in judicial activism. Congratulations, Ted! You just tipped me over the edge in to the swirling viscous gooey oblivion of yet another political rant! Judicial activism is on the rise, so say the Republicans, because we now see judges allowing gay people to get married, gasp, to each other. There are several people right here in Kansas that feel this is a bad idea. These activists judges have done things like looking at the state constitutions and deciding that they prevent discrimination based on sexual preference, and shame on them for all of that and whatnot. You know the Republican answer to this, of course: John Roberts and Samuel Alito (who's wife can cry on cue while dressed as her mother's couch).

When these guys were up for approval, there was a lot of rhetoric coming out of the republican punditry saying that abortion wouldn't even get to the Supreme Court any time soon. Because of that, we didn't need to worry that these guys are young as shit and will be there whenever it is that abortion does make it to their doorstep. South Dakota fixed that quickly by explicitly stating that they made a strict anti-abortion bill (which was signed in to law) with the specific intent of getting it to the Supreme Court so that Roe vs. Wade could be overturned. O'Connor's out, and she took abortion with her, just like I've been saying all this time. Now, maybe it's just me, but I always thought that upholding a constitution of a state or a nation was not activism, but overturning a thirty year precedent such as Roe vs. Wade was. Nevertheless, we have the matter of fact increase in judicial activism from these crazy judges that read their state constitutions.

Where's the democrat to save the day? We had Tiahrt followed up by Arizona's own Ed Pastor. He not only agreed that we have this awful increase in judicial activism, but then went on to ask Kennedy what he thought of congress increasing his salary. Kennedy replied with something a bit weaker than what I have heard about the issue. It was essentially this: Justices don't make enough money, and that threatens the court. Kennedy seemed to want to say that it threatened the court since better lawyers were staying in law firms, but that doesn't seem like a threat so much as a veiled shot at a couple justices he thinks aren't good enough to be on the bench. What I have heard that does sound like a threat, is that the Justices will have to be compensated in other ways than their salaries. Kennedy managed to mention this compensation as well, but it was more under his breath than anything. While the O'Reilly factor's lack of spin might decide for you that this means democrats are killing our courts for some goddamned reason (which they will call a report, leaving the decision they already made for you to then be re-decided by you; thus, making their slogan work in the most spun bullshit way possible), it sounds to me like a hint at bribery pervading our highest court. Thank you, Ed, for sticking up for rational human beings in the face of Tiahrt towing the most bullshit parts of the Republican Party line so hard he didn't even notice he was doing it... you did a great job there... by agreeing with it all.... thanks...

1 Book that is Screwing up America

I'm coming back from a long absence in my posts with a double feature today. Part one, we'll look at a company called World Ahead Publishing. They fancy themselves as "The West Coast's Leading Conservative Publisher". I'm going to repeat that. On the west coast. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they are more or less the only conservative publisher on the west coast. Anyway, they've just put out their latest book:

In case you can't tell, that's Hilary Clinton grabbing at a piggy bank. Next to her is Ted Kennedy, who seems to be... gasp... talking. Next to him is a donkey in a suit holding a microphone for Kennedy to speak in to, because liberals talking, and letting other liberals talk, is apparently one of those signature reasons that liberals are so out of whack.

Let's take a look at that piggy bank again. Why? Because it's a good point of departure. The imagery of a democrat grabbing for someone else's money is one that the punditry on the right has been trying to push since the tax increase in the early '90s. You see, increasing taxes means that evil godhating unamerican liberals are trying to take YOUR hard earned money away so that they can buy more "socialism" (the right says this word so as not to sound like Joe McCarthy, they mean communism). Remember what happened last time we had a tax increase? Remember how everyone in the country lost out economically throughout the '90s? Oh, wait... no... that was from 2000 to the present... my mistake. Well... at least the economic hardship was from 2000 to the present. We haven't had any tax hikes. We have had a bunch of cuts though, which is the Republican soapbox on this issue. See Democrats are evil and take your money to fund petty things like the Pax Americana while Republicans are the good guys that give you more money to fend for yourself. Wow, Hilary must be a bitch trying to get at our money. I mean, if she had been anywhere near the leadership during the Pax Americana, then maybe I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, but.... oh.... right....

Of course, most people on the right can't get enough of this book. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has said of it "Our hat is off, here, to Katharine DeBrecht, the author of Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed.", while the likes of Alan Colmes (a former stand up comic who FOX pretends is some sort of a knowledgable liberal when, in fact, he's just a big pussy) says that it is "Brainwashing!". Of course, this is allowed on the book's site because: "Coming from a liberal like Alan, we take that as a compliment!" I'm not going to get started tearing Alan a new one, since I'm pretty sure Hannity is busy doing something with his current one; however, I will repeat that Colmes is a big pussy who neatly fits the right's stereotype of the wishy washy liberal who nobody likes. Seriously, if Stuart Smalley can stand up to Hannity, why can't Colmes? I mean a big... big pussy.

This new fad in Republican publishing seems to be "get 'em while they're young", with even Bill O'Reilly putting out an "O'Reilly Factor For Kids" which is subtitled "How to boycott Jamie's lemonade stand". It isn't really subtitled that, but I kind wish it was. Yes, yes, the Republicans are taking a page from their dear friends over at big tobacco, and have sought out to bullshit to people as early as possible. At the very least, this means that kids who have this shit forced down their throat by their oh-so concerned parents will grow up not having any clue what an honest statement or policy sounds like. If you've only had bullshit all your life, then you won't even recognize a sandwich... unless it's some kind of a bullshit sandwich. The end result? Democrats are just as bad as Republicans in the apathetic voting-age citizen regardless of who's been running the congress since 1994, and who hasn't. Oh, also these writers will make an ass load of money on the side, not a bad perk.

There should be some sort of shitty liberal response kids book, something like "Help! Dad! Mom's indoctrinating me in to a rhetorical machinery of synergistic lies that somehow manages to convince their followers that what they're doing is actually other people's fault!". That probably wouldn't sell as well though.

Other books published by World Ahead Publishing:

Thank You, President Bush
Reflections on the War on Terror, Defense of the Family, and Revival of the Economy

Global Deception
The UN's Stealth Assault on America's Freedom
an excerpt from that gem: "Kofi Annan's method? Ensnare the United States in a web of complex and insidious treaties, protocols and covenants that legal impede our ability to act in our own interests. His target? Your freedoms."
yeah, it says that these protocols and covenants legal impede. I wonder why the right is considered less intelligent and undereducated so often?