Bullmonkey

Bush's Economy is a Lie (as if we didn't know that)

2006-03-31T11:52:00.000-08:00

Ask Bush about why he lowered taxes, and he'll probably say something along the lines of "people should do what they want to with their own money." In other iterations, he says that lower taxes encourages economic growth, because people and companies are more likely to invest in future growth areas.

Well, I'm not saying he lied, but at the very least he was dead wrong. As if we didn't know this was coming.

Look-ee here!!

Here are some excerpts:
U.S. corporate profits have increased 21.3% in the past year and now account for the largest share of national income in 40 years, the Commerce Department said Thursday.
BUT!!!!

Meanwhile, the share of national income going to wage and salary workers has fallen to 56.9%. Except for a brief period in 1997, that's the lowest share for labor income since 1966.

Interesting.

"It's a big puzzle," said Josh Bivens, an economist for the Economic Policy Institute. "If this is a knowledge economy, how come the brains aren't being compensated? Instead, the owners of physical capital are getting the rewards."

Now I'm going to kick it up a notch with the punchline:

Despite the flood of cash coming in the door, corporations are investing comparatively little in expanding their operations. Capital spending has been below average, especially considering the strength of the economy, the level of profits and the special tax breaks given to boost investment.

In the fourth quarter, business fixed investment increased just 4.5%. In the past year, investment has risen 6.8%. The growth rate has been falling for the past four quarters.

BAM!!!

I don't know who Josh Bivens is, but I think he's an idiot. It's not a puzzle at all. Tax cuts to corporations in no way encourages growth. The right wingers would have you believe that putting people on Welfare makes them lazy and unwilling to work - the argument is that getting a "free lunch" takes away any incentive to work (and seriously, we all know how well those people live!!). But just like the way they are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, their logic twists when they are talking about hand outs for corporations.

For some reason giving corporations a "free lunch" will make them energized and more likely to spend money. Hmmm... so if I'm Exxon, and I make $6 Billion in profits... and that is raised to $8 Billion with absolutely no work what so ever, raising my stock shares and making my CEO look great, what should I do? Risk the money on growth, or keep the money and bask in its glory? Tough call.

So while the money holders expand their wealth through complete inaction, the men who actually sweat and work for a living get shafted through poor/stagnant wages, no health care, loss of pension plans, stripped public service programs.... but at least they get that $300.

Bush Reads a Bedtime Story About the Environment

2006-02-19T03:01:00.000-08:00

Did any of you read STATE OF FEAR by Michael Crichten?

I did. It was the work of the truly deluded. It was about how Global Warming is fiction... a fiction propagated by the ever rich environmentalist faction of the world.

You see, in the book, the super rich CREATED environmental mishaps (like tsunamies - I'm not kidding) so that they could propagate the myth of Global Warming and the "evil" scientific establishment could get paid. It's all about money for those environmentalists, you see.

Bush read the book and agrees with it.

READ IT HERE

He agrees that the crazy non-profits like the Sierra Club have WAAAAAAAAAYYYYY more money to propigate disinformation than OPEC, or Chevron or EXXON.

That make total sense. If you are retarded.

Here is an excerpt from the article -

In his new book about Mr. Bush, "Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush," Fred Barnes recalls a visit to the White House last year by Michael Crichton, whose 2004 best-selling novel, "State of Fear," suggests that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat.

Mr. Barnes, who describes Mr. Bush as "a dissenter on the theory of global warming," writes that the president "avidly read" the novel and met the author after Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, arranged it. He says Mr. Bush and his guest "talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement."

Once again, it's great to see a truly visionary president - one that bucks the trends (of commen sense and scientific fact).

Jesus said...

2005-12-31T02:32:00.000-08:00

I'm pretty sure that Jesus said we should care for every man as we would ourselves.

To put in in Republican terms: "Every man for himself."

Because this is the time of year for layoffs.

We'll see countless "let goes" from the new Dreamworks-Paramount" merger, from Ford, from Airlines (pick one) --- oh, not to mention any reductions from their pension funds, while their executives parachute into golden pastures.

White House B.S. Talking Point...Denied

2005-12-22T01:35:00.000-08:00

On FOX News today, a "legal expert" talked about how obtaining a FISA wiretap warrent would take "hours" but the "paperwork is complicated and could take much longer" hinting that obtaining a necessary wiretap by going through legal FISA means could jeapordize the nation.

He used the example that if we obtained the phone records of a terrorist in Afganistan, we would be held up in paperwork that would take a long time to get through before we could wiretap all of the people that terrrorist called in the US, thus leading to another attack.

Not true.

While it IS true the paperwork absolutely could take days to fill out, THIS IS AFTER THE FACT of the wiretapping.

The FISA statute stipulates that the government can wiretap first and apply for a warrant later, within 72 hours. So long as it can provide "probable cause," the court will approve.

That's right... the court can get a warrent AFTER tapping a phone.

In the light of the law and the court's record, the only reason to avoid it would be because the government felt the court that had acted almost as a rubber stamp would deny its requests.

Why would Bush think that the rollover FISA court (all members by the way were appointed by the late Reinquist) wouldn't approve of his wiretapping?

I have no problem with a "rollover FISA court" by the way. It may indeed be very beneficial to our security.

But with such a lax standard, why would Bush subvert it?

Well...

The FISA court would reject an application on two grounds.

First, that there was no probable cause. The court must adhere to the law and cannot authorize dragnets. But Attorney General Gonzales has declared that any spying is triggered by "reasonable basis" -- not probable cause. "Reasonable" means anything the government decides it is, lacking a scrap of potential evidence.

Second, the court would reject an application in which the evidence supporting "probable cause" had been produced by torture. But it is unlikely that the government would provide the court with details of the interrogation technique used. In any case, Bush apparently opted to launch trawling expeditions, lacking concrete evidence beyond lists of telephone numbers, and without the lawful imprimatur of the court.

So even given all of the improbabilities of NOT getting an after-the-fact OK, why did Bush not bother?

My guess: laziness. He has no time to abide by the laws that he's never in his privelidged life had to follow.

I Hate My Freedom

2005-12-19T05:24:00.000-08:00

Ok, the real question is: do you value your freedom?

I'm kidding.

The real question is: If these "wiretaps" were soooooooo important, then why didn't GW follow the law?

It really wasn't a hard thing to do.

I mean, getting these taps are probably the EASIEST thing to do in the world, especially for the prez. All he had to do was tell someone (a secret court judge) he wanted to do it... and BAM!! instant gratification.

But he didn't.

Why?

Could it be that the taps had as much to do with the "War on Terrorism" as "WMDs" in Iraq?

Just read this:

Fact Sheet on Domestic Intelligence Wiretaps December 17, 2005

*

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 to provide a statutory framework for eavesdropping on individuals within the United States, including U.S. citizens, who are not suspected of having committed a crime but who are likely to be spies or members of terrorist organizations.
*

FISA established a secret court that could issue wiretap orders if the government showed probable cause that the individual to be tapped is an “agent of a foreign power,” meaning he or she is affiliated with a foreign government or terrorist organization. This is an easier standard to meet than the criminal wiretap standard, which requires that there be: (1) probable cause that the individual to be tapped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and (2) probable cause that communications concerning that crime will be obtained through the electronic surveillance.
*

In the 27 years since it was established, the FISA court has turned down only a handful of applications for wiretap orders. The number of approved FISA wiretap orders has jumped since September 11, 2001, with 1,754 FISA orders issued last year, up from 934 such orders in 2001.
*

FISA already addresses emergency situations where there is not time to get pre-approval from the court. It includes an emergency exception that permits government agents to install a wiretap and start monitoring phone and email conversations immediately, as long as they then go to the FISA court and get a court order within 72 hours.
*

FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” [50 U.S.C. § 1809]
*

Congress has specifically stated, in statute, that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” [18 U.S.C. § 2518(f)]
*

The target of a FISA wiretap is never given notice that he or she was subject to surveillance, unless the evidence obtained through the electronic surveillance is ultimately used against the target in a criminal trial.

A Temp Post (Sorry No Original Content)

2005-12-19T03:51:00.000-08:00

I know I suck. No new posts. My Bad,

I swear I'm working on one. And it doesn't concren Axl Rose. I swear!!! It's about how my dog is a republican. It's got comparitive pictures and all! You see, my dog's an ass and...

Well, since I don't have that, here's a funny article. It's Mad Magazine's Dumbest people of the year. En Joy.

THE COMPLETE LIST OF MAD Magazine's 20 Dumbest People, Events and Things of 2005:

1. Hurricane Katrina: The Bush League Response
Shattering his old record for totally ignoring a national disaster (8 minutes of slacking following the 9/11 attacks), President Bush set a new standard this year for utter cluelessness. As Katrina grew to a class five hurricane and smashed the Gulf Coast, leaving New Orleans underwater and thousands stranded and suffering, Dubya spent his time clearing brush, presenting a birthday cake to John McCain, strumming a guitar at a GOP fundraiser, and sleeping. By the time he apologized to the nation two weeks later, it was painfully clear that the President had a lot in common with the citizens of New Orleans: he, too, was in way over his head.

2. Tom Cruise: From Pretty Boy To "Hoo Boy!"
As a Scientologist, Tom Cruise believes that all human suffering is caused by the galactic tyrant Xenu, who stacked billions of alien ghosts in volcanoes 75,000,000 years ago and then blew them up with his H-bombs. To us that sounds completely plausible, especially when compared to Tom's recent super crazy rants against psychotherapy and his wide-eyed, maniacal declarations of love for Katie Holmes. (Note to Katie: Get out now!) Damn that Xenu for making us all suffer through Cruise's weird, pathetic meltdown.

3. There Goes The Bride: Jennifer Wilbanks Says "Adieu"
Here comes the bride, all dressed in...whoops, not so fast! Just days before her upcoming nuptials, spooked bride-to-be Jennifer Wilbanks faked being kidnapped by a "Hispanic man" to avoid tying the knot. After an entire police force and 150 volunteers spent days looking for her to the tune of $60,000, she admitted that the story of her abduction on the eve of marriage was even phonier than the story of Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey's happy marriage. But still, the most troubling and highly disturbing aspect of the whole story? Her freaky-assed bug-eyes!

4. Russell Crowe's Telephone Tantrum: Dial "M" For Moron
Russell Crowe may not get a Best Actor Oscar nomination for Cinderella Man, but if there was a category for Best Real Life Temper Tantrum Thrown By a Pampered, Spoiled Multi-Millionaire Crybaby, then he'd be a sure-fire winner. The only performance of Crowe's that anyone paid any attention to this year was his caveman-like hotel lobby hissy fit during which he chucked a malfunctioning telephone at the head of a hapless desk clerk. All we can say is it's a good thing Russell wasn't having any problems with his toilet.

5. Karl Rove: A Man For All Treasons
There's an old saying that goes, if you piss in the wind enough, sooner or later it's bound to come back and hit you in the face. And so it was with White House advisor and political smear-meister, Karl Rove. When Rove heard that former diplomat Robert Wilson was issuing a report debunking the Bush administration's main reason for invading Iraq, and unable to refute Wilson with the facts, Karl did the only thing he could do: attack Wilson by secretly leaking to the press that his wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover CIA agent. There were two problems with Karl's plan: 1) It's against the law, and 2) He got caught. Next thing Karl knew, he was in front of a federal grand jury probing his verbal incontinence. Bad boy, Karl. Bad boy!

6. Prince Harry: Not Knowing Reich From Wrong
Nearly a year after it happened, we're still trying to figure out why in Himmler's name Britain's Prince Harry thought it was a jolly good idea to attend a costume party dressed in full Nazi regalia. As part of a family that says it doesn't want to attract undue attention, parading around with a Swastika armband isn't exactly the way to go unnoticed. Note to His Highness: Next time you get a hankering for dressing up as a Nazi, play it safe and go as the Soup Nazi. Unlike you, he's funny.

7. Dave Chapelle: Must Flee TV
Everyone handles success differently. Some immediately embrace it, some slowly adapt to it and others panic, crap their pants and haul ass to South Africa. Just after signing a record-breaking $50 million contract with Comedy Central, guess which category Dave Chappelle fell into? Even though his impersonations of Lil John, Rick James and Prince made him a star, Dave is now most famous for a baffling new impression: Runaway Bride Jennifer Wilbanks.

8. Pat Robertson: Hitman Of The Cloth
Pat Roberston has long been respected and admired as a leading authority on sanctimonious, pea-brained, hateful ideas. This year, however, the Reverend's disturbing slide into advanced dementia reached a new low point when he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. We're not Biblical scholars, but we missed the part in the Good Book where Jesus advocates killing. Perhaps Robertson's Bible includes The Gospel According To Jack (Ruby). We'd take issue with Pat more fervently, but honestly, we wouldn't want him to put a hit out on us, too.

9. Scam Artist Gives Wendy's The Finger
It was a fast food scam so stupid, it made the Hamburglar look like a criminal mastermind. Anna Ayala thought she had cooked up the perfect swindle — plant a severed digit in her Wendy's chili and just wait for that easy lawsuit money to come rolling in! Only one problem: for some crazy reason, Wendy's wanted to figure out exactly how "Chili con Fingertip" ended up on their menu. It didn't take much investigating before Ayala's Biggie lies were exposed and she and her husband were arrested — but not before her stunt cost Wendy's millions of bucks in lost business. Amazingly, in a story that involved a woman almost eating a severed human finger, Ayala's greedy, dumbass behavior managed to stand out as the most disgusting part.

10. Rafael Palmeiro Testifies Negative, Tests Positive
When people say an athlete's had quite a year, they're usually referring to his on-the-field heroics. Not so with mustachioed, unnaturally tanned baseball star Rafael Palmeiro.

After waving his finger in Clinton-esque fashion in front of Congress and testifying that he'd never used steroids, Rafy tested positive. Ever defiant, he then claimed that he never "intentionally" used steroids. But soon it was revealed that the heavy-duty 'roid he tested positive for is never found in tainted supplements, so he went to his next lame defense and blamed a teammate for giving him a tainted vitamin injection. Not long ago Palmeiro was hired to pitch Viagra to people who had trouble keeping it up. A good choice, because when it comes to dishing out the heavy BS, Rafy can keep it up forever.

11. The Terry Schiavo Circus
When a living creature perishes, eventually disgusting maggots appear to feed on its dead flesh. In the case of Terry Schiavo, the maggots — the self-righteous politicians, sanctimonious preachers, cable news talking heads and partisan grandstanders — actually fed on poor Terry while she was still alive. Upon hearing of this personal family tragedy, they quickly seized the opportunity to push forth their own selfish agendas. And an entire nation watched as these lowlife freaks whipped themselves — and the public — into a feeding frenzy. If only we could have disconnected the feeding tube on those bastards.

12. Michael Jackson's Touching Tale
Even after being acquitted on his latest round of boy-touching accusations, Michael Jackson's story was as full of unexplained holes as his kabuki face. But you'd never know it, if you checked out the self-adoring celebration that erupted on his website. The King of Perv compared his "innocent" verdict to the birth of Martin Luther King, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the release of Nelson Mandela. It's good to see Michael finally gets it.

13. Brajelina: The Lame Of Love
Like a cockroach that you step on over and over that will not die, so it is with the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston/Angelina Jolie love triangle. Supermarket tabloids, TV entertainment shows and gossip websites fulfilled their brain-dead audience's insatiable desire for The juicy details...The sordid confessions...The smoldering fury! (Even when they had to make it up.) So much money has been made by the parasitic media feeding off these three people's private lives, we figure it won't be long before the ever-greedy comic book business jumps on the bottom-feeder bandwagon.

14. Teen Queens' Extreme Weight Loss: Into Thin Err
Unhappy with their images as robust, beautiful and healthy young women, Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Simpson and Nicole Ritchie decided it was time for an extreme makeover and quickly transformed themselves into sickly, walking skeletons. They probably think they look drop dead gorgeous, but to us they look more like they're just about to drop dead.

15. Saddam Photographed In Jail: The News In Briefs
We're continually being told that for America to be successful in Iraq that we have to win the "hearts and minds" of the people on the Arab street. Our first efforts got off to a somewhat shaky start. There was that whole Abu Grahib naked prisoners on dog leashes thing, followed by the accidentally dropping and flushing the Koran down the toilet several times. This year we hit the trifecta when humiliating photos of the incarcerated Saddam Hussein, wearing nothing but tightie whities, were leaked to a British tabloid. The Pentagon, of course, promised to get to the bottom of their latest "crack" in security. Meanwhile, they're suffering from yet another public relations wedgie any child could relate to.

16. Homo-Neurotic: Right-Wing Group Outs SpongeBob
Early this year, Focus On The Family founder Dr. James Dobson claimed there was a "sinister agenda" behind a children's video because it featured "pro-homosexual" cartoon characters, such as SpongeBob SquarePants, singing the 1979 Sister Sledge hit We Are Family. We can't help thinking that Dr. J has actually lost his focus on the family — isn't it much more sinister that the video is trying to revive disco music? And, given that SpongeBob works as a deep-fry cook churning out Krabby Patties, shouldn't family groups be more worried about childhood obesity? As right-wingers continue to warn us about harmful influences in the fictional world of animation, they better take a look at this utterly shocking information we've uncovered, as it is indeed cause for grave concern.

17. Paula Abdul: Judge Juicy
We always knew that Paula Abdul was super-nice to American Idol contestants, but she apparently took it to the extreme with Season 2 contestant (and all-around loser) Corey Clark. Corey claimed that the once-sexy Abdul had an affair with him while he was on the show -- and also that she secretly coached him, chose his songs, designed his new look and even paid for his wardrobe, hairstyling and cell phone. The former Laker babe was cleared of any wrongdoing by FOX . (Note: Given that FOX's new fall line-up included The War At Home, Head Cases and So You Think You Can Dance, they're clearly experts when it comes to wrong-doing!) Well, one thing's for sure: we'll never be able to look at Ruben Studdard again without wondering if maybe, just maybe...

18. Kevin Federline: From Beer to Paternity
It was April 12th when both People Magazine editors and readers spontaneously wet themselves as Britney Spears announced that she and second husband, former dancer/current bum Kevin Federline were — Oh! My! God! — expecting. While makin' babies was sure to be a new experience for Spears, it was old hat for Federline who had already fathered two kids — not even waiting around for the second one to be born before hooking up with Spears. A healthy baby boy was born on September 14 — and while Britney had cause to worry over Kevin's lack of employment, drinking, partying, gambling and forays to strip clubs, she might take comfort in the knowledge that all those lap dances he's been enjoying (and she's been paying for) are good practice for when he bounces little Sean Preston Spears Federline on his knee.

19. "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"

20. What Screws Up Must Come Down: The A-list of A-holes
Lately, when someone does something really stupid, illegal or immoral, they're "punished" with a fat book contract or their own reality TV show. But that's not always the case. Occasionally there is a God. Someone does something wrong and there are repercussions. And so it was with a bunch of notorious lowlifes this year. In one way or another, from fraud to professional ethics gaffes to racist remarks, each of these once-esteemed people screwed up and lost. Some lost their freedom. Some lost their job. Some lost whatever credibility and respect they had. But they all found at least one thing: a place among this group of unquestionable morons.

Media For The Masses

2005-11-04T01:50:00.000-08:00

This is a long-brewing responce to many politicians... Democrat politicians. This is a responce to Tipper, to Leiberman, to Hilliary, and to every single other politician that has used poplular culture as a way out. As a way to define themselves when they have nothing else to say. As a way to gather attention and support from lazy parents who think it's the record companies' fault their kids are listening to Rap or Heavy Metal instead of thier own. So when those kids do drugs, those parents can have someone to blame... other than themselves.

Those politicians are shooting themselves in the foot by raging against not only a lost cause, but a bullshit one.

Let's start with the obvious -- the only time the politicians care about any of this is when it sells to white kids. That's right. White kids.

Rock and Roll? It wasn't invented by Elvis, but when Elvis shook his pelvis, politicians RAGED.

NWA -- "Niggas Wit Attitude" for the unenlightened. So, NWA? No problem; let the darkies have their music.... that is until they started selling millions of albums to middle-America white kids.

Remember Ice T's "Copkiller" album? He rode the white-teenage-middle-class of hardcore-rap-buyers that NWA created. Remember the "outrage" of politicians? (NOTE: this is when Tipper started her campaign.) Yeah, it had nothing to do with the fear of blacks shooting cops. It had to do with anti-establishment sentiments that had actually taken hold in white kids that had never seen a ghetto, let alone ever thought about shooting a cop. (But, in fairness, they all probably owned shotguns... thanks, second amendment!!!)

The key word in the last sentence was "ideas". Those idiot politicians were fighting against teenage rebellion. Something that was unheard of before a middle-class was created in America (back when you were either too poor or too rich to be a rebel), but grew throughout this century, and is currently peaking with the post-Baby Boomer generations. You've got a bunch of spoiled kids that are dissatisfied with what they have, while at the same time they don't respect what they have.

I'm not critisizing them, mind you, I am one of them. Ah, life in the middle class. Nothing is good enough for us.

So, this is the post for all those who think that RAP is killing our moral values and the literal fabric of our society.

I remember the first time a tape (that's right -- "tape") was taken away from me by my parents. It was "G'N'R Lies". I think it was because a naked lady was on the cover. I'm 28 (just 28 today actually), but when I was in fourth grade, I memorized Slash's riffs on air guitar... think I listened to that tape about 60 nights in a row (before it was taken away from me). I can't describe to you how good it felt to hear someone expressing the (unfounded) anger I possesed. Axl Rose was PISSED and he belted his lyrics like I'd never imagine anyone actually speaking. Slash spoke with his guitar. Adler banged his drums as if he was going to die right after each song. Guns 'N Roses were my Gods. And honestly, I had no idea what they were singing about half of the time. Listening to Mr. Brownstone years later... yeah, ok, it's about heroin. When I was young, the only thing I heard in that song was aggresion. And that's all that mattered. They were pissed, and they talked to the world for me.

But what Axl was to me, Lennon and Jagger were to my parents, as I'm sure Eminem was to 4th graders a few years ago.

And to be honest, I can't wait for what my future kids listen to. It won't be something I approve of, but I would like to think that I'd at least respect it for what it will be to them -- a way to defy convention, and break away from me. I'd rather them act out their agression through music or video games, or whatever is the medium at the time, than to act on what I consider even more harmful things.

Axl talked about screwing whores, shooting herion, and getting arrested like they were badges. I never did any of these things, and I like to think that my parents were a strong factor in that.

I got to live THROUGH my rock heroes, and get out aggrestion by listening to their songs. But I was taught right from wrong, and I knew the difference between real and Nintendo (or PS2 if you will).

A ton of pop culture is aimed at kids, and kids eat it up becuase it is an escape that they need. Just like Horror Comics in the 30s and 40s, or Elvis in the 50s. The real test is what type of influence the parents have on the kids. Keep in mind, both Horror Comics (like EC) and Elvis brought about legistlaion concerning the "corruption of youth".

And not to get political, but both Dems and Repubs want to legislate pop culture... distracting the public from real problems -- while they are doing nothing to cure poverty, which is the true culprit of most blue collar crime (and they turn a blind eye to greed, which is the culprit of most white collar crime). Hell, the only reason we have rock or rap is govenment's blind eye to inequality.

How many crimes are commited strictly because of pop culture? I'd say none. None at all. Crimes are commited out of desperation and greed and lack of sympathy for victims. Does pop culture give future criminals ideas? Absolutely. But criminals will commit crimes regardless of what songs they've listened to.... and I'd wager there was far more rampant crime and aggression during Bach's time than ours.

Let's face it... we as Americans are enlightened. Well, most of the time (NOTE: I do not count Dick Cheney's willingness to torture people enlightment). Crime has gone down every year since Clinton took office (yes, even during the Bush Jr. years). We have a decently strong middle class that has great values. And no matter how many murders you hear sensationalized on FOX News, the murder rate is way, way down.

And yet, you have politicians preaching the end of moral values because of pop culture.

I call them idiots who are emotionally retarded. They talk about fake sex and violence as if they were real. And to call any music or video games to task regarding violence when you can plainly see graphic murders and violence on CSI, CSI:Miami, CSI:NY, Law & Order (all 18 of them), Bones, Ultimate Fighting, Boxing, ER, Killer Instinct, and top it off with casual sex on Desperate Houseives, is plainly and disgustingly disingenuous.

But then again... kids can't vote. And adults always - ALWAYS - seem to forget what it was like to be a teen.

If the worst I have to deal with is a long-haired kid in my basement who listens to music too loud, then I'll be a happy man.

But then again, by the time I have kids, I may have forgotten I wrote this, and I'll be the one condemning MTV and the XBox.

A Cure and a Trumped Up (Non) Controversy

2005-11-02T11:27:00.000-08:00

This I can't understand. I just can't put my head around it.

There's a new vaccine that's about to be released (it's targeted for next year) that prevents cancer.

Let me repeat: IT PREVENTS CANCER.

That's right, a VACCINE FOR CANCER!!! (Note: it's actually a vaccine against a virus that causes cancer).

Cervical cancer to be precise. When's the last time a drug was released that actually helps REAL ailments? We're inundated with ads for drugs we never even knew we needed, and they're advertised in a way that's so vague that anyone could think they have the symptoms described in the commercials.

Ever have trouble sleeping? Try Cialis!

Tummy hurt? You've got acid reflux and must buy Zyrtex!

But now we have a vaccine for a cancer that kills thousands of women every year. That's right women - men don't have cervixes (or is it cervixi?). The "women only" thing is important to my next statement... don't worry, I'll tie it all in, I promise.

THE HIJACKED CHRISTIAN RIGHT DOESN'T WANT THIS MIRACLE DRUG TO BE RELEAED!!!

Why? Because it provokes and promotes teenage sex.

Because as I'm sure you know, nothing deters teens more from sex than the threat of getting cancer at some point 20 or 30 years later. That's why none of them smoke or drink. Teens really do look ahead, and none of them think the only things that matters are the here-now and what they're wearing to High School tomorrow.

Here're some fun quotes:

Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.

And this one:

The vaccine appears to be virtually 100 percent effective against two of the most common cancer-causing HPV strains. Merck, whose vaccine is further along, plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the year for approval to sell the shots.

So what have we got?

On the one hand, we've got a vaccine that's 100 percent effective.

On the other, we've got people who don't want to send a wrong "message". I can only assume that message is "sex is bad!!!!!" (exclamation points added by me for effect).

Are they saying that getting cancer is an appropriate punishment for doing something (possibly reckless and stupid) when you're a teen?

Ah, but it's more than that. As noted above, this cancer isn't an equal opportunity offender (i.e. lack of a cervix in males). Women are the only ones at risk. It's the Right's little way of saying women should be punished for having sex. They'd rather see their daughters die than actually take responsibility as a parent and talk to their kids about sex. They'd rather shape society to their own narrow view than have confidence in themselves that they can teach morality to their kids. And in doing so, they are putting all girls at risk.

Why not just lie to their kids in the same way they tell their sons that masturbation causes blindness? They can say they're going in for a flu shot instead of the vaccine. Just an idea.

So what will happen when someone develops an AIDS vaccine? Same thing, I'd wager. For this group of people, AIDS is punishment from God sent down to kill the gays. They would rather have millions die every year than send "the wrong message".

This is the crowd that calls themselves "pro-life" and swears on Jesus Christ. For all their life talk, they sure do love when their enemies die (not just lose... but die). What was it Jesus taught again?

Wait a Minute! I Though It Was the Left That Was Full of America Haters... I'm Confused

2005-10-25T09:59:00.000-07:00

Ok... the official party line of the Republicans (and of the hijacked Christian Right) is that the Secular Left HATES America. Not just dislikes it, but HATES it. We're un-American, they say - appearently because we'd actually like to fund our social programs. We'd rather offer therapy to terrorists than defend America. They say we blame America first. Hell, they call us the "Blame America Firsters". One thing about the Right - they are the creative ones.

So, what to make of this utter and complete disgrace? Disgrace not just on the Misanthropic Fake Christian Fred Phelps, (Fred leads a church, which has 150 followers, that recently started picketing funerals including those of American soldiers killed in Iraq, waving banners such as "Thank God 9/11", "God Hates Fags" and "Aids Cures Fags") but on what this means for the movement he represents. As always, here are some quotes:

Fred Phelps says that terrorist outrages and natural disasters such as Hurricane Rita are examples of God's wrath against countries such as America and Britain for tolerating homosexuals and homosexuality.

Okay, heard that one before. Misanthropic Fake Christian Fred Phelps is Johnny-come-lately to the Pat Robertson party on this one. But he continues:

"Oh I am so thankful that happened. My only regret is that they didn't kill about million of them. England deserves that kind of punishment, as does this country (America)".

Nice guy. Glad he's on your side though, ya right wing nutbags. Next time you have a "Justice Sunday" remember who you're going to church with. America-haters, that's who.

Guess I'm Not the Only One to Think They're Idiots

2005-10-24T16:33:00.000-07:00

Guess who is offended that the wacko Christian right has highjacked the amazing movie "The March of the Penguins" in order to promote their agenda. The director, of course:

Mr Jacquet, who has never made a film for the cinema before, is concerned that his documentary has been hijacked. “It does annoy me to a certain degree,” he said. “For me there is no doubt about evolution. I am a scientist. The intelligent design theory is a step back to the thinking of 300 years ago. My film is not supposed to be interpreted in this way. Some scientists I know find the film interesting because it can be a good argument against intelligent design. People should not jump on these bandwagons.”

Is Anyone Surprised?

2005-10-24T09:37:00.000-07:00

Novak rolled over, and he did it immediately. I know you're shocked, right? I mean, I'm sitting here telling you that the only reporter involved in Treasongate who is a clear and unwaivering partisan TOWARDS THE GOP was the first to roll over like the rat he is.

A critical early success for Fitzgerald was winning the cooperation of Robert D. Novak, the Chicago Sun-Times columnist who named Plame in a July 2003 story and attributed key information to "two senior administration officials." Legal sources said Novak avoided a fight and quietly helped the special counsel's inquiry, although neither the columnist nor his attorney have said so publicly.

Talk about integrity and protecting your source, or lack thereof.

Is there a conincidence that Novak rolled so quick and the fact that he's a partisan Republian? It certainly follows the Republican ideology of the "me, first" matra from the Regean years.

Ten bucks says he sleeps easy at night.

CHINAWATCH! Rumsfeld Serves up an Enemy

2005-10-18T10:07:00.000-07:00

Okay, so to take your mind off of Treasongate (latest HERE), I'm going to talk about something even more frightening.

About a year ago, I noticed the first news item I had seen in a long while that suggested China was still a US enemy. What the-?! China? What about terrorists? Islamists? Insurgants? Syria? Iran? And all the other enemies this administration has forced upon us with their incompetence and failed policies? What about them? The article I read was on CNN and spoke to the theory that China is not to be trusted. "I should keep an eye on that," I thought.

Why? Becuase if we had done the same thing during the run up to the Iraq War, and openly chronicled the way this administration morphed "Osama" into "Saddam," - first by association, then by replacement - we might not be in this mess.

Here's what I see happening - eventually we will pull out of Iraq. Who knows when, but eventually we will. After that it will be time to find another enemy. What Iraq retaught us (and what we should have remembered from Vietnam) is that it's much easier to fight a big enemy than it is a small one on their turf. But since all we have now are small scattered enemies, what choice do we have? Well, if you're this administration, the choice is simple: create a BIG enemy. Get back to the good old days of the Cold War. Remember, that's all Cheney, Rummy et al really know. Sad isn't it that these are the same names in nearly the same positions from almost 30 years ago?

So, today here's the latest story that features our administration's manufacturing of animosity:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused China of understating the scope of its defense spending, and he said this is sowing suspicion about how China intends to use its growing military might.
***
"I think it's interesting that other countries wonder why they would be increasing their defense effort at the pace they are and yet not acknowledging it," Rumsfeld said. "That is as interesting as the fact that it's increasing at the pace it is."

There you have it. China is obviously an enemy in waiting. A snake in the grass. So says Rumsfeld, the man who failed the American people on more occasions than almost anyone in the Bush administration. And that's saying something.

Here's the silver lining (if you can call it that) - the corporations won't let all-out war happen. China is the last great market... the only place left to sell to. Since both the Republicans and the Democrats have sold our government into slavery of the corporations, I seriously doubt they'll allow an all out war to get in the way of the bottom line.

Then again, maybe they're just trying to distract us from Treasongate - in which case, they got me.

Morals

2005-10-10T13:20:00.000-07:00

Local Christian Coalition Official Did Molest, Family Members Tell 'The Oregonian'

Turns out one of the leaders of the Christian Coalition didn't quite live the word he was preaching. Big shock, a "Christian" who's used the church to gain power and status says one thing and does another. Here's the article, here's some quotes:

After news broke that local law enforcement officials were investigating complaints that Louis Beres, longtime chairman of the Christian Coalition of Oregon, had molested three female family members when they were pre-teens, The Oregonian in Portland went out and interviewed Beres' family members.
***
"I was molested," said one of the women, now in her early 50s. "I was victimized, and I've suffered all my life for it. I'm still afraid to be in the same room with [Beres]."
***
Rich Galat, 41, of Oakland, Calif., a Beres nephew, said he told detectives that Beres has molested several female family members over two generations. "My family has gone through hell," Galat told the newspaper. "Lives have been ruined. Those of us who have come forward have been ostracized, verbally abused and the victims of character assassination . . . . It must stop."

How many times does this have to happen before we sit down and truly start to suspect those that wish not to preach and give help to others, but to impose anachronistic and archaic beliefs upon everyone else? Why is it that we equate morality with how many times a person goes to church? Just because someone says they are a Christian doesn't make it so. Just because someone condemns others for being a sinner doesn't mean they have any moral high ground. (Change the words "a sinner" to "patriotic" in that last sentence, and you can include the Republican party in this screed.)

Actually though, let's see how the Christian Coalition's agenda (as stated on their website) might have actually help ol' Louis Beres, the disgusting, filthy child molester. Here's their website: here's some specific points on their agenda:

1. Protecting Parental Notification Rights for Abortions on Minors

I bet that would really help Louis Beres the Disgusting Child Molester hide an incidence of accidental pregnancy if he knocked up one of his three daughters when he buggered them. Not only would they have had to GET PERMISSION from the man who knocked them up to get an abortion, but I can't imagine a man like Louis Beres the Disgusting Child Molester forgiving the sin of getting pregnant. He just strikes me as man who would blame and stigmatize the woman. I'm just sayin'.

2. Seek Vote for Congressman Todd Akin’s and Senator Jon Kyl's "Pledge Protection Act" bill

This bill is designed to protect the pledge of allegiance from dastardly outside forces. Kidding, it's actually designed to keep "Under God" in the pledge. Why is this important to the Christian Coalition, and thus to Louis Beres the Disgusting Child Molester? Because it follows their insane line of thinking: "if I say it enough, it must be true." If I say I am a man of God, then it must be true. If I say that I follow the Bible and the word of God, then it must be true. If I say that the United States is a nation under God, thus special, then it must be true, and I will be protected within her borders because I am a citizen of the United States, and it doesn't matter that my daughters will never speak to me again because I molested them before they hit puberty. All I have to do is say it...

So this part of the agenda really makes it so Louis Beres the Disgusting Child Molester can feel better about what he did. Hey, Louis, don't look at me! I'm sure they were asking for it.

3. Get a vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment in Senate, then in House

This one's too easy. For those just joining us, this is the "Faggots Can't Get Married Act." Because as you well know, gays who get married are far worse for society than making your daughters endure extreme physical and emotional abuse, shame, and depression. This is the part of the Christian Coalition's agenda that makes Louis Beres the Disgusting Child Molester feel better about himself. Sure his daughters would cry every time they saw him, but at least he's not a GAY who is GETTING MARRIED!!! A true abomination.

4. Passing Congressman Walter Jones’ "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act."

This act was put forth to abolish the laws that prevent preachers (like Louis Beres the Disgusting Child Molester's friends) from saying things considered "political" from the pulpit. These laws are in place for many reasons. The most obvious is that pesky "separation of church and state" thing that the Christian Coalition refuse to believe exists. Another reason is that churches don't pay taxes.

Anyone who supports this law is an idiot who's bought into the ideology that Americanism is the same thing as Christianity. The founders made sure that Church and worship in all forms would not be interfered with by any political body in America, the line being that it supports no one faith, giving her citizens free choice when it comes to deciding what God they believe in. The same problem arise when religion affects government. If religious outlets (like the 700 Club, ahem) are used to influence and co-opt government, it starts a cycle whose only outcome is a religious government. That is not America.

Oh, and how does this help Louis Beres the Disgusting Child Molester? Well, acts like this seek to subvert rational free speech and are only good for creating environments where more and more Louis Beres the Disgusting Child Molesters can exist, molest children and be praised as good church goers.

EARLWATCH! 2005 - Earle the Corporate Whore

2005-10-07T10:26:00.000-07:00

Enter the mind of DeLay ---

Look - I'm just saying I didn't do it. And even if I did do it, it wasn't illegal. And even if it was illegal, and even if I did it, it's something that is done all the time by everyone. And everyone, of course, includes that rat bastard Ronnie Earle.

Here's the article. Here's a quote.

"It's real interesting he has this crusade against corporate funds. He took corporate funds, and he's taken union funds, for his own re-election. That's against the law," Mr. DeLay told The Washington Times yesterday.

Bring it on, Ronnie!!! The Hammer awaits!

Karen Hughes - Truth-telling Ambassador

2005-10-05T10:35:00.000-07:00

I was thinking of changing Earlwatch 2005 to Earlwatch! 2005. Seems more exciting that way. What do you think?

Anywho, in other posts I've stated my disbelief that one Karen Hughes has become America's Image Comptroller. It's a scary thought to be sure. It gets even scarier when you realize that she's not really up on the facts. Any of the facts. She's gone far beyond drinking the Bush-flavored Kool-Aid. In fact, I think she's OD'd on Bush-tar heroin.

Last week, she was in Turkey bragging about how the Bush administration's policies did nothing but help Muslim women. Not just in Iraq, but around the world. Appropriately, she was laughed off stage. The newly burquad women must have disagreed with her.

Now, she's back with this. Ah, recent history, have you ever been so malleable?

Just a few great parts:

"The person I work for, President Bush, is the first president in the history of America to say we believe the Palestinians should have a state, living side by side in peace with Israel," Hughes told al-Jazeera satellite television. She repeated the statement two more times in the five-minute interview.

"What a great job, Georgie! You told me you'd be the best president EVER! And, as Harriet Miers said, you truly are the smartest person I've EVER met. Can we be BFFs?" Then she drifted into personal recollections:

Hughes, a former White House official, told reporters traveling with her that she remembered intense administration debates at the time "about what a significant step this would be for United States policy" if he supported a Palestinian state.

Such a brave administration. But here's the twist!

When Bush announced in 2001 that he supported a Palestinian state, administration officials rushed to say that he was simply following a policy articulated by his predecessor, Bill Clinton. In fact, news reports at the time said Bush was merely the first Republican president to support an independent state for the Palestinians.

Whaaa---??? That's... that's crazy talk! Clinton never talked about a Palestinian State! He only talked about dirty sex and vandalizing the White House!

The president formally reiterated the idea in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly a month later, on Nov. 10, 2001, saying, "We are working toward the day when two states -- Israel and Palestine -- live peacefully together within secure and recognized borders." But Bush's statement attracted little notice in the U.S. news media at the time.
That is because Clinton already laid the groundwork in the last months of his presidency by trying to achieve a peace deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state. In a speech on Jan. 7, 2001, two weeks before he left office, Clinton said he believed the conflict could not be resolved without creating "a sovereign, viable Palestinian state."

Clinton outlined the possible concessions each side could make, known today as the "Clinton parameters." For Palestinians, he said, a peace deal would mean "an independent and sovereign state with al Quds [East Jerusalem] as its capital, recognized by all. And for America, it means that we could have new flags flying over new embassies in both these capitals."

Okay then. But I doubt any of those Muslim savages over there remember any of this. It's our FREEDOM they hate, not our policies! Most of them can't even read. So why would they remember that Clinton had planned to do this? The Bush 2 regeim can just take credit.

"Everyone assumed [the Clinton peace negotiations] would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state," Shibley Telhami, a Middle East expert at the University of Maryland, said. "The U.S., in effect, was working on what would be a Palestinian state, but the articulated policy was less than a Palestinian state."

Oh, right. Okay then. But this guy's from Maryland! No one OVER THERE is gonna challenge our view of reality.

Challenged by reporters to explain the difference between the comments by Bush and Clinton, Hughes said: "President George W. Bush is the first president to make it a matter of United States policy that we support two states living side by side in peace and freedom" -- an important nuance that was left out of her repeated statements on her Middle East tour.

Touché.

EARLWATCH 2005: The Official Statment

2005-09-28T12:52:00.000-07:00

Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (TX) today released the following statement:

"These charges have no basis in the facts or the law. This is just another example of Ronnie Earle misusing his office for partisan vendettas. Despite the clearly political agenda of this prosecutor, Congressman DeLay has cooperated with officials throughout the entire process. Even in the last two weeks, Ronnie Earle himself had acknowledged publicly that Mr. DeLay was not a target of his investigation. However, as with many of Ronnie Earle's previous partisan investigations, Ronnie Earle refused to let the facts or the law get in the way of his partisan desire to indict a political foe.

This purely political investigation has been marked by illegal grand jury leaks, a fundraising speech by Ronnie Earle for Texas Democrats that inappropriately focused on the investigation, misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them. Ronnie Earle's previous misuse of his office has resulted in failed prosecutions and we trust his partisan grandstanding will strike out again, as it should.

Ronnie Earle's 1994 indictment against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was quickly dismissed and his charges in the 1980s against former Attorney General Jim Mattox-another political foe of Earle-fell apart at trial.

We regret the people of Texas will once again have their taxpayer dollars wasted on Ronnie Earle's pursuit of headlines and political paybacks. Ronnie Earle began this investigation in 2002, after the Democrat Party lost the Texas state legislature to Republicans. For three years and through numerous grand juries, Ronnie Earle has tried to manufacture charges against Republicans involved in winning those elections using arcane statutes never before utilized in a case in the state. This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat."

EARLWATCH 2005: And Just Like That....

2005-09-28T12:47:00.000-07:00

Wow that was fast. It's still just word games, but based on DeLay's track record we'll see much, much evil and personal attacks.

DeLay called Earle a "unabashed partisan zealot," and "fanatic," and described the charges as "one of the weakest and most baseless indictments in American history."

Here's the link.

EARLWATCH 2005

2005-09-28T12:08:00.000-07:00

EARLWATCH 2005 is all about Ronnie Earle, the special prosecutor in the Tom DeLay indictment. The only thing the Rebublicans have said about him thus far is that he's a "partisan hack" who is on a "partisan crusade" to bring down the Republican party.

Which totally makes sense becuase he's prosecuted 4 Republican politician in the past. I mean, it doesn't really matter that the other 11 politicians he's prosecuted were Dems. Nope, no sir. He's obviously partisan. It is in no way possible that he's a man who is actually out for the TRUTH, becuase, well, that's just crazy. People like that don't exist, do they?

I have a thoery... the reason we haven't heard of Earle's insiduous past, or his black love children (ask McCain about that one), or his obvious insanity is because DeLay was so out of touch that he actually thought he'd get away with it (heeellllloooo hubris!).

Okay, so now the gloves are OFF! Just wait, and I'll post all the articles about Earle as they appear. We're going to see some dirty, dirty mud flung in his direction in an attempt to discredit this honest American.

It begins with this:

Kevin Madden, DeLay's spokesman, dismissed the charge as politically motivated. "This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat," Madden said, citing prosecutor Ronnie Earle, a Democrat.

It's gonna get worse. But remember what you read here today: it's all smoke and mirrors pumped out by one of the most crooked political machines in our nation's history.

What Were We Thinking!?! We Should Blame the MSM!!! Ahh, the Old Fallback.

2005-09-27T11:41:00.000-07:00

Well, in the wake of republo-pundits going out of their way to blame the victims of the tragedy, they suddenly realized that didn't go over too well. G.W.'s numbers kept sliding, and the public seems to finally be onto the fact they elected a class-A loser. So, with nothing else to do, the pundits have turned their attention to the MSM. Ahem, I mean, the *EVIL MSM!!!!*.

My only question is, "What took them so long?"

Here's a cute little article from the continuingly self-cannabalizing L.A. TIMES. Nice. (Note, this is the story linked to by Drudge under the headline: MEDIA MADE MESS OF STORM NEWS)

Fox News, a day before the major evacuation of the Superdome began, issued an "alert" as talk show host Alan Colmes reiterated reports of "robberies, rapes, carjackings, riots and murder. Violent gangs are roaming the streets at night, hidden by the cover of darkness."

The Los Angeles Times adopted a breathless tone the next day in its lead news story, reporting that National Guard troops "took positions on rooftops, scanning for snipers and armed mobs as seething crowds of refugees milled below, desperate to flee. Gunfire crackled in the distance."

The New York Times repeated some of the reports of violence and unrest, but the newspaper usually was more careful to note that the information could not be verified.

The tabloid Ottawa Sun reported unverified accounts of "a man seeking help gunned down by a National Guard soldier" and "a young man run down and then shot by a New Orleans police officer."

London's Evening Standard invoked the future-world fantasy film "Mad Max" to describe the scene and threw in a "Lord of the Flies" allusion for good measure.

Televised images and photographs affirmed the widespread devastation in one of America's most celebrated cities.

"I don't think you can overstate how big of a disaster New Orleans is," said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a Florida school for professional journalists. "But you can imprecisely state the nature of the disaster. … Then you draw attention away from the real story, the magnitude of the destruction, and you kind of undermine the media's credibility."

Times-Picayune Editor Jim Amoss cited telephone breakdowns as a primary cause of reporting errors, but said the fact that most evacuees were poor African Americans also played a part.

"If the dome and Convention Center had harbored large numbers of middle class white people," Amoss said, "it would not have been a fertile ground for this kind of rumor-mongering."

The funny thing is, when you actually pay attention to what the right-wingers are saying, they really end up supporting the other side. The exaggerations were all about how badly the poor souls trapped in NOLA were behaving. The rapes, the murders, the animalistic behavior. It is these types of reports that O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and their disgusting ilk used to help heap the blame onto the victims.

So, now they can't blame the victims anymore, so they will turn to whip the MSM. Oh, and they will do this without apologizing to the people they denigrated.

Classy folks.

If You Use a Movie to Support a Scientific Theory, You're an Idiot

2005-09-21T13:56:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of the blockbuster documentary hit, The March of the Penguins, the insane Christian right (much different from the regular, normal Christians who actually care about their fellow man, poverty, and the things that Jesus actually taught) has been trying to take meaning from the plight of these amazing creatures.

If you haven't seen the movie (and judging by the things the wackos are saying, they haven't) it's the incredible story of how the Emperor Penguin mates. Actually I'll let this insane Christian Today article do the talking for me:

The film ... is a real-life documentary which follows a flock of emperor penguins in the Antarctic for a year as they journey 70 miles in harsh winds and freezing cold temperatures by foot ... to find a mate and reproduce.

The film beings with penguins jumping out of the water and starting their journey. The penguins journey to the breeding ground and travel in a single file line, walking nearly the entire way, to a distance seventy miles from their starting point.

Once all of the penguins finally reach the destination, they begin to pair off. Some fights occur as there are less males than females, but eventually they are paired off as best as possible.

After the female lays the egg, the egg is passed from female to male. The male protects the egg while the mother makes the 70 mile journey back to the water to eat. While the mother is away, the father shields the egg from the freezing weather conditions.

When the mother returns, the father makes the journey to find feed for itself as well. The chick hatches while the mother is away, so she sees her chick for the first time upon her return. They continue to go back and forth over the entire summer to provide food for themselves and their offspring. Due to harsh conditions, most of the young chicks do not survive.

Amazing story. Now that I've filled you in, here's the title of that article: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory?

You read that right. And here we go:

"The complexity of the penguins' lifestyle testifies to a Divine Creator," said one commentator on Christian Answers.

"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my intellect. How great is our God!"

Yep. All the reaching for religous overtones started, appropriately enough, when Pat Robertson, noted loon, declared that the Penguins were noble creatures, and great examples of moral monogamy in nature. (This is the part about not seeing the movie, BTW). He's kinda right, that is, if you consider being completely wrong, right. You see, the Penguins find a new mate EACH AND EVERY YEAR. They're practically sluts.

Anyway, that information has been corrected elsewhere, but here I'd like to talk about the idiotic notion that the movie in anyway supports the non-theory of Intelligent Design (I.D. being code for "Creationism" - Creationism being code for morons that think the Earth is 4,000 years old).

First, let's talk about this anonymous "commentator". You know why this guy or gal is anonymous? It's because "commentator" is slang for a message board user who hasn't bothered to register. So, if you read the "news story" (please, read it! Here it is!) you have to keep in mind one thing: the entire story was based on a guy in a chat room that said something. That's it. That's the whole scoop.

Seriously, read the story, and show me where there are any facts... besides the description of the movie. Actually, that is incorrect too. Did you see the ellipse in the above description excerpt? Here's what I left out:

The film, narrated by Morgan Freeman, distributed by Warner Independent Pictures, is a real-life documentary which follows a flock of emperor penguins in the Antarctic for a year as they journey 70 miles in harsh winds and freezing cold temperatures by foot, going through the harshest conditions in the struggle to survive - all to find true "love" and to find a mate and reproduce.

Yes, they said "true love". (this is where not seeing the film comes into play again!). You see, the Penguins not only screw a different Penguin a year, after a particular mating season is over, the Penguins all go their seperate ways -- NEVER TO SEE EACH OTHER AGAIN. That's right, these capital "M" moral birds abandon their kids and their families with NO EXCEPTION. That design is looking pretty intelligent from here.

Now back to the article being baseless, the entire article is based on something someone random wrote attached to a description of a film. That's all there is. It's not a story. There is no proof. Much like Intelligent Design. There is nothing to ID. Repeat, NOTHING. It's not even a theory. It's an idea, a marketing strategy even, that some evangelical twit thought up in order to sneak religion back into our classrooms.

Guess what, morons? If I wanted my kid to get a religous education I'd send them to Baptist School (or home school them) where they'd learn not to use condoms, that women aren't as good as men, the Earth is only a few thousand years old, poor people deserve to be poor, the best thing to do as a good Christian is to get lower taxes for the rich becuase that helps everyone out, and Hurrican Katrina struck New Orleans becuase of abortion. That'll get them ahead in life!

Besides, everyone knows that the Penguins were designed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Having Solved That Pesky Terrorism Problem, Feds Concentrate on Arresting Jenna Jameson

2005-09-20T11:42:00.000-07:00

I got three words for ya, baby: War On Porn.

And all I've got to say to that is: It's about time!

I was just thinking about how the U.S. just isn't stretching itself like it used to. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing "terror this" and "terror that"! I want something new to be frightened of... and by gosh if a Bush appointee (certainly, a qualified one) didn't find something for me: Consenting adults having sex. Ahh, porn... you thought we forgot about ye?

Here's the first sentence that I like in the article:

The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

That is so cool. The Feds aren't out to protect the children, but they're going to protect adults from themselves! That's what I call small government. Not surprisingly, some commie liberal doesn't agree:

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

It goes without saying that this is either a made-up quote, or something a disgruntled employee said. I mean, why else would this guy speak under anonymity? What does he have to hide? He probably watches a ton of porn. The pervert!

Plus:

But Gonzales endorses the rationale ... that adult pornography is a threat to families and children. Christian conservatives, long skeptical of Gonzales, greeted the pornography initiative with what the Family Research Council called "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general."

Yes, absolutely. Mr. Gonzales has hit the head on the nail once again. Like that time he wrote the memo that approved of US sanctioned torture, once more he is the voice of reason. Porno is so detrimental to the family, that tax payer funds absolutely must be diverted from, say, helping the poor for example, to battle this dastardly foe. I mean why spend money on poor minorities when it can be better used to battle a mostly white porn-endemic. Makes total sense to me. It'll be a "trickle-down" effect. First, whitey stops watching porn. Then whitey will have better, government-enforced morals. Then, society as a whole will be helped (even SAVED!!!) and everyone will benefit.

Let's face it, to move 10 officers from the child porn division to the adult porn division is a good move no matter how you look at it. God bless America for so wisely spending my tax dollars (well, not MY tax dollars... at this point, we're probably spending my great grandkids' tax dollars... but whatever).

And the Moral of This UNC-based Story Is: Don't Quote Ann Coulter

2005-09-20T09:19:00.000-07:00

Here's a cool story from my favorite school: Read it! A journalist got fired. Below, I'll tell you why that was a good thing.

What can I say? When I first heard about a "journalist" getting fired from The DTH for expressing an opinion, I really was a little worried. Many people say that us libs are negative and get free reign to criticize as we please, nay, that we are rewarded for it (okay, it was Laura Ingraham that said that this morning in that nasally voice she has), but when a conservative makes equally disparaging comments he (or she in this case) gets fired.

Well, I've got to disagree with the fundamental thought process that goes into that statement. I'll just come out and say it: for some reason telling the truth is criticism to the conservatives. I'll admit it, sometimes the truth is negative, and sometimes it even hurts. But that shouldn't stop people from saying it as loud as they can. I mean, it wasn't pretty to hear the Right Wing machine talk about blowjobs for five straight years, but that didn't stop them from writing a good 18 chapters about a dress stain (but remember, it's CLINTON'S fault that public discourse has gone downhill!).

-------------- WARNING: TANGENT AHEAD ----------------

Just like it's not pretty for the White House to hear about their own, massive, personal failures during the Katrina Hurricane. In fact, they refuse to hear it. They call it "blame-gaming". Personally, I find that offensive. Nothing about what happened was a "game", and by calling it so, the White House is trying to minimize criticisms by calling them childish. You want childish? How about never, ever taking responsibility for anything? Pretty childish, huh? But, if I ever get pulled into court for anything, I now know what to do:

Judge: Do you plead guilty to murder?

Me: I don't know why you're pointing fingers here. I'm trying to solve problems! You're sitting around pointing fingers and blame-gaming, while I'm trying to be productive and fix the situation. Judge, I'm ashamed of you.

Yes, the above is exactly how recent White House press conferences have gone.

----------END OF TANGENT----------------

But what it really comes down is whose truth you are telling. I imagine that many of the Bush acolytes actually believe the garbage that his administration passes for fact. To them, that is truth. They are idiots (see, I'm a nasty liberal) and they refuse to see what is happening in reality. But it is still fact to them. And herein lies the difference in Democrat and Republican rhetoric, and probably the reason why Republicans are in solid control of the government.

Liberals always respect others' points of view. We do, I swear. We always leave room for discovery, and we always like to question things. That's why they call us "progressive"... we like to progress and change, and the only way to do so is to question what you currently hold as reality. Conservatives (true conservative, not the poseurs in the White House)... not so much.

However, that makes it much easier for people to believe in Republicans. They seem, and they are, steadfast no matter how wrong they are.

So, in terms of liberals being nastier... well, considering that criticism comes from part of the "AM Right Wing Smear Machine" that started in the 80s and became known and popular for doing things like calling a 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton the White House Dog (and more recently mispronouncing Mayor Nagin's name "Nayger" - get it?), I shouldn't have to bother defending myself.

But I will defend my position on why it's good that Jillian Bandes got fired. I do disagree with her, but that's not why it's good. It comes down to intellectual honesty. She purposely took quotes out of context to manipulate how the speakers appeared to feel about racial profiling. We currently live in a journalistic landscape rife with intellectual dishonesty. From Jayson Blair, to Bill O'Reilly, to Rush Limbaugh, to a press corpse that is surprised every single time an "insider" at the White House gives them a fake tip. More and more, journalists come to stories with an opinion, and the story becomes tainted with it.

Yes, she was writing an editorial which is by definition an opinion, but if you are going to support your opinion with facts, you damn well better make sure those facts are true, both in word and spirit to their source. Jillian Bandes did not do this. She twisted quotes to get the responce she wanted, and in effect lied to the reader by faking support for her claims.

Oh, and she quoted Ann Coulter, someone quite well known for playing hide-the-salami with the truth. If this "journalist" trusts Ann's facts, how can we not question her own?

Underfund This!

2005-09-15T13:33:00.000-07:00

As I pointed out below, one of the talking points of the right has always been that Big Government (*silent shudder*) doesn't work. They prove this in a completely logical way. First they cut spending to vital government programs, and when said programs fail, they look and point and say, "I told you so!!!". It's all so easy.

So...

Here's the latest example:

Hurricane Katrina also opened the floodgates to proposals in Congress building on a host of long-cherished Republican themes. These include proposals for school vouchers for storm-displaced children, more federal support for "faith-based" organizations engaged in hurricane relief, as well as business-friendly "enterprise zone" tax credits for enterprises that rebuild in stricken areas and eased environmental and labor-protection requirements.
"The fact of the matter is when our nation faces these type of emergencies, it unfortunately requires us to deficit spend. It's nothing that anybody in Washington, or anywhere for that matter, likes to do but it's necessary," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said ahead of Bush's Thursday night speech to the nation.

Ok, so far so good. I'll even forgive them for leaving out the fact that we were already deficit spending due to Bush's 18-year-old-with-a-brand-new-credit-card-like spending.

But of course....

Some fiscal conservatives are expressing alarm.

Oh my! Alarm becuase of out of control governement spending and waste due to the accounting "mishaps" of trusted patriot company Halliburton, here and in Iraq? Alarm at the still-standing directive to lower taxes for Paris Hilton even more so that my grandkids will be paying for all this? No. Of course not.

Government failures at the federal, state and local levels are being widely blamed for the anarchy and loss of life in the early days after Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29.
"Yet now everybody says government is the answer. It's baffling," said Ronald D. Utt, who studies federal public works spending for the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Baffling indeed. If you are an idiot ideologue whose sole purpose in life is to cram an immoral agenda down the throats of the American people.

Funding government so it can do its moral duty and protect its citizens is the answer, but thanks for playing Heritage Foundation. And that's finally what we might do here... although where the money will come from...

Oliver Stone DOES Care About the Average American Idiot

2005-09-14T11:26:00.000-07:00

I think it's time to re-evaluate the American education system.

On the newly-released "Alexander" DVD, Oliver Stone gives a fascinating full-length commentary over the movie, during which he reveals this interesting tidbit: he points out one change from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut - it was discovered during previews that audiences didn't understand what 'BC' meant. So, for the theatrical version, he changed the insets to say "2500 years ago" instead of 500 B.C. The Director's cut restores the original insets.

Wow. We don't know what B.C. means. That's just... I'm speechless.

So, for your benefit, I'm going to run down the right-wing talking points regarding this (not that there will actually be any, though -- remember "Alexander" had ho-mo-sexual ideas in it) -

1. SEE! I told you public education didn't work! That's the exact reason why we started gutting it during the Reagan years!

2. Vouchers!

3. Oliver Stone is a commie! You can't believe what a commie says! You know that, don't you?
You commie.

4. BC is just another elitist term, and it's a shame that Oliver Stone felt the need to not even use it, and then talk down to the people who don't live in Hollywood. It's always the same with these limosine libs.

5. Doesn't matter anyway. There were only 4,000 years total prior to the birth of Christ, so really it's not that big a deal. You know dinosaurs are a practicle joke, right?

Because the US has Conquered Hers...

2005-09-14T10:53:00.000-07:00

Bush calls for a corrupt free UN. Okay, not to be an America-hater or anything, but I've long ago stopped putting any weight to anything coming out of the mouth of our commander-in-cheif. But I'm going to bring this article back up every time I hear about another Halliburton no-bit contract.

Joe Conason is my hero

2005-09-10T21:19:00.000-07:00

I love that man. This is my final post of today (I swear). But here's his new article. Read it, please.

Just so you know, you can either watch an quick ad and watch it for free or join Salon.com.

Here it is: The bitter lessons of four years

Also...

2005-09-10T20:42:00.000-07:00

I would like to point out that America now has a fully activated IMAGE CZAR. And her name is Karen Hughes.

I fear for this country.

Blaming the Victims part 2

2005-09-10T20:00:00.000-07:00

Man. Gotta love that Karen Huges. So predictable. Seriously, if I wanted to write a script of how the next three years would go, I could. Easily.

Here's the headline of the article: Image czar says looting shocks world opinion

Jesus.

If you want here's the article.

But really, this time at least, the headline says it all.

Yes, LOOTING is what shocks the world. My question is, what world does she live in?

Um. Yeah.

As Rumsfeld said at the beginning of the Iraq occupation: "Shit Happens."

I'm confused about the word "compassionate" now.

And now I'm actually going to break the above linked-to article down. Let's start:

Karen Hughes, who officially starts her job today as head of the nation's image-building effort abroad, said Thursday that Hurricane Katrina had complicated her already formidable task.

Yes, It's all about you:

But while much of the global criticism has centered on the Bush administration's response to the storm, Hughes said something else was a problem for America's image around the world: the crime that followed.

Look over there, look over there!

"The images of crime being committed in the face of an aweful natural disaster is hard for anyone to understand, people around the world and Americans. It sickens me as an American," she said. "How could criminals prey on vunerable elderly citizens and children during a time of such horror?"

Won't those blacks ever learn? I mean, really!

Ok, I was going to do that to the whole article, but I can't. I'm too upset (plus, it's really condescending to you, dear reader). But I will say that I hope this article gets TONS AND TONS of play, and if that happens, I hope that the American public will see it for what it is. The World court sure will... and they've already made their judgement.

Ka Ka is basically placing the blame solely in the lower class while exonerating the ruling class... that being the class that is supposedly entrusted with protecting the weak. Like all the rest of the Bushies, she refuses to acknowledge the existence of the New Testament. All while saying Jesus's name.

Bastards.

I'll leave you with one last quote:

"On the other hand, we've seen, especially in Texas, the generosity of thousands of people, an incredible outpouring," she said.

Oh My God

2005-09-10T19:35:00.000-07:00

Will these scoundrel apologists stoop to any level? Is racism so overtly blatent in the country that this is acceptable?

Listen to this (Quicktime req.) from Crooks and Liars... my new favorite blog..

Yes, Nayger (as Rush pronounced Mayor Nagin in the clip) sounds a lot like nigger. Brilliant Rush. You are such a compassionate man. Not to mention as creative as when Michael Savage calls the New York Times the OLD York Times. Har Har.

Will nothing keep hate like this aff the airwaves? Certainly not the reds of the red states. Idiots.

I'll Take You Down. I'll Take You Down to BrownTown

2005-09-09T14:01:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to share a bit of this article:

A beleaguered Mike Brown said Friday he doesn't know why he was removed from his onsite command of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, but he does know the first thing he'll do when he returns to Washington.

***

The Federal Emergency Management Agency director spoke from Louisiana shortly after the move was announced by his boss, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Critics called for Brown's resignation after government agencies seemed sluggish in their response to Katrina.

On Friday, allegations surfaced that Brown had padded his resume. He angrily denied those charges and contended that the White House and FEMA had erred in their descriptions of two of his past jobs.

"This story's not about me. This story's about the worst disaster of the history of our country that stretched every government to its limit and now we have to help these victims," Brown said. "That's all I've wanted to do."

Brown said he will still oversee FEMA, including housing, victims' assistance and other aspects of Katrina recovery efforts. But he may not be there for long, according to two officials close to Brown who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss his plans.

They said the FEMA chief had been planning to retire after the hurricane season, and Friday's action virtually assures his departure.

In the interview, Brown praised his onsite replacement, Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, but said the switch was Chertoff's idea.

"You'd have to ask Secretary Chertoff why he made that decision," Brown said.

At a news conference later, Chertoff suggested the change came as the Gulf Coast efforts entered a new phase, and that Brown might be needed to manage other potential disasters.

Asked if he was being made a scapegoat, Brown said, "By the press, yes. By the president, No."

He heatedly denied suggestions by some news organizations that he had padded his resume, answering some charges point by point:

_He was assistant to the city manager in Edmond, Okla. "I have no clue" why the FEMA Web site says he was assistant city manager, an important distinction. Either way, Brown noted that the city's former mayor, Carl Reherman, has vouched for his involvement in emergency planning. Indeed, Reherman told the AP that Brown "worked hard at everything he did," including planning for natural and manmade disasters.

_A 2003 White House press release incorrectly says Brown was executive director of the Independent Electrical Contractors, which is headquartered in Virginia. Brown said he worked for the group's Denver chapter, and he didn't know why the White House suggested otherwise. Terry Moreland, the group's Rocky Mountain chapter chief, said Brown was in the post for about six months in 2001, just before he went to FEMA. "People hardly got to know him."

_Denying allegations to the contrary, Brown said he regularly attended meetings of an Oklahoma retirement home's development committee.

Words haven't yet been invented for the feelings I have right now. Read this part again:

He was assistant to the city manager in Edmond, Okla. "I have no clue" why the FEMA Web site says he was assistant city manager, an important distinction. Either way, Brown noted that the city's former mayor, Carl Reherman, has vouched for his involvement in emergency planning.

Now read this part again:

White House press release incorrectly says Brown was executive director of the Independent Electrical Contractors, which is headquartered in Virginia. Brown said he worked for the group's Denver chapter, and he didn't know why the White House suggested otherwise.

I think the reporter screwed up a bit on the focus of his article. It's not that Mr. Brown padded his resume. He didn't have to. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that he's never even written a resume - none of Bush's friends seem to have to. The focus should have been that the White House tried to cover up this crony appointment by lying (that's right - lying) about the credentials of an obviously incompetant appointee.

Not to mention that "I don't know" has become an accpetable answer from the White House.

"I mean really, who could have guessed that terrorists would use PLANES to crash into buildings? That's crazy talk! And there was no way to know that the levees would break. And now it's... who could have guessed that we'd have a disaster like Katrina during the time that Brown was head of FEMA? If I'd have known, I would have appointed someone with at least some experience... but hindsight is 20/20 and there was no realistic reason to think that something like this could happen." (not a quote from the Prez, but it might as well be).

Bastards.

Post to come....

2005-09-08T11:22:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the delay, but I'm not quite ready with the second half of the article. I've been a busy bee in the real world, and I promise that it's on its way.

The Looming DVD Format War (and why it's a microcosm of free trade in America)

2005-09-06T10:09:00.000-07:00

Today I'm taking a break from the poli-comments to focus on another passion of mine: high quality home theater. I'm somewhat of a geek that way (probably in other ways as well). And to be honest, I have to do something to stop thinking about NOLA.

So... for those that don't know, High Definition DVD is on the horizon. It will probably hit as early as Christmas. As of this writing, it is coming in two different formats: Bluray (owned by Sony, among others) and HD-DVD (owned by Toshiba, among others). Since neither format is compatible with the other, there will be an intense "war" of the fomats, with the companies vying for their format to become THE format. Think of them as Beta vs. VHS or DVD vs. DivX (does anyone remember that?). Billions of dollars are at stake. Why? Because whomever owns the format that ultimately wins will get commision off of every disc that is made by other non-owner companies (for example, since Warner Bros. owns much of the current DVD proprietary format, every other studio has to pay them a few cents for EVERY disc they sell).

There are many opinions out there regarding this format war, and the majority of them are against it. For example, Bill Hunt over at the digital bits - a website I adore - says:

Well, it looks pretty certain now that we're in for an HD-DVD/Blu-ray Disc format war. Both Sony and Toshiba are now making statements in the media to the effect that the market will eventually have to decide which format will stick. You can read reports on their latest comments at Reuters and Engadget. There's also a ThomasNet report on the new variations of HD-DVD discs recently announced by Toshiba.

Frankly, part of me hopes that both of these formats languish (as seems to have happened to the same camps' DVD-Audio and SACD high-resolution audio formats), so that these idiots might learn a measure of common sense. It's too soon to say whether we'll endorse either format here at The Bits. More likely we'll just cover both to a degree, while giving each side hell for being so pig-headed. When is the consumer electronics industry EVER going to learn that it can't keep jerking consumers around like this?

I used to agree with that one hundred percent… a format war would be bad for EVERYONE, companies and consumers. But as I thought it out, I realized that if only one format comes out, the person who loses the most is the consumer.

We’re looking at a different animal here than the introduction of Beta and VHS. People back then had to literally learn a new way of thinking about filmed entertainment. Adoption of the new technologies was slow back then; the formats were confusing. When DVD and DIVX came out, people who were already used to home video - and in many cases already had a vast library of VHS titles - loved the idea of high quality video and audio in their living rooms, and the digital video market exploded as a result.

But what you may not remember if you weren't an early adopter is that one of the reasons DVD players came down in price so quickly was because of direct competition (yes, I know for all intents and purposes DVD and DivX were compatible, but even so they were touted as seperate brands). Without DivX, my guess is DVD player prices would have hovered in the Laserdisc price range for much longer than they did. And the best part about the entire DVD situation (besides the low prices) was that the best format won (unlike the winner of the Beta vs. VHS fight). Not to mention all the bells and whistles added to even the earliest players. The fight between DVD and DivX was an absolutely great thing for the consumer.

Think about how expensive CDs have remained since their debut, partly as a result of no direct competition. The record companies got so used to charging outrageous prices for CDs, when real competition finally came along (in the form of mp3's and the unstoppable wave of on-line audio), CDs lost a huge amount of market share. Why? Because they forgot how to competitively price things.

Or, for all you PC fans, what if Windows was the only operating system? It certainly wouldn't look the same or work as well as it does. It was the competition between Microsoft and Apple that allowed for many of the upgrades to PC technology, as well as the current low costs of computers today.

Now apply that to a single format of HD. They can charge whatever they want for the player with no competition, but far worse, they can charge an arm and a leg for the movies themselves. They’ll say that the extra cost is because of upgrading technology, but that’s just a flashy distraction. The tech upgrade is generally a one-time fixed cost, and it shouldn't be factored into the prices of every single HD-disc made hence forth.

And speaking of innovation, competition between two formats will benefit consumers in another way; a way that no other format has ever had to deal with: digital rights management.

First, take a look at these great articles on DVDFile:

If you only read one, read this one - What the Studios Really Seem to Have in Store For Us - for a frieghtening account of what restrictions and surprises we're bound to get.

And here are two more, for those that want even more of the story:

Some Interesting and Potentially Significant Developments

It Hits the Fan

If the information in those articles is any indication, we're about to enter an age where the consumer has unbelievably limited rights when it comes to how they use the media they purchase. It's scary, really, and if only one HD-DVD format comes out, the studios have exactly zero incentive to make things any easier on consumers. Why should they loosen their strangle hold on digital rights if they don't have to? With one format, you'll only have one choice when it comes to High Def entertainment, so you'll either have to take or leave their absurd restrictions.

DVD has produced what I like to call “found income” for the studios. The format has quickly become THE primary source of income for all the major studios when it didn’t even exist seven years ago. It’s basically free money the studios get in return for relatively zero investment (and don’t think for a moment that the artists in their library titles are actually seeing any of this windfall). In addition, not a single studio executive forsaw the DVD boom as it happened, and now they act like it was expected the entire time. It gave them an outlet to release and re-release (and in some cases re-re-release) countless catalog titles. It is really petty to see them warring over the next-gen systems. It's even worse to see them screwing honset consumers with restrictions as they make billions each year.

Ok, rant out of the way, here's who I think will win the format war:

At first I though that HD-DVD would quickly sweep the odd-titled "Blue Ray" off the face of the earth. Even though Blu-Ray seems to be the superior format, HD-DVD has name recognition and big titles like "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Plus, Microsoft would be backing the HD-DVD camp, meaning it was likely that the next-gen XBOX system would encorporate that technology. But then came a bombshell: Sony announced that the Playstation 3 would run on Blu-ray hardware - meaning that it would also play Blu-ray movie discs. Considering how fast off the shelves the Playstation 3 is likely to sell, we're talking about an automatic installed base of at least 2 million players. That's a huge boost for a new format.

So, after that announcement, for a while I thought that the formats would exist side-by-side… people would by a PS3 and an HD-DVD player (just as I have both a PS2 and a DVD player hooked to my TV). I don’t think that would be unreasonable. This could last for a few years as consumers tryout the new formats, and as word-of-mouth spread from the early adopters to the general public, the better format would eventually win. The studios would compete for our buck by lowering the prices on the discs and players, and in many ways, the consumer wouldn’t even be aware of the battle for the format… they definitely wouldn’t care. In this day and age of people - regular everyday people - using the internet, downloading and burning MP3s, buying multiformat disc players, and spending more than ever on the now familiar medium of DVD, I truly don’t think that customer confusion is as big an issue as when VHS, CD, or even DVD came out. And I seriously doubt that a dual format release would prevent the HD market from being adopted as some like to argue. In fact, I think it would help it immensely by creating a competition that would drive prices down on player and discs causing the new HD market to surge (not to mention putting a pin in the falsely inflated LCD screen prices we’re seeing today).

The movie companies (as is evident by the fact that no one is backing down and going for a single format) are exceedingly greedy, and would probably do anything to ensure their format becomes the king, giving consumers better, more creative options on discs and players. These companies, because of DVD, are used to making the quick buck, so they’d refuse to wait around to win that pissing contest. What will happen will be similiar to what happens when a new video game system is released. Every time a new console is launched, in order to compete, the releasing company ALWAYS underprices the game machine in order to get a larger installed base. The logic being: the bigger the base, the more games they will sell (and the more attractive that system looks to third party developers). For example, the XBOX 360 will do this immediately in hopes that they’ll get enough to fend off PS3 in the Spring. Microsoft will lose MILLIONS this year alone because of that. Do you think that they'd lower the prices so much if SONY wasn’t there? Definitely not.

Okay, so above I said that the two formats could co-exist for a bit... but that was back when the indicators were that the XBOX 360 was going to play HD-DVDs. Well, that ain't the case, as Microsort announced earlier this year. Now that Microsoft isn’t using HD-DVD in the 360, my opinions have greatly changes. By Spring of next year, BLU-RAY will be instantly installed in millions of home by people who waited in overnight lines in order to purchase a PS3. Hell, those people might even by a few movies to go with it. HD-DVD will probably be released this year with a whimper, and while I don’t think that anyone will be anxious to upgrade their collections to either format (especially those of us with hundreds of DVDs) people will be interested in new releases - I truly doubt the release of Warner's ALEXANDER in HD (announced as a title in their first wave of HD-DVDs) will make most change their minds.

Becuase of lack of content and support, HD-DVD will end up being a non-issue to BLU-RAY. Really, the only competition will end up being between the PS3 Blu-ray players and the third party Blu-ray set-top players. The silver lining is, and I truly think this, that the very existance of HD-DVD will be enough for Sony to drop the prices on Blu-Ray discs, making the median prices lower from the get-go -- and I have high hopes that this will prevent price gouging in the future. Without HD-DVD, the Blu-ray movies (or in this case, the single format movies) would be outrageously overpriced. And why not? Where else would consumers turn for HD content? The studios are already testing our resolve to buy over-expensive DVDs with the simultaneous releases of “special” editions and non-special editions (Master & Commander and Texas Chainsaw come to mind) in order to gauge peoples willingness to pay over the 25-30 dollar norm. (side note: they are doing this with video games as well; titles like Madden 2006 are being offered in more expensive "collector's editions" to see how far the video game companies can push the price envelope until consumers stop buying -- it's actually a very sly way to test the market for the next gen console prices).

That's it for today, but tomorrow, I promise to complete my objective of tying the HD market into our economy as a whole. I'll give you a hint: it has to do with OPEC and price gouging.

The Vice President Is....?

2005-09-02T16:44:00.000-07:00

Where is that guy? Just a question. There were rumors that he's still on vacation. At least we know where Condi is.... "Say no more, say no more"

Blaming the victims

2005-09-02T15:36:00.000-07:00

What better way to keep the nation together than to blame the victims of this national tragedy? As discussed below, O'Reilly has already taken up the talking point that the people stranded in NOLA actually stayed there to LOOT the place. Yeah, what a bunch of dirty criminals.

As I type this, Michael Medved is busy defending President Bush by telling his audience that the President of the United States has "no moral duty to defend the people of the nation" against such catastrophes. He went on to say that protecting personal property (stuff that, let's face it, is going to be written off - do you really think Foot Locker can sell water stained shoes?) is more important and should take priority over human lives. Rush made jokes, calling the hurricane "Katrina vanden Heuvel," before trying to beat liberals to the punch by predicting that the "libs" wanted this to happen so that they could use this opportunity to criticize Bush. And all the right-wing hosts agree that the MSM isn't showing the public the whole story. They ask, "Why won't the media show the GOOD things that are happening." Where have I heard that one?

Okay, that's bad. But not as bad as what our government officials are saying. Let's face it: the people mentioned above are nobodies in the grand scheme of things. They aren't on the ground facing this disaster.

Many officials are chucking the blame, pointing the finger... at the people who most likely will never recover.

FEMA Director Michael Brown says that the people were warned, they just didn't take the evacuation seriously.

Our First Lady said, "The poorer people are usually in the neighborhoods that are the lowest or the most exposed or the most vulnerable. Their housing is the most vulnerable to natural disaster. And that is just always what happens."

Yeah. It just happens. No one's fault but the people for being poor. Maybe if they had worked harder then they'd be fine. Yep, they really should take some personal responsibility for themselves.

FOX News is consistent

2005-09-02T09:26:00.000-07:00

Wow. I’m in awe. But then again, if anyone could make the situation in NOLA be about something it's not, it’s Fox News.

Yesterday on Fox News, as is to be expected, it was wall-to-wall coverage of the tragic events in New Orleans. And to be fair, three out of four stories were about the poor conditions in the Superdome, the lack of food and water, the people dying on the side of the road, and the need for medical attention.

But. If you just watched the previews of stories to come, you would have sworn that the only problem facing New Orleans today was looting. Every commercial bumper displayed the same types of images: black people “stealing” things. Not the dead bodies on the street, not the people going into shock due to lack of insulin, not the babies that haven’t had anything to eat in over three days. Just the looters.

Bill O’Reilly takes the cake though. No surprise there. Last night on the Factor, as Shepard Smith was reporting from the streets of NOLA, describing the bodies floating around him and trying to convince O’Reilly that no one there sees any type of bright future for New Orleans, the men almost got into a shouting match when Shep said, “I just don’t see any way that New Orleans will ever be rebuilt.” Before it became an out-and-out screaming match, O’Reilly cut in with a very strange question: did Shepard think that the reason why so many people stayed in NOLA after the evacuation order was because they wanted to loot? Bill expanded on this in the next sentence by stating the thought as if it were a fact… the only reason all these people stayed behind was to loot.

Tell that to the diabetic mother of four children.

Tell that to the elderly who have died from hunger.

Tell that to the infants who will never again wake up.

Tell that to the thousands of poor people who couldn’t afford buses, cars or taxis.

The shots from the Superdome were very revealing. I don’t think I saw a single white face in the whole thing. But instead of showing that, Fox News would like you to think that all those blacks are just there to steal things. Because everyone knows that black people steal! Way to appeal to your fan base, Fox.

As a side note, I find it hysterical that the example that O’Reilly keeps bringing up are people stealing TVs. I don’t know about your TV, but if mine was submerged in water, it wouldn’t work anymore.

HOW TO HELP

2005-09-01T15:31:00.000-07:00

Contact any of these organizations to give donations to the victims of the flood. It's sad to think that New Orleans will never be the same, how many lives have been lost or permanently altered, and how much history we've lost becuase of this tragedy. I only hope that we as a nation have the fortitude to make it past this dark time, and help our fellow man back on his feet.

American Red Cross - (800) HELP NOW
American's Second Harvest - (800) 771-2303
Adventist Community Services - (800) 381-7171
Catholic Church Charities USA - (800) 919-9338
Christian Reformed World Relief Committee - (800) 848-5818
Church World Services - (800) 297-1516
Convoy of Hope - (417) 823-8998
Episcopal Church Center - (800) 334-7626
Jewish Federation - (323) 761-8200
Hurricane Housing via MoveOn.Org
Salvation Army - (800) SAL ARMY
United Methodist Committee on Relief - (800) 554-8583
World Relief - (800) 535-5433
Humane Society of the United States - (888) 259-5431

Help if you can. I know it will be greatly appreciated.

America's Bad Week

2005-09-01T13:23:00.000-07:00

What an absolutely lousy week. I truly believe it was the worst week for the US since 9/11. And that’s not a description I relish throwing around. From the thousand-plus Iraqis murdered on a bridge due to further acts of the “struggling” insurgency to the continuing and escalating crisis in NOLA (one of the many, many sad and disturbing stories here) to the never-ending and out-of-control gas price increases to the inability of President Bush to actually get out there and lead us through this (though he may be able to lead us in a chorus) to the to the to the... and it's only Thursday.

I hate to be a negative nancy, but I don't see how this is going to get better before it gets worse. When dedicated and brave doctors still who are trying to save lives in NOLA despite the lack of supplies, running water, and personnel are being fired upon by gangs of snipers you know that anarchy is going to rule the city for days to come. When search and rescue personnel are called off their life-saving missions, given guns, and told to defend the city against looters you know something is terribly, terribly wrong.

But the question does come up: can you politicize these events? The White House certainly doesn't want us to:

"This is not a time for politics," McClellan said. "This is a time for the nation to come together and help those in the Gulf Coast region. That's where our focus is."

And on the surface, it truly is a noble notion. He's basically saying, "Don't let politics get in the way of helping your fellow man, er, American." Fair enough. But just because he doesn't want us to throw back the curtain so we can see the underlying mechanics of this historic devastation, doesn't mean we won't, or shouldn't.

Fact: FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers both predicted that a Category 4 or 5 storm would likely wipe out much of the Gulf Coast if specific and strategic measures weren't put into place to prevent widespread damage. These reports weren't general. They were specific. They presented actual actions that could have been taken in order to prevent the levee from breaking.

Fact: George Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress cut appropriations to FEMA in the Gulf area, and well as for the proposed construction projects by 44% over the last four years, as well as diverting other such funding to pay for our occupation in Iraq.

Fact: The damage done will be hundreds of times greater than what FEMA initially requested for preventative measures.

Great going, Prez. Once again your shortsighted and narrow view of the world (not to mention your utter disregard for actual science) has caused countless lives to be lost, and billions in damages and wasted money.

And once again, who is hurt most by this catastrophe? The poor. The people who couldn't make it to safety because they have no car or couldn't afford gas. The people who are employed at the below-poverty-line minimum wage of $5.15 an hour and can barely afford to feed their children, let alone get a bus ticket out of town. This includes over 80% of the people who are "fortunate" enough to have gotten one of the "Two Million New Jobs" that the Bush White House keeps touting - basically 1.6 million ofthose jobs are in the no-training, no-security, no-overtime services industries. And as the chasm grows between the extreme have-nots and the rest of us every year (since Bush came into power anyway) there were more people unable to flee NOLA in an event like that than there has been in the past 25 years! (And a special shout out by the way: HAPPY EIGHTH ANNIVERSARY $5.15 MINIMUM WAGE! For eight long years you've given inhumane Republicans and Libertarians something to complain about even when you're not actually being raised! Keep it up!).

Now, of course Bush and his policies aren't responsible for the actual hurricane. Anyone who suggests otherwise is selling you something. Sure, I believe that global warming is occurring and that humans are a main component of its growth. But what I can't believe is that if Bush came into office and immediately implemented every environmental protection in the book, then the severity of the Katrina the Storm could have been avioded. The Earth is a mighty big place, and just as global warming is something that happens over decades, so too would the effects of any remedy we as human being might actually be able to offer.

Okay. Now that that's out of the way, I can say that the destruction after... repeat AFTER ... the hurricane came and went was a direct result of the policies of the current administration. Either that, or it was the fault of the homosexuals, the abortionists, and the ACLU. Right, Pat?

So, is what's happening in NOLA political?
The storm was not.
The aftermath...most certainly is.

I'm looking forward to a ray of hope in this mess. This country needs a leader. Pray for a better Friday.

Hello out there!

2005-09-01T12:42:00.000-07:00

Okay. So. I know next to nothing about HTML, or Blogging for that matter, so don't expect any fancy tricks on this, my very first attempt at a Blog. Because I'm egotistical, I've always felt I could write well, but this is the first time that I've gone the distance and written my convoluted thoughts for the world to see, so please (to the precious few that will read this) go easy on me and don't immediately shatter my illusions (or is that DElusions?). Also, you'll find I'm not that funny (see previous parenthetical). Mostly, I'm trying to find my voice on this page, and get used to writing for others to read. Thanks for showing up.

And now, introductions out of the way, I present you with -- Bullmonkey!