Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Jerry Orbach

Jerry was well liked by practically everyone he worked with. He was, despite being a big star of stage, film and television, an average Joe. He always thanked the crew. He would talk to anyone. He reportedly took the buses and subways in Manhattan, where he lived.

When I was doing Lion King in Los Angleles, Danny Rutigliano (who played Timone), a good friend of Jerry's, often spoke well of him, and how they were off to play golf together. I've heard through my stagehand friends downtown here in LA that while he was doing Chicago at the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion he would have a beer with the guys after the show and play pool, which he was quite good at. He was, I'm sad to say, a dying breed. Here's a quote from him as Detective Lenny Briscoe that seems fitting now, on this day of his passing.

Saturday, December 18, 2004

Someone sent me Hollywood: Tinseletown Or Twinkieland
By Barbara J. Stock

My response:

This is such a joke. First of all, Kerry only lost by 119,000 in Ohio, maybe less if they count again, so I wish all you right wing dumbasses would stop acting like it was a landslide. Plenty of people in middle America can relate more to Tom Hanks than they can to George Bush, who was born with a silver spoon up his nose.

Tom Hanks was once a normal man. He's still a nice guy who thanks the crew. George Bush is a rich frat puke who's had every road paved in advance for him. He never had to work hard for anything, to which his grades, and his record, will attest.

Second, I'm getting sick of people who seem to think there is some magical heart of America, as if some asshole in a pick-up with a bible and a shotgun is more American than I am. That's the kind of "we're patriotic and you're not" shit that makes me wonder who the uniters and the dividers really are.

A lot of people actually saw Fahrenheit 9/11. I dare you or any other dumbass rednecks here to tell me one lie in it. You all talk shit about it, but not one of you has been able to articulate one single coherent, specific attack on it. And when you do, I suggest you check Michael Moore's web site. He's rebuked everything anyone has thrown at him. That's why people resort to calling him fat. That's all they got. Mike Moore grew up middle class, which Dubya definitely didn't, unless you count the crappy coke he snorted in Midland. That's as close to middle class as he ever got.

Watch Roger and Me again. Rent "The Awful Truth," his TV show, which is on DVD. I think it's amazing that you sons of bitches will put down a guy who has been defending unions and raging against the plutocracy since he was in high school, and you'll side with a guy who hates unions, wants to privatize the world, and got most of his contributions from Ken Lay and his ilk. You guys are defending a guy who is the opposite of the union working man, and you're trashing a guy who has stood up for the working man.

Just look up plutocracy.

Finally, I wonder if I can print this article, roll it up in a tube, and shove it up this bitch's ass when we do get attacked again. To suggest that George Bush, or attacking a country that even he admitted had nothing to do with 9-11, is why we haven't been attacked again, is the ultimate idiocy. I could list 100 valuable targets that are hardly guarded at all that could cause major economic and human losses if hit. What has Bush done about them? He attacked Iraq. They just snuck a fake bomb on a plane! What has Bush done about that? Spent over $150 billion of my kid's taxes on Iraq (and they still don't have armor). The fact that we haven't been hit again is completely up to the terrorists. Nobody can stop these people from attacking us. There are literally thousands of ways to do it. If anything, Bush has mad it more probable, because he's pissed off even the moderate Arabs. Now they all hate us, which wasn't true before.

If you think privatizing their countries is going to make them like us more, you're a lot dumber than I thought.

And to support Mel Gibson's violent piece of shit over Moore is so ironic. On one hand we have a guy supporting the working man all his life, and on the other a freak cult member who makes the Pope look liberal when he says condoms don't stop AIDS.

What hypocrisy.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Response to some poem about a cold soldier that goes around every year

Happy crappy. What the hell are they defending me from? Honest government? Non-threats? Backwards poor people who's electricity was working too well? Press coverage of domestic problems? A job glut? An over-bloated dollar? All while the real threats were getting worse? All that BS about troops defending me from the horrible bad guy, be it us speaking Russian if we didn't stop North Vietnam, or finding Iraqi WMD by looking for a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, it's bullshit. No American soldier has defended freedom since WWII. Korea, Nam, Iraq, Grenada, Panama? Nope. No threats to us. No threats to freedom. Lots of people dead for nothing. Dead soldiers. Dead children, mothers, fathers, sisters, sons, grandparents. For what? Neo-con global domination? Oil? Israel?

Fuck Christmas.

Sunday, December 12, 2004

Be Like Bush: Eat Well in Southern Maine

Long time friend of mine and organic gardening guru Mort Mather has asked me to tell everyone about his son's new restaurant in Wells, Maine. If you can stand to get that close to Kennebunkport and the Bush compound, or if you're a protester who wants to make the Bush family Christmas a middle finger fest for W, you're going to need a good place to eat:

Joshua's is Maine's newest fine dining restaurant featuring fresh organic food made from scratch. The vegetables are freshest in the summer when they come straight out of the Mather gardens planted especially to meet the needs of the restaurant.

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Simpsons Sounds Updates

While we were adding a Simpsons T-shirts section to our popular Simpsons site, we realized we didn't have any Ralph Wiggum sounds. I said, "That's unpossible!" There are even more Simpsons posters now. And the first five seasons are coming out on DVD soon.

New York City pictures New York wallpaper

This new site makes it easy to post a bunch of pictures I've been too lazy to resize and post on one of the other sites. I've been meaning to get to these New York City photographs that make great New York City backgrounds, and now here they are. I have more, and I'll put them up one of these days, now that it's easier.

Monday, December 06, 2004

Computer Wallpaper pictures of Hawaii

I just uploaded a bunch of Hawaii pictures to use as free backgrounds for your web site or free desktop computer wallpaper! I'm using squarespace for this because it's so much easier than resizing a bunch of pictures, so you'll have to get the big, high-resolution version and resize it to fit your computer's desktop. There are some great pictures there, so even if you're just browsing (while wishing you were there),it's worth checking out. Don't miss the great lava shots from the Big Island!

Also, I just re-did a big section of our poster store and we're now offering t-shirts, fridge magnets, calendars, tin signs, note cards, and other cool stuff.

Saturday, December 04, 2004

We have some things for sale at our e-bay site now. Not sure why we waited so long. In our house, because of our environmentalist leanings, we tend to not want to throw things away. Maybe that had something to do with us not wanting to sell things. We've started off simple, a few old CDs we don't want, but I've also decided to sell some of the old comic books my Dad left me when he died. First to go is the most valuable, a 1958 Uncle Scrooge #20 comic book from Disney.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Salmon and Steelhead May Lose Protections: "...typical of this administration—ignore science, ignore sound economics and ignore the law."

That quote, from Nicole Cordan of Save Our Wild Salmon, nicely sums up the Bush administration philosophy on practically everything. When it comes to the environment, however, no administration in history has so blatantly disregarded science and common sense to help their campaign contributors. While many in the environmental community rage about the oil, coal, chemical, and other polluting industries that are helped by the Bush Junta, this particular bit of bad science is a big help to one of the lesser mentioned Friends of Bush: Real Estate Developers. And all you Arnold voters who like to remind me that he's an environmentalist, take note of this story. Because one of Arnold's biggest special interests (oh, wait, only unions and Indian Casinos are special interests to Arnold) are real estate developers.

Where are all the outdoorsmen who voted for Bush on this issue? You schmucks were so proud of yourselves for getting Bush to change his wetlands policy (which he didn't really do), now where are you? He doesn't need your vote anymore, so fuck you. Funny, that's how I feel about you, too. Until you start voting for real environmentalists, you're going to keep getting fucked like this, so break out the PETROLEUM jelly.

While environmentalist groups are going to fight these attacks on wildlife and habitat, there is little we can do. We had a chance to elect a true environmentalist in Kerry, and 136,000 red necks in Ohio decided to believe the Republican lies about Kerry wanting to ban the Bible, repeal the second amendment, and force gay marriage on people. Big Lies, indeed, and proof that at least half of Americans are dumb-ass rednecks who care more about their bigoted beliefs than the truth. Now where you gunna fish, Cletus?

Monday, November 29, 2004

Start the fight for 08 now!

The Bumper Banner lets you print anti-Bush bumper stickers and slogans from your pc and display them on your vehicle using a cool, lightweight, weatherproof bumper sticker holder. Choose from hundreds of pre-made anti bush stickers or design your own. We have anti-bush bumper sticker ideas on our Bush quotes page.

I still think Wes Clark would make a great president.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Backstage at the Mark Taper Forum today, during Rehersals for The School for Scandal, I talked with veteran actor John Cunningham who's reading American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush by Kevin Phillips. He said it's making him feel better by putting the Bush "win" in a historical perspective. He recommends we not go crazy, since in 23 months or so we have to get back to work creating a center-left coalition that can win.

I agreed, pointing out that we need to clear through the Republican lies and cheating to win the votes of the vast majority of Americans who feel we need more environmental protection, not less; who feel we need to protect a woman's right to choose, not erode it; who feel we need sane arms control, constructive diplomacy, and to protect worker rights. Mr. Cunningham seemed very knowledgeable of history, and I pointed out to him what I heard on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman this morning, from a European Green Party member who basically said the re-election of Bush is helping them (gee, glad we could help). He said we should look at European history of Dynasty (as Phillips points out in his book, and realize that we, here in a country that was designed to not have Tudors or other political dynasties, have exactly that (considering that Clinton was a bit of an aberation). Maybe this kind of historical perspective, realizing that they've perpetuated a Dynasty, will jolt the "What's the Matter with Kansas" voters out of their Republican induced stupor.

Monday, November 15, 2004

With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House by Esther Kaplan

Evangelical Environmental Network

Here's the kind of group my left-leaning Christian friends need to help. If we could spread the word of this group, at least we might have a chance of convincing evangelicals that destruction of the environment is not something of which Jesus would approve. If we can't beat Republicans, maybe we could at least try to force them to be more responsible about the environment.
Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment | By Glenn Scherer | Grist Magazine | Main Dish | 27 Oct 2004: "'God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."—Secretary of the Interior James Watt, 1981

Joe Bageant: The Covert Kingdom

After reading this, I've been trying to find out if there are any Christian groups trying to teach the rest of their flock that John was certifiably crazy when he wrote Revelations, or that many didn't want to include it in the New Testament. Or, maybe there are other, simpler, more peaceful interpretations of Revelations that Christians should be teaching each other. We have four years to try to teach these doomsayers the error of their ways. How they can throw out the overwhelming amount of peace, love, and help for the poor in the New Testament for one chapter of lakes of fire and killing Jews is a complete mystery to me, and frankly, one of the reasons I hate religion. But maybe some of my "Christian" friends can help me help these people.

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Recount Ohio Now!

Even if it won't put Kerry in the White House (only two letters from Whore House), if it gives Karl Rove agita, I'm for it.

Saturday, November 13, 2004

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."—H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Republican Strategy: avoid the issues and lie about the other guy

Here's part of a letter to one of my union "brothers" who voted for Bush. We've been going at it for a few days now, and he still refuses to talk issues. I think that pretty much sums up the Republican campaign tactic. Lie about the other guy, and don't talk issues.

The really sad thing here is that you, like many Americans, vote against your economic interests. For instance, on election day, the Republican party paid for a phone message where a woman acted like she was from the Democrats and she was saying please get out and vote for Kerry so we can make gay marriage legal. Now how can voters make an informed choice when the Republicans lie like that? How can a voter like you, who's lost his health care, choose a candidate when one side lies? Republicans sent out a mailer claiming Kerry wanted to ban the Bible! How can a voter choose between candidates when one side lies like that, and refuses to debate the real issues.

On health care, Bush said he's making it more affordable. That's a lie. But people like you are convinced for some reason that Kerry wanted to take your guns (a lie), make gay marriage legal (a lie), raise taxes on the middle class (a lie), and give veto power to the world on our security (a lie). How on earth can we have a fair election, based on issues, when Republicans have to lie like that to get elected? How can we ever expect working people like you to vote for someone who cares about them, when the people who want to screw you lie to you and you believe it?
The one thing that really pissed some people off is me saying, hey, anger works for them, let's try it! Coulter has suggested killing liberals. So, I had a better argument. I said I hoped that Bush voters got cancer.
I hope that anyone who voted for Bush, who thinks that stopping assisted suicide and medicinal marijuana are good ideas, should have to die of cancer in pain without pot or the option of going peacefully... George Bush actually had cancer patients at medicinal marijuana clubs arrested. What do you think should be the Karma Bush should receive for that kind of sick behavior? You call me sick for wishing on Republicans that which they wish upon the sick and helpless? Please! I'm only hoping that they get to see, before they die, how horrible the situation they put others in actually is.
I think doing hate is bad, but they do it and it works for them. So, I think at least some of us on the left should do it, provided we always do it better than them. I really hate people that would wish such pain and suffering on people. I don't want to wish it on anyone. That's the point. I think people dying of cancer, or any horrible disease, should have the right to kill themselves peacefully with a doctor's help, without having their insurance not pay out because it was a suicide instead of a horrible death from the disease. They should be able to use marijuana as a medicine. But when there are people who support Bush and Ashcroft for stopping assisted suicide and smoking pot as medicine, I think it would be fitting that those people have to suffer that which they have caused others to suffer. Eye for an eye, right?
Stem cells, for example. I hope that every person who thinks that using a clump of cells to cure horrible diseases is killing babies gets one of those diseases themselves. That would be fitting, wouldn't it? I wonder how GW Bush would feel about stem cell research if he was stuck in a wheel chair, or if he had Parkinson's. I wonder how George Bush would feel about smoking pot after Chemo.
Just one thought on the future of the Democratic Party. We need to seriously look at straight-talkers like Howard Dean. We need to, as Dean did, give up a wedge issue they beat us on: Guns. Take the Dean position on Guns. Then you can hold Wisconsin and win Ohio. We need a guy who will point out the lies from the other side. Come right out and say, hey, that's a lie. Al Franken does this beautifully. Don't be afraid of it. Paul Wellstone had conservatives vote for him. We should study how he did it. Arianna has a good point today about swinging for the fences with a big, detailed plan. Senator Schumer from New York said that too, on the Daily Show. But that won't even work when the other side lies about you and gets away with it. If the press won't call Republicans for lying, then our candidate should. That'll make the news!

Monday, November 01, 2004

"Strap him with an AK-47
Let him go fight his own war
Let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil
We got our own battles to fight on our own soil
No more psychological warfare to trick us into thinkin' we ain't loyal"—Eminem

18 to 29 year olds are going to decide this election. If they vote in large numbers, Kerry wins. On that note, I encourage you all to see Eminem's video, Mosh. I can't stand all the corny appeals by stars to get kids to vote. They seem so staged and stale. This is a fresh message that challenges his peers to think. This is an anthem Eminem's fans will be singing while they wait in line to vote. They'll be humming it in the booth. And they'll be playing it loud in the streets on Tuesday night.
While I believe the environment is the biggest reason to vote for Kerry, it seems it is going to come down to the war. I've spoken to Bush voters who seethe over Kerry's anti-war stance when he came back from Viet Nam. I say they're a lost cause, but I like to remind them that they're saying that Kerry did then what they claim he never did, which is take a principled stand on an issue. He was against the war he had volunteered to serve in, and he said so. Bush was for a war--and a draft--he dodged, and still won't say anything about it. Who's the political opportunist on this issue? That usually shuts them up.

Then I ask about the WMD and they try to change the subject. Then I ask about civilian deaths and the fact that we seem to be killing more Iraqis per year than Saddam was killing when we took over. They say it's a lie. Or that some casualties are unavoidable in war. Or that we should just nuke all those Muslims. Then I ask, well, if we should go get bad guys, then I guess you were for our war in Bosnia and Kosovo? Some were, some say it was a Clinton wag the dog, which I just have to laugh at. Then I ask who the next evil dictator we're going to attack is? They say, whoever threatens us (like Saddam did?). And then I get them with the dagger for any "conservative." I ask them what we should spend on this global, neo-con military adventure ridding the world of evil? How should we pay for it? This is a tough one for conservatives. The quick answer is well, we have to pay for it somehow, because if we don't we'll all be dead and it won't matter.

To this I answer, despite my best attempts to show that liberals are much better, calmer debaters who are most interested in facts, with a hearty BULLSHIT! This is the same argument that was used about Vietnam. The domino theory. If we didn't stop them we'd all become communists. Well, we're still speaking English, aren't we? We lost that war, and we're still here, free, with a right wing fascist president threatening our civil rights more than Ho Chi Min ever did.

And I get right in their faces when I say this, because they know they were wrong about Nam. They know it was a bad war, and they know it took balls for Kerry, an officer, to come back here and say so.

But ultimately, conservatives are most worried about money. So, I hit them with this:


I check it out daily, so I'm armed with the latest number. I also try to keep up with the number of US casualties (over 1100 dead and over 8000 wounded). I ask these NASCAR nut cases how much would be too much? How many dead would be too many? Is there some limit, some point where you say, "That's it, no evil dictator is worth that much," no matter how much American companies make selling off the country's resources?

They say you can't put a price on freedom. I say, "Like losing in Vietnam would mean the communists would rule the world? Like Saddam was a threat with nukes that could reach us, with drones, and chemical weapons, anthrax, bla bla bla?" What if we put such a burden on the future of this country fighting these neo-con wars that we bankrupt future generations to the point that they can't fight a REAL war when they need to? What if we ignore the environment, social security, and health care to the point that the biggest threat to Americans is from Republicans who want more of them in poverty, stuck competing with green card immigrants for minimum wage jobs, or going to emergency rooms for health care?

In short, this obsessive focus on offense is detrimental. The BS line about fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here? I laugh loudly in their face when they say that. What on earth makes them think a faceless terror group couldn't attack us everywhere? After all, they've been recruiting at record levels! They have plenty of willing martyrs thanks to Bush.

In short, this election is a brainer. Because the no-brainers are voting for Bush.

Saturday, October 30, 2004

In Pakistan, U.S. Policies Foster Suspicion and Hatred:

"'We have failed to listen and we have failed to persuade. We have not taken the time to understand our audience and we have not bothered to help them understand us. We cannot afford such shortcomings.' "— White House Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World
Face it, folks. The Bushies don't do hearts and minds, except with bombs and bullets. It's dangerous, stupid, arrogant, and inept. And we must stop it. Now. The only thing scarier than Lame Duck Bush is four more years of him.

Friday, October 29, 2004

Former GOP Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire endorsed Kerry today

In his letter to Kerry, he said he and his wife and kids were all voting for Kerry in Florida, as if that will count. KOS posted the letter this morning, but left out the environmental paragraph.
As an environmentalist who served as Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, I know that this Administration has turned environmental policy over to lobbyists for the oil, gas, and mining interests. On the other hand, I know first-hand of your commitment to a more balanced approach to environmental policy--one where we can have both jobs and profit for industry as well as clean air and water. There is no stronger evidence of this than your outstanding leadership and support in the restoration fo the Florida Everglades.
Senator Smith was a rabid right wing Republican who actually quit the Republican party once because they were too moderate. Smith is very anti-choice. And yet he's voting for Kerry. This is proof that even right wing nuts can think themselves out of the hole that Bush has dug them into.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

NRDC: The Bush Record

I am so sick of people saying there's no difference between these candidates. Anyone who says this is a choice between a lessor of two evils should look at the NRDC site on the Bush environmental record. This is a choice between an evil that we know plenty about, and a man with a 20 year record of environmentalism that puts Al Gore to shame. Kerry has received straight A's from conservation groups, while Bush has received straight F's.

Check out this graphic about recent environmental trends. There is no doubt about it. The environment is in danger under Bush and John Kerry is the opposite of Bush on this issue.

Monday, October 25, 2004

Guest Writer Today!

"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."—Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back

Bush Friendly Fire At America’s Seniors

The Bush Prescription Drug Plan is a major economic blow for the seniors in America. George Bush doesn't allow American seniors to get drugs in Canada that are up to 80% cheaper.

His stem cell research decision has back fired, missing its intended target and is nothing else but friendly fire. What happens is this; without trading drugs internationally (which in itself is against what the American flag stands for with free trade) and without stem cell research, America’s future is going to be like the many American mothers who hang yellow ribbons as they wait in vain for their brave sons and daughters to come home but never does. America’s future is going to be lonelier, more expensive, colder and so much more insecure for the seniors if Bush wins this election. In the end, with no imports or domestic research, Bush is raining down friendly fire aimed at America’s seniors. John Kerry has the right weapon and knows how to use it correctly.

Kerry will take the responsibility and carry the heavy burden for America’s elderly, protect them from distraction, and appeal to the best in every elderly citizen in the United States of America. He will be truly visible to the American troops and will fight the war to cut the costs of prescription drugs that have been rising 17% a year. Kerry will carry on fighting for those who need it most, because he is a brave American little soldier that is bold and strong and must carry on. His aim is strait and clear and he has claimed this battlefield.

Sent in by Markus Fors, Sweden, Europe, Earth

Friday, October 22, 2004

Three of Four Bush Supporters Still Believe in Iraqi WMD, al Qaida Ties

Are their heads in the sand, or are they just willingly ignorant? While many Republicans, most notably on the 9/11 commission Bush originally opposed, and among the weapons inspectors like David Kay and Scott Ritter, have lamented the Bush administration's deception regarding Iraq, WMD, and Al Qaida, this story confirms that a majority of Bush supporters are ignorant of the facts. We all know why... If you tell a lie long enough and often enough, idiots believe it. Not only do Dick Cheney and GW Bush continue to lie about connections between Iraq and Al Qaida, but in Cheney's case, he even lies about is lies, saying that he never said there were ties!
"To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq."—Steven Kull, Director, PIPA
Many of my friends and loved ones try to convince me that most of these people are just misinformed. I contend that they are misinformed because they want to be. They are ignorant of the facts because they have come to a conclusion about Bush they like, and they don't need anything like facts to alter that view. They wanted a tough, decisive leader, and they've convinced themselves that's Bush, even though the facts say the opposite. It's easier for them to believe the myth they've created than to deal with uncomfortable truths. It would just be too painful to them to actually find out that Bush is killing all these people in Iraq based on some sort of warped, neo-con, imperialist vision that has nothing to do with WMD or Al Qaida.

I urge everyone to send copies of this story to swing states. Get your firends in swing states to post this story everywhere they can. Put it under windshield wipers. Casually leave it behind in the post office. Put it on tables where political bumper stickers are offered. Send letters to the editors of local papers quoting the story, or the study: The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters. Post it on bulletin boards. Nothing will sway undecided voters more than the truth.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

In response to a Kerry Flip-Flop commercial, Kerry's Own Words, sent to me by a friend of mine....

Most of these flip-flop charges from the right prove that Kerry changed his position based on the mess Bush created. For instance, on increasing funding for Iraq, Kerry has consistently maintained that we are spending too much because Bush fucked up and didn't get enough help first (because not everyone was convinced about his lies), but that now that we are there, we need to spend what it takes to fix it.

So, this is just typical shit from some very scared assholes who know damn well that Bush lied to go to a war we didn't need to fight, especially since we never finished the one in Afghanistan. They know damn well that Kerry voted for that resolution because he, like almost everyone else (except those of us who read former Republican Marine and Chief Iraq Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter's book, Frontier Justice), Kerry believed the Bush Bull.

Kerry said, "It was a huge mistake to go to war THE WAY HE DID." These right-wing-nuts usually don't play that last part, because that's the key to Kerry's argument. Maybe, given the same bad info, Kerry would have made the same bad decision to go to war. That's one of the reasons he voted for the resolution. But I guarantee you one thing: only a bunch of draft-dodging chicken hawks would make the kind of mistakes the Bushies have made in fighting it. A guy that's actually been shot at would not, as president, have to go back and ask for $87 billion later to get the kind of ammo and armor that wasn't sent in the first place. A guy that actually volunteered to fight in a war would never try to cut combat pay, or put young heritage foundation ideologues in charge of reconstruction, or kick vets off health care, or send too few troops to do the job (throwing the Powell doctrine out the window). A guy who actually killed someone in battle would never stretch a National Guard we need at home so thin, or hire neo-con freaks who predict flower-paved paths to glory.

On the WMD, he trusted what the President's people told him before the war, and was shocked to find out later that he had been lied to. Wow. And they're trying to use that against Kerry? Don't they realize that even Republican Senators are pissed about the bad intel the Bush people sent up the hill?

Again with the $87 billion. Let's see... The Republicans who voted for it, actually voted against it first. Doesn't that make them flip-floppers? Actually, if the idiots who sent you this would THINK for a second, they'd find out that Kerry wanted a version that would be paid for by taxes on the Americans who most benefit from America, the rich. When he voted against it, he knew it would pass, and cast a protest vote, something Dick Cheney, who voted against a resolution to condemn South Africa for not letting Mandella out of prison, could tell them all about. The final bill just put the $87 billion on the National Credit Card that our grandkids will still be paying interest on. What's conservative about that?

Besides, why didn't the troops have everything they needed in the first place? Where does the $400 billion a year we give to the Pentagon go anyway, if it's not for the shit we need to fight wars? Please, excuse my language. It's mild compared to my disgust for this junta.

On unilateral action: just because the President reserves the right to act unilaterally, that doesn't mean it's always a good thing. And it certainly doesn't mean it's a good thing in Iraq. It seems the zealots who sent you this have thrown basic rules of Logic out the window....

Why don't you ask the Armageddon wishers who sent you this to tell you where the weapons are? Why don't you ask them why they spend so much time attacking their opponent with all this illogical bullshit instead of defending Bush's lies, or Halliburton's contracts, or the secrecy that John Dean called worse than Watergate? Why don't they try to defend the worst environmental record in history? Or the most job losses since Hoover? Or the 5 million people who have fallen into poverty (Christian indeed), or the huge increases in uninsured and health care costs? How about a Medicare bill that they lied about the cost of to get it passed, which includes a $150 billion giveaway to drug companies by MAKING IT ILLEGAL for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices?

Why is it that the Bush people just keep attacking Kerry? Because they know Goddamn well that if Bush tried to run a positive campaign, he'd lose. Yesterday, Bush said he thought people would reject a "campaign of fear" and vote for him. At the same time, Dick Cheney was saying out biggest threat are terrorists attacking an American city with nuclear weapons. Why don't you ask the assholes who sent you this what George Bush has done to round up loose nukes, or to stop Iran or North Korea from getting nukes? Who is really running a campaign of fear when Cheney says if Kerry gets elected, we'll be attacked (does that mean if Bush is reelected, we won't be)?

As for real plans for the future, go to He actually has some very Clintonian, centrists positions on a variety of things, including the deficit, on which Kerry is actually more to the right than the biggest spender in American history: George Bush. Listen to George Bush's plans for the future and you will find some shit that makes Wall Street happy as hell, like billions in fees and charges from personal savings accounts for health care, and privatized social security accounts.

And if you really want to hear some objective, moderate opinions on this election, check out this list of articles:

John Eisenhower: Why I will vote for John Kerry for President

WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends
(Scroll down a little to see this one)

Why conservatives must not vote for Bush
A Reaganite argues that Bush is a dangerous, profligate, moralizing radical -- and that his reelection would be catastrophic both for the right and for America.

LOCAL VIEW: Going to war in Iraq was a mistake

Kerry Will Restore American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

A Questionable Kind Of Conservatism
By George F. Will

Conscientious Objector
by Robert A. George

Burning Bush: The Issue
A year in Dubya-dumping by his conservative critics . . . and Howard Stern

By William Bryk

Righteous Anger: The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush
by Doug Bandow

Conversations with Conservatives
Mother Jones Magazine

There are many more, but in this election, I wonder if you'll change anyone's mind. The best you can hope for is to help one of the six undecided people in Ohio and the twelve in Florida vote for Kerry, since, because of the electoral college, votes in red-neck states count more than votes in other, more reasonable ones.

Scott Supak

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Rolling Stone Interview with John Kerry

Read an interview with an intellegent, thoughtful, knowledgeable man who would like to replace the compulsive, lazy, uninformed, right-wing ideologues in the White House. It is so refreshing to hear someone who, like Bill Clinton, has a command of the issues that is actually enviable, instead of embarassing. It is so liberating to listen to a guy who can answer a question with a clear understanding of the underlying issues, instead of to a man who struggles to remember what Karl Rove told him to think and say.

Lawmakers request CIA's 9/11 report

What are these people afraid of? If they're doing such a good job protecting us, why wouldn't they want to release a report that tells us what went wrong? Isn't the fact that the Bushies are stopping this report from being released proof enough that they won't take any responsiblity because, well, they're irresponsible? Why couldn't Bush answer the woman in the second debate? Why could he not give just one mistake? Because he knows that if he answered her, he'd lose. He knows that this CIA report points a big, fat finger right in his face and says, you, sir, ignored terrorism before 9-11. Hell, Ashcroft actually said he didn't want to hear about Al Qaeda anymore! So, they're sitting on this CIA report, and trashing Kerry, who actually went after terrorist funds (BCCI) way back when terrorism was just something that happened to Jews, and GW Bush was still drunk and snorting cocaine... Amazing...

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Bush Lies about his Tax Cuts Again

"Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans."—George W Bush, 10-13-04
According to Citizens for Tax Justice, two-thirds of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. They get this from Bush Treasury Department Data. And yet, the major news organizations (which Bush tried to denegrate last night when Kerry pointed out that two major news organizations pointed out Bush was lying about Kerry's health plan) want to focus on Kerry saying Bush hadn't met with the Black Caucus.

That's a funny story too. Seems when Bush did meet with the Congressional Black Caucus this past February, it's because the Caucus showed up at the White House and wouldn't leave. They wanted to talk about Haiti. In fact, they were met by Powell and Rice, who said Bush wasn't there. When the Caucus refused to leave, Bush magically appeared and met with them. Bush really did refuse to meet with the NAACP. Nobody wants to talk about that one, either.

So, the one thing Kerry supposedly got wrong, that the media jumped on, he actually got right if you look at the SUBSTANCE of the the subject. If you look at the facts, seems Kerry was right on, and Bush was, well, Bush.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

MSNBC - Opinion: The Life He Left Behind

Alexander Pope said, "True wit is nature to advantage dress'd, What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed."-Essay on Criticism (pt. II, l. 97). The wit of Patti Davis is on display in this article for MSNBC today. I'd like to see the look on Bush's face while he tried to explain his illogical and downright nasty policy on stem cells to Christopher Reeve's family.

I've really gotten to the point where I can't be civil to right wingers anymore. I hear from so many people that I need to try to convince these misguided people that they're wrong. That we should respect their views. We've been trying that for years. They don't respect our views, and they win. They misguide themselves willfully because of their hate and bias, and they win. Since vitrol and visciousness has worked for them, so why don't we try it?

Ride the Bush hatred to the largest turnout in election history. Republicans hate large turnouts. They know we'll cream them. They make fun of us for hating Bush, but these are the same people who spewed hate IN THEIR CHURCHES about Bill Clinton. These are the same hypocrites who said draft dodging was a bad thing, but they embrace draft dodgers now.

But when it comes to lumps of cells that are going to be destroyed anyway, they have really crossed the line. They are taking away the hope of millions for the extreme right wing view that they'd be destroying life for some utilitarian philosophy. But they never answer questions about how those lumps of cells they call a "life" are going to be destroyed anyway, and yet they're not against in-vitro fertilization. They never explain how it's wrong to try to harvest life saving cells from embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway.

This is the sleeper issue of this election. Go out and argue this with people as if actual living breathing lives, not the potential for that, depended on it. Get mad. Get in their faces. They're not used to it. I've been doing it a lot, and they blow up. Be ready to take a punch. I've taken one. But it's worth it to expose the true violent hatred for life these pro-lifers actually harbor.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Cheney's Blatant Lies

Yesterday, Al Franken got so angry about American troops dying over Cheney's lies, that he started to cry. That got me choked up, and I don't get choked up much. But I do get angry. That's one of my problems. So today, I'm going to try to focus my anger.

After 9-11 only 1 or 2 percent of Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with 9-11. By the time we went to war in Iraq, 69% of Americans believed it. To this day, as Al pointed out this morning, 62% of Republicans believe it. Why? Bush has said Saddam had nothing to do with it. Powell has said it. Rice has said it. Even Rumsfeld has said it. So why do Republicans believe this? Are 62% of them just plain stupid?

Cheney said in the debate with Edwards: "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..." In September 2003 Cheney said "[Iraq is] the geographical base of the terrorists who had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11." But that's not all. Cheney spent months spreading that lie. In fact he said it was "pretty much confirmed" that Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence people in Prague. This has be debunked so many ways it's not funny, but Cheney kept saying it. Then, he denied that he said it, even though there is tape of him actually saying it. So, he even lies about his lies, and no one seems to catch him on it except Jon Stewart, Keith Oberman, and Al Franken.

Here's a great chart of all the Cheney lies in the debate from The Washington Monthly. Of course one of the biggest problems is that Republicans won't read it. Perhaps that's why 62% of them still believe Saddam had something to do with 9-11. Maybe that's why another despicable chicken hawk, Tom DeLay, is considered an ethical guy by most Republicans. I think what my anger has led me to is the realization that Republicans like to hide their heads in the sand. They think they've got it all figured out idealogically, and they really don't give a shit about the day to day reality that gets in the way of it.

Tax cuts create deficits? No, government programs to feed the children of lazy welfare queens do. No WMD in Iraq? Well, they must have moved them to Syria, let's go there next! Bush giveaways to drug companies running up the cost of the Medicare bill? No, it's all the sick people who are too lazy to get rich and pay for their drugs themselves. Too much mercury in the water to eat the fish is Bush's fault for letting the coal powered polluters pollute more? No, it's the people who eat fishes fault. Just stop eating fish!

One of the debates on the liberal side is whether we should demonize the people who believe all this shit. Or, should we demonize the people who perpetuate the lies that make them believe it. Or, maybe we shouldn't demonize anyone. Well, I think the question is, do we want to win an election or not? Who's been winning elections? C'mon, liberals are generally nice people, and by nature don't want to demonize people. So, let's talk issues. If, in the process of talking issues, we point out facts like how many more people will get asthma and cancer and other great, deadly diseases because of increases in pollution directly attributable to Bush policies, then those FACTS do the demonizing for us. We don't have to demonize Bush like he demonizes Kerry. We don't have to lie about republican policies. We have the facts on our side. We just have to make sure that these facts, these ISSUE arguments get out there. We have to be ready to spin hard and fast with the truth the way Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, and Marly Matlin do with lies.

This means doing something that many liberals find distasteful. We have to confront Republicans. We have to be willing to argue issues with them to the point that they realize they can't win so they start screaming FUCK YOU right in your face.

Or, if you're not the confrontational type, then be the subversive. Find a breakdown of Republican lies, like the one about Cheney's, print a bunch of them, go shop in a Republican neighborhood, and leave a bunch of them behind the soup cans in the grocery store. I've hidden small pieces of paper with facts on them all over grocery stores, the post office, and just about anywhere else I can. Get out there and make a difference. Please. My son and I have asthma. Over a thousand troops have died while Osama's been forgotten. Millions of Americans have moved into poverty and lost health insurance during Bush's term. The air and water are more polluted than they were three years ago and the framework for making it worse is still being drawn up in secret Cheney energy meetings. How much worse will it be four years from now, when Jeb runs?

And besides, Al Franken has done USO tours, and is very close to the troops. I can't stand to hear him cry. But most of all, if I could make Republicans listen to one group, it would be Military Families Speak Out. Ask them how they feel about Bush goading the enemy with his "Bring it on" comment.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Edwards truth-shading was nothing compared to Dick's

The LA Times accuses both Cheney and Edwards of stretching the truth. But read the story. See what Cheney lied about. Compare that to Edwards. Edwards didn't cause thousands of deaths. The scope of truth-shading by Edwards is nothing compared to the whoppers that Cheney keeps telling.
Rivals' Bold Assertions Are Debatable: "One of Cheney's boldest assertions during the debate was to insist, 'I have not suggested there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11.'

It is true that Cheney has never flatly asserted that Iraq was complicit in the Sept. 11 plot, but on many occasions, he has made remarks leaving the impression that Iraq may have been aware or involved.

In an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press' in September 2003, Cheney described Iraq as the 'geographic base' for those behind the Sept. 11 attacks. 'If we're successful in Iraq,' he said, 'then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.'"

So, yeah. all you right wingers keep pointing out the little white ones Edwards told. But while you're at it, why don't you ask the mother's of the over 1000 dead service men and women what they think about Cheney lying about Al Qaeda and Iraq. Tell me the lies about Halliburton aren't as bad as Edward's taking Lugar's comment about incompetence out of context.

Then I'd like all you right wing freaks to read that story twice before you send me any cut and paste letters about shitting down my neck (pitiful freaks can't even think of your own original death threats). To paraphrase your assholes, if you want a government that lies to you and keeps everything secret, move to North Korea.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Daily Kos: "And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated.' - Richard Perle, 9/22/03"

Al Franken pointed out that there may be a crater in Baghdad called George W Bush crater. Actually, that's his skull. Bones jokes aside, I'm sure Bush has convinced himself that Perle was right, but that it might take 10 more years, and he might actually have to buy the real estate and name it after himself.

So, I wonder how Richard Perle is showing his surprise today? I wonder if any of the cheerleaders for Bush are actually thinking, gee, we were really wrong. I can't help but think that they giggle while they say it, and then check the profit margins on their Iraq investments. After all, bombs are cheap compared to electric grids and sewer systems.

New President Bush quotes.

Monday, September 13, 2004

Assault Weapons Ban Expires
"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society."—George W Bush, 2000
Flipity Flopity....

Friday, September 03, 2004

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: AP - Europe: Austrians doubt Schwarzenegger's memories

This one's for my brother-in-law, who acted like a liberal, voted for Arnie, rubbed my wife's face in it, and won't answer my e-mails asking if he's doing what Arnie says and voting for Bush. Seems Arnie is just another lying Republican.
Historians criticized Arnold Schwarzenegger for telling the Republican National Convention that he left a "socialist" country when he moved away in 1968, noting that Austria had conservative leaders during the entire time he lived there.
They also doubted Arnie's remarks about seeing Soviet tanks when he was growing up, since he lived in the British section.

This is just another example of how these right wing nuts just make things up to fit their arguments. Like Zell, Rush, Bill, and Sean, Arnie just lies when he needs an example to fit his ideology.

Thursday, August 26, 2004


That was the total cost of the Iraq war (so far) just a few seconds ago, at Their billboard went up in NYC today, not far from Madison Square Garden, which will be living up to it's name while it's full of squares for the RNC.

Paranoid Republican warnings for all the squares in the Garden: Greg Palast reports that on this right wing paranoia blog, the GOP was claiming
"Republican-haters plan on dressing up as RNC volunteers, and giving false directions to little blue hair ladies from Kansas, sending them into the sectors of New York City that are unfit for human habitation.

"They plan on throwing pies and Lord knows what else at Republican visitors to the city. Prostitutes with AIDS plan to seduce Republican visitors, and discourage the use of condoms ...."
Love the way they start the paragraph with "They," referring to the "Republican-haters" and wound up, in the second and last sentence of the paragraph, making the subject of the sentence "Prostitutes." So, they never actually accuse "Republican haters" of wanting to give them AIDS. But, if they'd thought it through, they could have, because I doubt if there are many Republican prostitutes (single women skew apathetic liberal), but I bet there are plenty of prostitutes who have been screwed by Republicans.

But here's the way the Republican inuendo machine works. Their website has a link to a Union Leader story when you click on "protesters supporting John Kerry." You get this page, by some hack for the right-wing puppy-training supply The Union Leader named Bernadette Malone who twisted a Ted Rall comment from one of his opinion columns.

Ms. Malone said this:
Prostitutes with AIDS plan to seduce Republican visitors, and discourage the use of condoms, according to liberal journalist Ted Rall.

Here's what cartoonist/columnist/journalist Ted Rall said in the opinion column to which she is referring: "Rumor has it that prostitutes suffering from sexually transmitted diseases will discourage the use of condoms with Republican customers."

If Ms. Malone really needed to shorten "sexually transmitted diseases," she could have said STDs. But why not make it AIDS? Gets that required dose of homophobia in their paranoia. And Rall didn't say seducing either. Makes it sound like the GOP delegates wouldn't go out looking for hookers on their own accord, some aids ridden whore would have to seduce them into it.

The GOP thinks they can safely repeat this garbage, you know, like prefacing the Niger Uranium story with a "Tony Blair says..." And for their squares, who don't want to know the truth anyway, it smells just fine.

Monday, August 23, 2004

We love New York

After a month on the East Coast, and meeting all kinds of liberals, I'm convinced Kerry's going to win. The only concern I have is my wife's biggest concern, and that's the cheating the Republicans will resort to. There is one other nagging concern Robin has, and that's Ralph Nader, who is polling well enough in some states (like Nevada and Arkansas) to make a big difference.

So, Robin has written a song parody: Song for Ralph Nader.

We also found out that the state of New York has a great health care program for small business owners.

We'll have some pictures and videos of the trip posted soon.

Monday, July 12, 2004 - Security will decide election, candidates say:

"The president said the decision to invade Iraq followed Saddam Hussein's rejection of a U.N. Security Council demand for a 'full accounting' of his weapons programs."

How many times has Israel done the same? And the US? Saddam was not a threat. He was a bad guy. Apparently, you have to be a real asshole to keep something like Iraq in line. Just look around the region.

If we were really going after threats, we'd be in North Korea by now.

RE: Counterpunch: 9/11 signals new era for documentaries

David Macaray does a great disservice to people like Michael Moore and Al Franken, who, in contrast to Limbaugh or Coulter, actually check their facts. I dare Macaray to list the half truths of his targets on the left, as Franken does to the right in his book. Had Macaray bothered to read Al Franken's book, he'd know it's full of lists of the lies from the right (hence the title). And, if Macaray would bother to go to Michael Moore's web site, he would see an honest defense of every fact in his movie. And his defense, like Franken's book, is much more factual and less venomous than anything Ann Coulter has ever written. In the future battle of documentaries (as if it hadn't started when Jerry Falwell made a film about Clinton's supposed murders and drug trafficking), perhaps the American public will benefit from seeing which side is for truthful, honest, good-hearted debate, and which side is for lying, vicious attacks.

Touché, David Macaray.

Sunday, July 11, 2004

This is by far the best critique of Fahrenheit 9/11 I've heard. I hate Bush, I love Michael Moore, and I hope his movie helps to depose the despot who has caused so much pain in the world.

However, I did think about the things you mention on the second viewing of the movie. I think this argument that Moore could have made a more coherent argument if he'd used some of the neo-con facts you mentioned makes the most sense. The thought that he could have made it even more powerful and accurate makes me wonder if he could have convinced more conservatives and moderates to vote against Bush by following your advice.

Which brings me to this conclusion. Knowing that Moore has said he appreciates constructive criticism, I suggest you contact him about adding some of your facts to the DVD.

Thursday, July 08, 2004

Yellowcake Rock Band Assaults Bush and Cheney

Joe Gross (of the band Yellowcake) states, "Since voting in my first election, I have always considered myself a Republican-leaning independent, and have never voted for a Democrat for President. In 2004, for the very first time, I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket. The Bush administration is against everything America stands for. It is anti-democracy, anti-freedom, anti-civil liberties, and anti-freedom of speech and expression. And don't think for a second that the multi-national corporations who control the administration's agenda owe one ounce of loyalty to the United States. They are destroying our wealth, world leadership, diplomacy, and quality of life as you read. An administration full of people who shirked their military duties when it was their time to serve is now sending the brave men and women in the US military, with whom I was so privileged to serve for 7 1/2 years, into harms way, under absolutely false pretenses. These same people call those who disagree with their policies unpatriotic. All they need to do to see truly unpatriotic people is to look in the mirror."

George Bush and Ken Lay are Close and Personal Friends - A BuzzFlash Reader Contribution

Kenny Who?

U.S. wants bin Laden nabbed by election

Edwards's glaring weakness

My reply to this crap:

Uh, let's see. George W Bush was Governor for 6 years in a state with the weakest governorship in the nation. His political experience before that came from whipping the religious right into a fervor for his dad, and funding cocaine cartels with his habit. John Edwards spent 6 years in the senate gaining valuable knowledge on the judiciary and intellegence committees, and is now running for a job that includes President Pro Tem of the Senate. Sounds to me like Edwards has more experience than the current occupant of the White House did before he moved in. So, when you go rattling off about "no foreign policy credentials," maybe you should mention W's shortfall in the next sentence.

But, then, fairness really isn't your agenda, is it?

Kenny Boy (or, more recently from Bush, Kenny Who?) Lay Indicted:

"Lay, a friend of President George W. Bush and a contributor to his political campaigns, has done a fairly effective job of getting across his message, that on the one hand he was relying on advisers and accountants and underlings at the company and that he was a believer in this company.''

In a completely unrelated story, Bush and Cheney are going to continue blaming the CIA, just like the new (Republican) Senate Report does.

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Red Blue Chart

Keep an eye on this chart. Sign up for the Rasmussen Reports by e-mail. Contact the people you know in the swing states listed here. Contact people you know who know people in these swing states. Send letters to editors of papers in these states. I spend a little time at Google news everyday, looking at stories in these states. When I see something I disagree with, I send a letter. Lately, I've been defending Michael Moore a lot. Be upbeat. Be cool. Show anger but show it hasn't taken over your life (even though it may have, I understand). Bill Clinton likes to point out that in a reasoned debate, the center-left will win every time. That's why the right resorts to lies, false dichotomies, and personal attacks.

Tuesday, July 06, 2004


The Republican Goon squads were out immediately with their hypocritical criticisms of John Edwards. They say he doesn't have any experience. Hmmm. Like George W Bush didn't when he ran for President? Or Like Danny Boy Quaile? John Edwards says, "I think most people in this country actually think not having spent your whole life in politics is a good thing." That's funny, I think W said something like that too....

They attack him for being a trial lawyer, but that didn't work for Lauch Faircloth, the incumbent Republican Senator Edwards defeated in 1998. Most of Edward's cases were defending ordinary citizens who had been harmed by greedy corporations. Some of the cases, like a little girl who lost most of her intestines when she say on a pool drain with a defective cover, are heart wrenching and enough to make you want to punch any Republican who screams about tort reform and trial lawyers. I'll settle for pointing out that a General Accounting Office study said limiting malpractice suits has a negligible impact on the cost of malpractice insurance. In fact, in California, it actually helped increase rates!

Edwards has some good ideas on reforming the malpractice insurance world, starting with the insurance companies who really screw it up. Check out the Malpractice Caps section of this story in the Washington Post: Senator John Edwards on the Issues.

My favorite Edwards quote would make a good bumper sticker: "George Bush has a health care plan - pray you don't get sick."

Monday, July 05, 2004

Seafood Watch

Just a quick not on sustainable seafood: This great site lets you know what seafood is cool to eat.

Fighting for Freedom?

Letter to the LA Times:

I noticed two delusional people in the paper today. One, understandably so, who's husband was just killed in Iraq, was angry at protesters. She claimed her husband had been fighting for their freedom. The other watched the video of Nick Berg's beheading, and claimed that was enough to show us why we're at war.

To the wife I suggest she talk to the group of anti-war military families whose husbands and sons died in the war, and they will be the first to tell her that all these people are not dying while fighting for our freedom, because it turns out Iraq was no threat to our freedom. There were no weapons. There is no evidence of Al Qaeda connections. And every time Dick Cheney and George W Bush say there were, they are lying.

To the man who wants to use Nick Berg's beheading as justification, I suggest he talk to Nick Berg's father, who is furious at Bush and Cheney, and who would be the first to point out that Nick was beheaded because the lies of this administration put these thousands of soldiers and contractors in a hornets nest we didn't need to be in. Perhaps this guy needs to hear Bush administration officials saying how Saddam did not have weapons, and how containment had worked, when they first got into office.

In short, they should both go see Fahrenheit 9/11. Maybe a few moments with Lila Lipscomb, the mother who's son died in Iraq, will make them realize that they, like she once was, are wrong about this administration's reasons for war in Iraq, protesters, and fighting for freedom (like we should have done a lot more of in Afghanistan, where Bin Laden is). The freedom we are fighting for in Iraq is for Bush and his friends to make more money on the backs of soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

If those people died protecting our freedom, then how come we lost so much of it to the Patriot Act?

RE: Turning up the heat on Michael Moore

Christopher Hitchen's point by point rebuttal, if you insist on
calling it that, is typical of right wing criticisms of Moore's movie. They call him a liar, then fail to point out a single lie. Of course Moore has a point of view, so does Hitchens, and so do you, but no one has proven anything Moore says in this move to be lie. Instead they
attack Moore himself (for his weight or his wealth), or they make assumptions about his positions on issues. For instance, Hitchens assumes that Moore is against the war in Afghanistan because he brings
up the profiteering and Unocal. I often point out the profiterring in Afghanistan, and the opium production and the ties to the Taliban the Bush had before 9-11. And yet I argue from the right that we didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan soon enough. What is contradictory about these two opinions? The same is true with Iraq. Plenty of people were for the war, Joe Lieberman comes to mind, who take issue with profiterring, poor planning, etc. Just because we criticize something
doesn't mean we're against it in principle.

If you're going to write about the movie, maybe you should have dropped the $8.50. Because you say that you don't have to see the move to know that Moore would take liberties with the facts. Hell, I'll send you ten bucks if you'll go see the movie and find one lie Moore tells in it. I dare you. Putting facts together in a way that supports your point of view is what editorialists do, as I'm sure you know.

"Michael Moore is an American who doesn't like Americans." This kind of crap is what makes me really hate you right wingers. Just because Moore, or anyone for that matter, criticizes Americans doesn't mean he hates Americans. This is the kind of idiotic conclusion that makes me, and Moore, want to speak out about how ashamed we are of people like you. Michael Moore loves Americans, as do I. Just not all Americans. To just lump everyone together in a statement like that proves that you are the one who doesn't know how to hold a reasonable debate. This is a very diverse country. When Moore speaks about the harm we've done in the world, he does it from a deep feeling of love for this country, and from a deep shame for all the bad things we have done. That is healthy and good. We all know the great things this country has done. If you look at the body of Moore's work, including his TV shows, you'd know that he has praised this country many times. He believes that he is doing us a better service by pointing out our flaws than by being a cheerleader saying everything is great.

And once again, a right winger is calling someone unpatriotic because he doesn't agree with you. I'm really getting sick of the false dichotomies you guys put forth: You're either for Bush or for the
terrorists, you're either for jobs or for the environment, you either love America or you hate America, all as if it's impossible to do both, or neither. It's the good and evil cowboy mentality that so many of us are sick of, and Michael Moore has done a creative and thoughtful job of stating how we feel in a movie. It's not that I was either laughing or crying, it's that I was doing both.

Then you say this about Moore's quote to the British: "Such thoughts presume that sadness, misery, terror and bloodshed would not have occurred were there not a United States." They do no such thing! Where the hell do you get this kind of statement? The fact is that the US has created unneccesary evil and grief in the world. Moore's not saying there would be no misery if the US didn't exist, he's saying THAT PARTICULAR misery wouldn't have existed. He's trying to apologize for the misery that we did inflict, that we are inflicting. For you to go off on such a blanket statement about what Moore's thoughts presume is ridiculous.

"...would there be more or less misery in the world without us? " Good question, but that's probably impossible to determine, and what does it have to do with Michael Moore's movie? We would be a sorry nation indeed if we went around the world plundering and profiting, while no one here questioned our behavior. Can you imagine such a world, where Fox news was the only news, and our media was nothing more than cheerleaders? Probably sounds good to you.

"The nation's history of fighting tyrants to free entire peoples, delivering humanitarian aid to places in crisis and serving as a beacon of freedom to which the world has flocked speak volumes in
favor of the latter."

Unless, of course, you're from Africa, where you would have heard Ronald Reagan support Apartheid, and where you'd be wondering where all that humanitarian aid is right about now. Or unless you were a
child in Iraq during the nineties, living under sanctions, or unless you were a slave, or a Latin American person killed by US supported death squads. Or, well, you get the idea.

"Something to contemplate while standing in line in a hot parking lot." I agree. SO, get out there and stand in line before you put your foot in your mouth any further.

Sunday, July 04, 2004

My Response to "Connect the dots when you watch 'Fahrenheit'"

MARK STEYN has resorted to the same arguments as every other critic of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11. Since they can't find any factual falseness, they presume to know what Michael Moore would have done had things been different, or they make contradictory positions where there are none.

MARK STEYN points out some presumed inconsistency between saying there were financial reasons for installing Karzai in Afghanistan, and saying we sent in too few troops too late. Many of us who were against the Iraq war may not agree with Michael Moore on every point, in fact many of us argue from the right that we blew it in Afghanistan by not putting enough troops in soon enough. The fact that Michael Moore mentions that point, and that Bush, the Taliban, Karzai, and Unocal all had profit motives for doing Afghanistan, are not contradictory. In fact, it would be reasonable to assume that doing a half-assed job in Afghanistan actually helped the war profiteers by leaving the country in chaos, leaving mercenaries (sorry, private security forces) to make a fortune cleaning up the mess. For MARK STEYN to presume Michael Moore was against the Afghanistan war proves that he's digging for something, anything to criticize, where there is nothing. Perhaps Moore, like most Americans, really wishes we had caught Bin Laden, and, like most Americans, would like to know why we went in three months late with so few troops. To presume that because Moore points out the profit motives in Afghanistan means he was against going to war there proves how whacked out the right wing has become in this country.

MARK STEYN then leaves the movie and criticizes something Moore wrote after 9/11 (what's the matter, not enough to criticize in the movie?), when Moore merely mentioned that there were rumors that F-16's were seen trailing hijacked planes. This is a typical right-wing argument against Moore that is hilarious. Since their petty critiques of the movie are so thin, they go after Moore (often for his weight or his money, as if being a rich liberal was a contradiction), and then they presume what Moore's movie would be about had something different happened. This is a ridiculous argument. Anyone who's ever paid any attention to Michael Moore knows he's going to go after the red meat.

Assuming that the planes had been shot down, it would be rather easy
for Bush to prove (unlike WMD or Hussein/Al Qaida ties) that they were going to crash into buildings. Even Michael Moore would agree that it would be right to save the greater number of lives, and to suggest that he wouldn't is disgusting and sad. While I'm loathe to assume what Moore might have done, it would be more reasonable to suggest that he would have focused more on the unjustified, poorly planned, ill-timed, and exceedingly expensive war in Iraq.

Almost as disgusting is for MARK STEYN to ridicule those of us who
actually find it funny to make fun of the president. We're scared and worried and we need a good laugh. But MARK STEYN thinks it's wrong for us to laugh at W. MARK STEYN goes beyond making fun of us, he calls us snobs. Wow. I looked around my theater in an x-urb of Los Angeles that is very Republican and working class, and I saw a bunch of red necks laughing from the gut. I saw working class people hiss with disgust when Bush, in his tuxedo, calls the haves and the have-mores his base.

Do we need to look any further than the Bush family to find the true

Contrary to MARK STEYN's morally superior certainty, Moore does not
blame everything on Bush. There are plenty of times where he points
out that the Democrats did nothing to stop him, or even to question
him. Advisors from spit-haired Wolfowitz to no-good-targets-in-Afghanistan Rumsfeld are criticized. However, if there is a Grand Universal Theory at work, it is that the Buck stops with Bush. He's in charge. Therefore, he can take credit for the successes and take blame for the failures.

Finally, I really have a problem with this:

"But the trouble with "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that you don't come away
mad at the Saudis or America's useless bureaucracy, you come away mad at Bush -- or, if not mad, feeling snobbishly superior to him. And, if feeling snobbishly superior to the president isn't your bag, what's left is an incoherent bore."

Many Americans have come away from F-9/11 mad at the Saudis AND Bush,and especially mad at the Bush family relationship with the Saudis. Why does it have to be one or another? Because this is how right wingers argue. They lie about false choices between jobs and the environment, supporting the president or the terrorists, loving
America or hating it... You're either with us or against us...

I do not feel superior to Bush. My kids have almost no chance of going to Yale and I'll probably never be worth millions. But again, why can't we feel mad AND snobbishly superior? Or, if feeling snobbishly superior isn't my bag, why can't I just be scared of him? Or disgusted by him? Or pity for his simple-mindedness? Or thankful to him for organizing the left wing in this country that no one else ever could have?

As for the useless bureaucracy, well, it seems that many of the useless bureaucrats were trying to tell us there was a threat while Bush was on vacation and Ashcroft was telling his FBI he didn't want to hear anymore about Al Qaeda. I haven't heard any Bush lovers like MARK STEYN calling Michael Moore a liar over these facts.

If you can't attack his movie on the points (like how can the soldiers ever trust us again), you risk looking as stupid and yes, as snobbish, as MARK STEYN.

Friday, July 02, 2004

Cheney Unrelenting on War Policy

Here's my letter to the LA Times regarding their story about Cheney's insanity today:

Your headline should read "Cheney Unrelenting in Personal Search for Insanity." His grasp of reality has deteriorated to beyond spin, and it's high time for a Pulitzer Prize winning news organization to call him to task. For instance, you made no attempt to point out that he was disingenuous at best, and outright lying at worst, when he said "Consider for a moment how matters stood at the time when President [sic] Bush and I were sworn into office on Jan. 20th, 2001. Terrorists were on the offensive around the world, emboldened by many years of unanswered attacks. Repeatedly they had struck America with little cost or consequence."

I think The Times should point out the truth here. Not only did Bill Clinton retaliate for attacks on American interests, but he was criticized by Cheney and his friends for "wagging the dog" when he did. At the very time in question, Republicans had Bill a little tied up with an impeachment proceeding. If Cheney and his right wing nut friends were so worried about defending American interests, perhaps they should have dropped their witch hunt over a sexual indiscretion.

Furthermore, if Cheney wants to find non-responses to terror attacks on Americans, he need look no farther than Ronald Reagan's response to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. At that time, Congressman Cheney didn't have a lot of whining to do when Reagan's response was to withdraw from Lebanon, thereby proving to the terrorists that they could achieve their goals (getting Americans out of their country) by committing terrorists acts against them.

If Dick Cheney bothered to read Dick Clark's book, he'd know that Bill Clinton did plenty to combat terrorism, including actually chairing meetings on terrorism, snatching terrorists, stopping terrorist plots, and prosecuting those who actually committed terrorism, like the bombing of the World Trade Center.

The Times needs to serve their subscribers by printing the truth along side Cheney's lies, especially if he is going to continue these maniacal rants.

Web Page For Kerry

John Kerry's Web site has unveiled a great package of new tools you can use to help send Bush back to Crawford. Every volunteer gets their own web page at Kerry's site to help organize your effort. Here's mine.

Perhaps the most powerful tool is the speak out feature, which organizes weekly local media campigns, coordinating efforts to get the truth out to local media. I urge you all to sign up and get a page now. Let me know when you do and I'll link to it from here.


Over 300,000 people entered the workforce last month. Only 112,000 jobs were created. And Bush tells us that's strong job growth. Here's the part of the story not everyone might have read: "In a separate report, the Labor Department said Friday that factory employment declined by 11,000 jobs in June after increasing by 75,000 in the previous four months."

Hey, W, all these jobs you're giving us suck! Limbaugh and all his ditto asses will call me a whiner for this, but you're damn right I'm going to whine when you spit in my hand and call it mint jelly. "They're jobs!" resident ditto head Mark Luther said on Al Franken's show. Hey, Mark, you want any of those jobs? How good are you at flipping burgers or changing bed pans? Hell, I'd pay to see Rush change a bed pan.

I got a new John Kerry hat yesterday. Best baseball cap I ever owned. Union made in America. Guess where some of the Bush-Cheney gear is made? Burma. That's right. Bush banned imports from Burma, because of their civil rights record, and then broke his own law.

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Cubans pissed about Bush's new policy

Lose the Cuban vote, lose Florida. And I thought Carl Rove was a genius.

Paying the Price: The Mounting Costs of the Iraq War

Be sure to get the pdf version of this informative document to pass around in your inter-office mail. Considering how much we spent, and that less than 20,000 people have died, I'd say the US military is not a very efficient killing machine in terms of cost per death.

As if the deaths themselves weren't expensive enough, then there's the money we keep pouring down this hole.

Meanwhile, when Dick Cheney's face appeared on the Jumbotron last night at Yankee stadium, the crowd stopped singing God Bless America, and booed him.

I love New York.

Loudon Wainwright III - "Presidents' Day"

My wife Robin and I were there at McCabe's guitar shop this past March when this song was recorded. Loudon's giving it away as part of his bit to make sure that next President's Day there's "no George in the White House, O happy days!"

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Lying sons of bitches can't even quote a movie right

The right wing in this country is getting crazier by the minute. The talking heads are starting to sound like the guy last week at the Kerry fundraiser in front of the Disney Hall, who screamed fuck you at the top of his lungs in my face. Now I've done that to people before, and I know for a fact that that only happens when you're really exasperated and completely out of other things to say. So, when Dick Cheney can't even argue that he's not benefitting from Halliburton, or that Halliburton hasn't benefitted from his position running the government, he goes off.

But now they're out there trying to poke holes in the facts behind Michael Moore's new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. And, as Moore puts it on his site in this series of rebuttals, the people, most notably Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, who want to poke these factual holes in the movie can only do so if they misquote the movie.

Maybe they are just so hooked on the Bush Brainwashing program that they can't see that, as the St. Petersberg Times reported on June 9, even though the movie never claims that filghts with Saudis were zipping around picking up Saudi passengers before the grounding of all flights were lifted, at least one such flight did take place.

So people like Isikoff are saying that the movie claims there were flights before the grounding was lifted, which it does not. But, in fact, there was at least one private flight, from Tampa to Kentucky, that flew with the permission of someone high up, while other flights were still grounded.

Here's the relevant paragraph from the Moore site:
(Note: The St. Petersberg Times article to which Unger refers also states, "The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight... Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights." Jean Heller, TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly. St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004.)

Friday, June 25, 2004

Changing the Tone in Washington

Hey, all you Republicans: GO FUCK YOURSELVES. Major league assholes indeed.

Show us yer yarbles, if ya got any yarbles...

I got so upset during Fahrenheit 9/11, I wanted to smack George W Bush upside the head. I wanted to strap his smug ass into a chair, pry his eyes open Clockwork Orange like, and force him to vidie the movie over and over until he begged to be forgiven.

It's sad to think that he won't watch it, because he doesn't have any yarbles, the unic jelly.

It was so nice to sit in a theater surrounded by people who I knew thought like me, or at least would by the end of the movie. I urge everyone to grab someone who's ever told you voting doesn't make a difference and drag them to see this movie.

Dare your conservative friends to see it. Dare them to argue the facts, because they can't. They can argue the tone, they can say it's an unfair attack (remind them of all the unfair attacks Republicans make all the time, hell they have a whole network for it, remind them of Dick Cheney on the Senate floor yesterday saying "Go Fuck Yourself" to Sen. Leahy), but they can't argue the facts.

I dare any Bush lover to tell the soldier who says he's going to work hard for the Democratic party (after being a Republican for a long time) a terrorist. Because, like the idiots in front of the Disney Hall yesterday, they just love to say you love Al Qaeda if you don't love Bush. I'd like to see the fat frat puke who told me my union needed me to beat up old ladies call that young soldier a terrorist sympathizer. I'd love to see the redneck who screamed "FUCK YOU" in my face do the same thing to that soldier.

And most of all, I'd like to see George W Bush, like he did today in a contentious Irish TV interview by Carol Coleman, say to Lila Lipscomb, who's son, Sergeant Michael F. Pederson, died in Iraq after sending home a letter saying how furious he was at Bush, that no one feels more for the dead soldiers than he does.

What an asshole.

Thursday, June 24, 2004

The Dolphin Walked Away

I wore my George W Bush the Bankruptcy President shirt (The W is the Enron E on it's side, I got it from to work today. Good thing. I forgot that tonight is the Kerry Fundraiser next door at the Disney Hall (I'm working at the Mark Taper Forum). I went across the street to the "free speech zone" where an idiot was dressed up as a dolphin, complete with Flipper signs, you know, calling Kerry a flip-flopper. So, I went right up to the Dolphin and the Flipper sign carrier, and started listing George Bush's flip flops. The Dolphin walked away.

He was replaced by a red neck who was quite angry at me. I was trying to talk to the woman with the bull horn who said I was just as bad as the terrorists because I wasn't supporting the president. That's the one I hate the most, and I went off. I said "do you think I'd bother yelling at you idiots if I hated my country? A few more of them started yelling at me, one guy kept saying to ignore me. Then the bull horn bitch started saying Al Qaeda was waiting for me, whatever that means. I'm not sure exactly what I said at that point, but before I knew what was happening, the redneck was in my face saying "FUCK YOU" over and over as loud as he could. Nice Dick Cheney impersonation. We were chest to chest with me daring him to do something stupid in front of the cops, who were now on their way over, but one of the other Bush lovers convinced him to ignore me.

As I was walking away, the camera crew that had been covering the pitiful little group of fascists chased me down and asked me to say something for the camera, which I did, I don't exactly remember what, something about being sick of people like that. They had me sign a release so I can appear in their trio documentary.

They'll let me know when it airs, and I'll be sure to mention it here.

I had to walk away from work to get away from these rabid fools, so I headed toward MOCA (LA's Museum of Contemporary Art), where there's a Nancy Rubens sculpture of twisted airplane parts. They were having some kind of fundraiser and there was Judge Joe Brown. I told him, when he'd ruled in my favor when I was on his show, that I wanted to shake his hand someday, and I did.

On my way back I stopped and talked with a couple who's son has been in Iraq for 15 months. Great guy. He had a camera and we chatted for minute while he taped it. We traded cards, and I can't seem to find his at the moment. I was a little flabbergasted at the time. I hope he finds me.