The Calgary Sun : "LAS VEGAS -- A minor-league affiliate of the Calgary Flames plans to spoof U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney's recent hunting mishap by handing out orange hunting vests with the words: 'Don't Shoot, I'm Human.'"
Heh. What I've really enjoyed about this whole thing is the sustained attack of self-righteousness the Bush Cult is having over the fact that people are still laughing about the Vice President of the United States shooting a man in the face.
"This isn't a story! It was just an accident! How could you be so cruel! Liberal media! Liberal Media! RAAWK!"
Face it: if Al Gore had shot someone on a hunting trip, there'd still be a Congressional investigation going on. As it is, all you have to deal with is jokes. Grow up, will ya?
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Monday, March 13, 2006
Thank You, Jesus
'Creative plumbing' delivers beer: A woman in Norway said she thought she was in heaven when she turned on the kitchen tap to find a plentiful supply of beer.
Unfortunately, it was discovered to be a mere plumbing error and corrected all too soon.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Down the Memory Hole
Latest Newspaper Column:
Last week, as you may remember, I wrote about the deal — now apparently off — that would have allowed a company run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates to manage several major U.S. ports.
According to the Bush Cult, there was absolutely nothing wrong with this, since the UAE was supposedly our good buddy now and a staunch ally in the Global War on Terror or (GWOT) as they like to call it.
While researching the column on the Internet with the aid of the trusty search engine Google, I came across a report published online on the Department of Justice’s Web site. This particular quote jumped out at me:
“The Government of the UAE has formally stated that it will no longer provide judicial assistance in criminal matters, absent both extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties. Since March, the UAE has released seven U.S. fugitives. The UAE has not responded to a request for documentary evidence since 2003.”
Just so you know who we’re talking about, the quote was from a report published online by the Counterter-rorism Unit (CTU) of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which according to the report, “assists the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT), U.S. Department of Justice, in achieving its primary goal to counter terrorism…”
In addition, “During the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05), OPDAT’s Counter Terrorism Unit worked closely with Regional Directors to support Resident Legal Advisers (RLAs) as they began developing and organizing programs in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kenya, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).”
In short, the CTU was trying to help the DOJ’s OPDAT in the GWOT during FY2005 by working with RLA’s in the UAE. Got that? OK.
Unfortunately, as late as 2005, the UAE wasn’t being all that cooperative, at least according to the report. I found this information about a country that was supposedly going to be involved in managing our ports significant, so I put it in the column.
This past weekend, after the column came out, I went back to look again — and the quote, in fact the entire report, was gone from the DOJ Web site. I did a search in the Web sites archives on “UAE and fugitives,” and I got a link to what looked like the same page. But when I clicked the link, I got the dreaded “404 Page Not found” error.
Fortunately, there’s this gizmo called the “Google Cache.” Without going into too much geek-speak, the Cache is a “snapshot” of a web page. It’s taken by Google’s automated web-searching program as it tirelessly roams the Net, looking for new sites to index. And there the page sits, at least for the time being. And now, it sits on my computer, because I saved a copy. Thanks, by the way, go to some of the Web savants at the liberal Web site Daily Kos, who clued me in about the Google Cache when I posted an inquiry there.
But why, I wondered, was this information suddenly removed from the public Web site? Why was it apparently even removed from the archive? Was it because our own terrorist fighters in the DOJ were inconveniently reporting information that undercut the talking point that the UAE was now just fine and dandy?
Would a report about the UAE’s spotty record of cooperation with our anti-terrorist unit at the DOJ contradict the Bushista message that having them run our ports was no big problem? In short, was our Depart-ment of Justice being forced to censor its own reports concerning the War on Terror because they might be considered politically embarrassing and undercut the attempted port deal?
The whole thing is eerily suggestive of the “memory hole” described in George Orwell’s classic novel 1984. The memory hole was an actual hole in the wall of the cubicle where the book’s protagonist worked at his job in the ironically named Ministry of Truth. It led to a furnace in the basement, and all records that contradicted the Party line were fed into the memory hole, thus obliterating any inconvenient traces of a past the Party didn’t want the people to think about.
Fortunately, thanks to modern technology and the geeks who know how to use it, it’s getting harder and harder to make inconvenient information disappear.
I e-mailed the webmaster for the DOJ site, but so far I haven’t heard back. If I do, I’ll let you know. Meanwhile, an alert reader sent me a message that someone from Air America, the liberal talk radio network, picked up the Internet post I made on the subject and mentioned me by name.
So next week I could be telling you that it’s nothing. I could be famous. Or I could be a guest at Guantanamo Bay. Stay tuned. And if I suddenly disappear, someone come looking for me.
And save a copy of this column.
Last week, as you may remember, I wrote about the deal — now apparently off — that would have allowed a company run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates to manage several major U.S. ports.
According to the Bush Cult, there was absolutely nothing wrong with this, since the UAE was supposedly our good buddy now and a staunch ally in the Global War on Terror or (GWOT) as they like to call it.
While researching the column on the Internet with the aid of the trusty search engine Google, I came across a report published online on the Department of Justice’s Web site. This particular quote jumped out at me:
“The Government of the UAE has formally stated that it will no longer provide judicial assistance in criminal matters, absent both extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties. Since March, the UAE has released seven U.S. fugitives. The UAE has not responded to a request for documentary evidence since 2003.”
Just so you know who we’re talking about, the quote was from a report published online by the Counterter-rorism Unit (CTU) of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which according to the report, “assists the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT), U.S. Department of Justice, in achieving its primary goal to counter terrorism…”
In addition, “During the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05), OPDAT’s Counter Terrorism Unit worked closely with Regional Directors to support Resident Legal Advisers (RLAs) as they began developing and organizing programs in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kenya, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).”
In short, the CTU was trying to help the DOJ’s OPDAT in the GWOT during FY2005 by working with RLA’s in the UAE. Got that? OK.
Unfortunately, as late as 2005, the UAE wasn’t being all that cooperative, at least according to the report. I found this information about a country that was supposedly going to be involved in managing our ports significant, so I put it in the column.
This past weekend, after the column came out, I went back to look again — and the quote, in fact the entire report, was gone from the DOJ Web site. I did a search in the Web sites archives on “UAE and fugitives,” and I got a link to what looked like the same page. But when I clicked the link, I got the dreaded “404 Page Not found” error.
Fortunately, there’s this gizmo called the “Google Cache.” Without going into too much geek-speak, the Cache is a “snapshot” of a web page. It’s taken by Google’s automated web-searching program as it tirelessly roams the Net, looking for new sites to index. And there the page sits, at least for the time being. And now, it sits on my computer, because I saved a copy. Thanks, by the way, go to some of the Web savants at the liberal Web site Daily Kos, who clued me in about the Google Cache when I posted an inquiry there.
But why, I wondered, was this information suddenly removed from the public Web site? Why was it apparently even removed from the archive? Was it because our own terrorist fighters in the DOJ were inconveniently reporting information that undercut the talking point that the UAE was now just fine and dandy?
Would a report about the UAE’s spotty record of cooperation with our anti-terrorist unit at the DOJ contradict the Bushista message that having them run our ports was no big problem? In short, was our Depart-ment of Justice being forced to censor its own reports concerning the War on Terror because they might be considered politically embarrassing and undercut the attempted port deal?
The whole thing is eerily suggestive of the “memory hole” described in George Orwell’s classic novel 1984. The memory hole was an actual hole in the wall of the cubicle where the book’s protagonist worked at his job in the ironically named Ministry of Truth. It led to a furnace in the basement, and all records that contradicted the Party line were fed into the memory hole, thus obliterating any inconvenient traces of a past the Party didn’t want the people to think about.
Fortunately, thanks to modern technology and the geeks who know how to use it, it’s getting harder and harder to make inconvenient information disappear.
I e-mailed the webmaster for the DOJ site, but so far I haven’t heard back. If I do, I’ll let you know. Meanwhile, an alert reader sent me a message that someone from Air America, the liberal talk radio network, picked up the Internet post I made on the subject and mentioned me by name.
So next week I could be telling you that it’s nothing. I could be famous. Or I could be a guest at Guantanamo Bay. Stay tuned. And if I suddenly disappear, someone come looking for me.
And save a copy of this column.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
A New Starr in the Firmament
Anthony Award Winner Jason Starr[1], master of neo-noir[2] and widely acknowledged by experts[3] as one of the coolest people on the planet, has a new website. Check it out[4]. Then check his books out. You won't regret it.
[1] By Federal Law, we lesser mortals always have to add "Anthony Award Winner" before His name.
[2] I just made that genre up. Like it?
[3] Duane Swierczynski.
[4] The management is not responsible for damages incurred by females swooning over the come-hither look Jason gives the viewer on the front page.
[1] By Federal Law, we lesser mortals always have to add "Anthony Award Winner" before His name.
[2] I just made that genre up. Like it?
[3] Duane Swierczynski.
[4] The management is not responsible for damages incurred by females swooning over the come-hither look Jason gives the viewer on the front page.
Monday, March 06, 2006
The Oscars
I thought Jon Stewart was hilarious, no matter what some reviewers think. But it did seem as if his jabs made the audience a little uncomfortable, especially the early ones like "Usually you can't see this many celebrities in one place unless you donate to the Democratic Party! But this is an exciting night. It's the first time many of you have ever voted for a winner!" He lost the Hollywood crowd after that, and never seemed to get them back.
My favorite moment came right after the long back-patting historical montage of "socially conscious" movies, movies about racism, oppression, genocide, etc...after which Stewart came out, totally deadpan, and said "and none of those things was ever a problem again." Nervous titters from the assembled glitterati, but I was rolling on the floor laughing.
As far as the winners..well, the only nominated movie I've seen is "Walk the Line," so I'll refrain from commenting on other ones I know nothing about.
And as for the Oscar audience: Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
My favorite moment came right after the long back-patting historical montage of "socially conscious" movies, movies about racism, oppression, genocide, etc...after which Stewart came out, totally deadpan, and said "and none of those things was ever a problem again." Nervous titters from the assembled glitterati, but I was rolling on the floor laughing.
As far as the winners..well, the only nominated movie I've seen is "Walk the Line," so I'll refrain from commenting on other ones I know nothing about.
And as for the Oscar audience: Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Michael Moore Was Right (UPDATED)
Latest Newspaper Column
Michael Moore was right.
Oh, not about everything, mind you. But if you saw Moore’s controversial movie “Fahrenheit 9/11,” you know that one of the themes of the movie is how George Dubbya Bush’s ties to his big-money oil buddies in the Arab world caused him to be less than vigilant and to turn a blind eye to the support of Arab governments for terrorists.
Lo and behold, just last week, we saw Dubbya threaten to dust off his veto pen for the first time. He vowed to stop any effort to block a pending deal to let a company owned by the oil-rich United Arab Emirates (UAE) take over management of some of our major ports.
Of course, after a few opening skirmishes, the Bushistas leapt to the defense of their Dear Leader and the deal he supported, even as he admitted he hadn’t known anything about it till the controversy arose. Some of the arguments they’ve used are the lamest ones since — well, since the last time Bush came under fire.
First, there’s the classic accusation of bigotry: “Opposing this deal just because it’s an Arab company is racism! It’s profiling!”
There are so many things wrong with this, it’s hard to know where to start. For one thing, the concerns being expressed are not just because the DPW is “an Arab company.” It’s a state-run company, run by the government of Dubai in the loosely governed UAE. This is a concern because of the UAE’s ties to terrorism, and specifically to Osama bin Laden.
According to the report of the 9/11 Commission, a missile strike being contemplated against Osama in 1999 was nixed because he was hanging out on a hunting trip with members of UAE royalty. Money for the 9/11 strike was funneled through the UAE, and when the Treasury Department tried to trace the money after 9/11, the UAE complained about it to the White House.
In addition, the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They refuse to recognize the state of Israel. The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
And let’s not even get started on their abysmal human rights record. It wasn’t until 2005 that they agreed to start cracking down on child slavery.
The ones equating opposition to this deal with “racial profiling” of individual Arabs apparently can’t see the difference between holding a state-run corporation accountable for the actions of that state and harassing and detaining individuals based on ethnicity. Of course this makes perfect sense to Bushistas, who believe as an article of faith that corporations should have more rights than human beings.
But oh, they say, the UAE is now an “ally” in Bush’s War on Terra. Let’s see what our Department of Justice has to say about that.
A recent report from the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training says: “The Government of the UAE has formally stated that it will no longer provide judicial assistance in criminal matters, absent both extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties. Since March, the UAE has released seven U.S. fugitives. The UAE has not responded to a request for documentary evidence since 2003.” Some ally.*
Then there’s the “What’s the big deal?” argument. “They’re just managing the port! Homeland Security will still be responsible for port security!”
Oh, really? The people who brought us the botched Hurricane Katrina response? Boy, that makes me feel much better.
And if you don’t think that the employees of the port management company could use their access to get anybody they want to through the port and into the U.S., you are hopelessly naïve.
Of course, if the Bushistas can’t answer an argument, they go right to attacking the motives behind it. Thus: “You’re just against this because you liberals hate George W. Bush! Haters! Haters!”
Yeah, this is a purely partisan issue, so much so that liberal Bush haters like Tom DeLay and Trent Lott have come out against it. Conservative Congresswoman Sue Myrick of North Carolina sent a letter to Bush with one sentence: “Not just no, but HELL NO!” One of the people lining up in favor? Jimmy Carter, the only man who could persuade me to vote for Ronald Reagan.
The people defending this deal and, by extension, George Dubbya, are the perfect examples of the Cult of Bush. Commentator Glenn Greenwald put it this way: “Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.”
It’s become clear from this that Bushistas really believe in nothing but power as embodied in the person of their Dear Leader, who can do no wrong, even if he’s selling our security to the highest bidder.
It seems, however, that the cult is dwindling in numbers and “liberals,” as defined above, are now greatly in the majority.
A recent CBS News poll showed the Dear Leader with an abysmal 34 percent approval rating. I guess 66 percent of the American people now hate America. I’d like to be the first to welcome all you newly minted “liberals” into our ranks.
Now let’s get our country back.
*The report referenced seems to have been "scrubbed" from the DOJ website since I included it in the column. Interesting.
UPDATE: Thanks to Google Cache, the purged page can still be viewed. Thanks to the commentors at Daily Kos who dug it out for me.
Michael Moore was right.
Oh, not about everything, mind you. But if you saw Moore’s controversial movie “Fahrenheit 9/11,” you know that one of the themes of the movie is how George Dubbya Bush’s ties to his big-money oil buddies in the Arab world caused him to be less than vigilant and to turn a blind eye to the support of Arab governments for terrorists.
Lo and behold, just last week, we saw Dubbya threaten to dust off his veto pen for the first time. He vowed to stop any effort to block a pending deal to let a company owned by the oil-rich United Arab Emirates (UAE) take over management of some of our major ports.
Of course, after a few opening skirmishes, the Bushistas leapt to the defense of their Dear Leader and the deal he supported, even as he admitted he hadn’t known anything about it till the controversy arose. Some of the arguments they’ve used are the lamest ones since — well, since the last time Bush came under fire.
First, there’s the classic accusation of bigotry: “Opposing this deal just because it’s an Arab company is racism! It’s profiling!”
There are so many things wrong with this, it’s hard to know where to start. For one thing, the concerns being expressed are not just because the DPW is “an Arab company.” It’s a state-run company, run by the government of Dubai in the loosely governed UAE. This is a concern because of the UAE’s ties to terrorism, and specifically to Osama bin Laden.
According to the report of the 9/11 Commission, a missile strike being contemplated against Osama in 1999 was nixed because he was hanging out on a hunting trip with members of UAE royalty. Money for the 9/11 strike was funneled through the UAE, and when the Treasury Department tried to trace the money after 9/11, the UAE complained about it to the White House.
In addition, the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They refuse to recognize the state of Israel. The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
And let’s not even get started on their abysmal human rights record. It wasn’t until 2005 that they agreed to start cracking down on child slavery.
The ones equating opposition to this deal with “racial profiling” of individual Arabs apparently can’t see the difference between holding a state-run corporation accountable for the actions of that state and harassing and detaining individuals based on ethnicity. Of course this makes perfect sense to Bushistas, who believe as an article of faith that corporations should have more rights than human beings.
But oh, they say, the UAE is now an “ally” in Bush’s War on Terra. Let’s see what our Department of Justice has to say about that.
A recent report from the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training says: “The Government of the UAE has formally stated that it will no longer provide judicial assistance in criminal matters, absent both extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties. Since March, the UAE has released seven U.S. fugitives. The UAE has not responded to a request for documentary evidence since 2003.” Some ally.*
Then there’s the “What’s the big deal?” argument. “They’re just managing the port! Homeland Security will still be responsible for port security!”
Oh, really? The people who brought us the botched Hurricane Katrina response? Boy, that makes me feel much better.
And if you don’t think that the employees of the port management company could use their access to get anybody they want to through the port and into the U.S., you are hopelessly naïve.
Of course, if the Bushistas can’t answer an argument, they go right to attacking the motives behind it. Thus: “You’re just against this because you liberals hate George W. Bush! Haters! Haters!”
Yeah, this is a purely partisan issue, so much so that liberal Bush haters like Tom DeLay and Trent Lott have come out against it. Conservative Congresswoman Sue Myrick of North Carolina sent a letter to Bush with one sentence: “Not just no, but HELL NO!” One of the people lining up in favor? Jimmy Carter, the only man who could persuade me to vote for Ronald Reagan.
The people defending this deal and, by extension, George Dubbya, are the perfect examples of the Cult of Bush. Commentator Glenn Greenwald put it this way: “Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.”
It’s become clear from this that Bushistas really believe in nothing but power as embodied in the person of their Dear Leader, who can do no wrong, even if he’s selling our security to the highest bidder.
It seems, however, that the cult is dwindling in numbers and “liberals,” as defined above, are now greatly in the majority.
A recent CBS News poll showed the Dear Leader with an abysmal 34 percent approval rating. I guess 66 percent of the American people now hate America. I’d like to be the first to welcome all you newly minted “liberals” into our ranks.
Now let’s get our country back.
*The report referenced seems to have been "scrubbed" from the DOJ website since I included it in the column. Interesting.
UPDATE: Thanks to Google Cache, the purged page can still be viewed. Thanks to the commentors at Daily Kos who dug it out for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)