Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn ("In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."). --HP Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu

The stars hath turned in the heavens once more: Mighty Cthulhu stirs. His dreams reacheth forth, communing with those with ears to hear. Iä! Shub-Niggurath! His thoughts trample down along the pathways of thy mind; thou knowest His footprints, each of which is a wound...

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Three flavors of craven, insipid Evil.


Dennis Hastert (R-Fucktard) has introduced legislation that would legalize the outsourcing of torture.
H.R.10 sections 3031 & 3032 inserts language that would allow the US Government to deport "terrorist suspects" to countries that practice torture. Attached to the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act", this language would:

Edward Markey (D-MA) is going to introduce a bill (.pdf viewable here) that would prevent Hastert and his rightard goose-steppers from making torture a legal part of US foreign policy.

Write your Congressman! Markey's bid to prevent the legalization of torture will begin next week, so it is vital that you write your Representative now.
Go here to find your Representative and to send them an email. Urge them to support Markey's bill, to forbid the outsourcing of torture.

Let your Representative know that you don't want this in Our Name...

(Very special thanx to Obsidian Wings for revealing what our blind, worthless media has let slip by.)


Tuesday, September 28, 2004

I Knew It!

There was a bit of a row over at Daily Kos about Jon Stewart's
interview with a Lying Douchebag of Liberty. For the most part, we were all happy that Stewart handled that goon so deftly, but we certainly weren't enjoying the constant accusation of being "stoned slackers." This is particularly annoying when you think about the kind of knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers that are Faux's usual audience.

Well, via an anonymous commentor over at
One Good Move, I just read this on CNN's site:

Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research.

Apparently, Comedy Central didn't find Bill to be very funny, and so asked Nielson Media Research (the folks who do the Nielson Ratings) to conduct a comparative survey of viewers of each show.

They also added this:

Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't.

Now that's comedy.


News Roundup
(Because I'm too tired for specific snark)

Well, that only took 3 years...
Homeland Gestapo has expanded the
fingerprinting of visitors to 27 additional countries. New on the "Papers, please" list are Australia, Brunei, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore, as well as 22 European countries. Since Andorra is known as a hotbed of discontent, I'm glad to see they finally closed that gaping security hole.

Not technically a Draft:
Once again, the Army is accused of threatening and
coercing soldiers to reenlist or face another deployment to Iraq. They tried this back in May as well. Apparently, desperation makes for obstinance. I wonder who their Commander in Chief is?

Well, no wonder...
I guess the Army is returning to its dirty tricks because of a less-than-enthusiastic response to their
other Draft attempt. Hey Dumbya™, if you throw a war and only 62% of your soldiers show up, is that bad?

Perhaps if they knew what they were fighting for...
It's hard to get enthusiastic about getting shot at half way around the world when
our "leaders" can't get on the same page. Do our soldiers liberate the whole country, or just part of it? Which parts? How will they know when they're done (and can come home) if you people can't agree on "success"?

Addendum to previous post:
I realize that I might have given the impression that I agreed with Mr. Lind's gloomy predictions of mass-desertions in the National Guard. As a matter of fact, I do not agree.

I've met many Guardsmen, both in life and on the 'net, and I believe that any Guardsman will go anywhere if called upon to do so. It is that sense of duty and dedication that makes our citizen-soldiers so impressive. NG personnel are Us, The People, working with us, sending their kids to the same schools we do, shopping at the same grocery stores we shop--their awareness of the world outside the military is at least as wide and deep as anyone else's. Yet they answer the call for gawd-awful duties like Iraq, dispite the risk of economic ruin to their families, dispite the risk of unemployment when they return, dispite whatever feelings they have about the current administration. I think Lind is wrong about the looming mass-desertions. But the risk is real, has happened in small numbers already, and is caused by one thing: ShrubCo's™ inability to grasp Reality.

I posted Lind's article because I don't often come across an arch-conservative who cares enough about the military to actually criticize the current administration. Contrast with chickenhawks like "butt-cyst" Limbaugh, or "5-deferments" Cheney.


Monday, September 27, 2004

When Cultures Collide

Blecchhh!!! That's the sound of me responding to the horrid taste in my mouth after lurking around
The Center for Cultural Conservatism. Don't bother looking for yourself: It's every bit as icky as it sounds.

So imagine my surprise when I stumbled across an article written by that site's Director, posted on
Soldiers for the Truth. Now one doesn't normally run into much Repug mendacity on SFTT, but it happens occasionally, so I usually read the articles by first scrolling down to the bottom and checking the source.

For some reason, though, I read
"Destroying The National Guard", and came across the following:

The unit knew it would soon be shipped to the front. Some soldiers responded by deserting. Others got drunk and fought. In response, officers locked the unit in its barracks, allowing the troops out only to drill, not even to smoke a cigarette, until it could be put on the transport that would take it into combat.

It sounds as if I am describing some third echelon Soviet infantry regiment in, say, 1942. In fact, I am talking about the 1st Battalion of the 178th Field Artillery Regiment, South Carolina Army National Guard, in September 2004....One shudders to think what will happen once it gets there and finds itself under daily attack from skilled enemies it cannot identify.

What the...? That sounded surprisingly frank, coming from someone who prolly thinks I should be interned (if not deported) because of my tattoos. Hmmm, so what else does he say?

Cabinet wars, as they used to be called, are something altogether different. As Frederick the Great said, cabinet wars must be waged in such a manner that the people do not know they are going on.

But National Guardsmen are the people. To send them into a cabinet war is to misuse them in a way that will destroy them. Even in the American Revolution, militiamen were seldom asked to fight outside their own state. When they were, they usually responded by deserting.

Damn, that sounded rather well-informed. Any more compassion for The Guard in there?

For many Guardsmen, deployment to Iraq means economic ruin. They have mortgage payments, car payments, credit card debt, all calculated on their civilian salaries. Suddenly, for a year or more, their pay drops to that of a private. The families they leave behind face the loss of everything they have. What militia wouldn’t desert in that situation?

Well, what the hell?! Since when does Great Cthulhu actually see eye-to-tentacle with an arch-conservative? Hmmph. Looks like Emperor Chimpy™ finally managed to unite someone on something after all:

The fact of the matter is that Versailles on the Potomac does not care about the rest of the country in any respect, so long as the tax dollars keep coming in. My old friend King Louis XVI might be able to tell Rumsfeld & Co. where that road eventually ends up.

Uh, for the record, it ends up here:


Saturday, September 25, 2004

Ghaith's Guerrilla Journalism

The picture above is of
Ghaith Abdul Ahad, the photo-journalist who (among many other things) took the pictures of the September 12th massacre. He writes regularly for The Guardian, and has an incredible (and unnerving) ability to get people to open up around him, whether they're running from Apaches or shooting at our soldiers.

His latest piece is yet another insight into the common Iraqi man, easily the clearest reporting you will ever see on what the average Iraqi is thinking or feeling:
"Hundreds of Iraqis die every day," the man yelled at them. "Thousands are being kidnapped by the Americans every day, and nothing happens, but when three foreigners disappear, the whole world is here."

Ghaith has spoken with Iraq's appointed leaders, with various frontline insurgents, and with American journalists and soldiers. He counts as friends both Salam Pax (who vacillates between hope and cynicism about America's presence) and Raed Jarrar (who is unabashedly hostile towards "Boosh"), yet has said very positive things about the US presence in Iraq--dispite having once been detained and abused by US soldiers:
When talking to Ghaith about what happened to him he said that he doesn’t want this to sound that he is against their presence here.

But I used to feel safe when around them, if it looked like trouble go stand by the Americans but now I don’t feel this safe anymore. I hated myself for having the same feelings and fear when I was being detained by the Americans as when I was being detained by the Iraqis. I was worried about the space they would put me in and was hoping someone I know would come by so that I don’t just disappear.

If you want to know what is happening on the ground in Iraq, but don't want to deal with the second-hand reports from journalists too afraid to leave the "Green Zone", or can't stand the staged productions that the Army is spoon-feeding to the cable TV outlets, then you owe it to yourself to read Ghaith's work.

A collection of his Guardian articles can be
found here. This is where you can hear the unfiltered, unedited voices of Iraq:

One of the men lifts a big sword, and the scene cuts to the man in the jumpsuit lying dead in a pool of blood. The men around him are screaming "Allahu Akbar" - "God is great."

"Every time I watch this I feel sick," said the man. "But this is the only way to liberate my country."



Daily Kos comes this exchange between CNN's Paula Zahn and Pakitstani President, Pervez Musharraf:

ZAHN: Is the world a safer place because of the war in Iraq?

MUSHARRAF: No. It's more dangerous. It's not safer, certainly not.

ZAHN: How so?

MUSHARRAF: Well, because it has aroused actions of the Muslims more. It's aroused certain sentiments of the Muslim world, and then the responses, the latest phenomena of explosives, more frequent for bombs and suicide bombings. This phenomenon is extremely dangerous.

ZAHN: Was it a mistake to have gone to war with Iraq?

MUSHARRAF: Well, I would say that it has ended up bringing more trouble to the world.

Boy, ya know, there was a time when supporting the head of a military coup would at least get you a semblance of solidarity. Even if that lip-service was only for a few years.

But given Bush 41's track record of handling dictators (like
recruiting Manuel Noriega, or fighting Daniel Ortega), I guess it was inevitable that Dumbya™ would botch this pick as well.

Fortunately, NBC was around to give Pervez a chance to clear up any misunderstandings:
BROKAW: Do you think the American war against Iraq was a mistake?

MUSHARRAF: Well, I wouldn't comment on that. But I will certainly say that it has complicated the issue.

BROKAW: In your part of the world.

MUSHARRAF: In the Islamic world. In the Iraqi region. In the Middle East.

BROKAW: Made it worse for America?


Allawi got his copy of the RNC's talking points, but it looks like Rove forgot to get a copy to Pervez.

Wups indeed.


Thursday, September 23, 2004

New "Get Your War On" is up

Go check out the rest of this month's installment. What the hell: It's laugh or cry, so you may as well consider both options at once.


Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Another Good Move

One Good Move (even though Norm has done many) has clips up from Kerry's appearance on Letterman. Big files for dial-up users (the whole interview is 17Meg Quicktime), but broadband users must at least check out Kerry doing "Top 10 Bush Tax Proposals" (2.1Meg Quicktime).


What Do You Mean by "Free"?, Part II

Welcome back to our informal review of the Bill of Rights. This is just a quick synopsis of the some of the historical background behind, and relevent interpretations of, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, collectively titled The Bill of Rights.

So let's get this ant-hill well and thoroughly kicked over:

Amendment II:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Ah, the infamous "Right to Bear Arms". Well, the two sides of the argument on this Right are simple enough:

I'll save myself some effort, and you some headaches, by referring you to a good, thorough analysis of the Second Amendment. But, in brief, here is a list of things to remember when discussing this controversy:

So, does the Second Amendment exist to create a militia for defense of a state? Or does it exist to ensure that people can have guns, and that formation of a militia was just one possible reason for having those guns?

Annoyingly enough, the answer seems to be both. The Supreme Court has handed down some crucial interpretations:

  1. The existence of the National Guard in every state, commonwealth, and territory in the United States fulfills the definition of a "militia", such that any given state may forbid the existence of additional, private militias if they so choose.

  2. The Right to Bear Arms is an intrinsic part of our collective heritage, and the Founding Fathers' idea of "gun control" was mostly along the lines of "Hey! Watch where you point that thing!".

  3. That being said, the Supreme Court has left it up to the states to decide just how much they will or won't control access and posession to firearms.

Did you catch that last part? Because this is where the fun really begins.

An important thing to remember about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that they don't exist to tell you what you can do, but to tell the government what it can't do. To whit, the Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment exists to tell the Federal Government that it can't take away the right of an individual to own a firearm.

It doesn't say a lick about what the states can or can't do.

You: "So there's no way to enact a Federal ban on assault weapons?"
Great Cthulhu: "Don't be silly. You make the ban contingent upon voluntary compliance by the state governments. Then you tell the states that failure to adopt the ban will result in a cutting of Federal highway funds, but that voluntary adoption will result in bonus funds for the hiring of more local cops."
You: "I think that's unlikely."
Great Cthulhu: "How do you think Reagan got all 50 states to adopt a drinking age of 21?"

And now for the very best part: Since the Supreme Court has already dictated the means by which any form of gun control can take place, it's very unlikely that they'll even hear an appeal against such a law, let alone decide to reverse it. So a state may enact legislation banning the posession of any firearm (like CNMI), or they may enact a generous "open carry" law (like Arizona), and the entirety of any dispute must be won in the local state legislature. On the Federal end, any bill that "encouraged" states to "voluntarily" adopt a position must be decided in Congress, winner take all.

And that, Dear Readers, is why the fight for/against gun-control is so shrill.

(Next time: The Third Amendment. I promise that one will be short and sweet. How much time can you spend on the banning of forcibly quartering soldiers in private homes?)


Monday, September 20, 2004

Manufacturing Terrorists, One Attrocity at a Time

William Rivers Pitt has
torn back the veil to expose a horrid, naked truth: Osama bin Laden didn't just spring up from the muck, and neo-conservative foreign policy is working overtime to manufacture more of him as quickly as possible:
Osama bin Laden becomes truly scary when the realization comes that he is not unique, not singular, not an invention of the universe. He becomes truly scary when the realization comes that there are millions of people who have seen what he has seen, who feel what he feels, and why. He becomes truly scary when the realization comes that he is a creation of the last fifty years of American foreign and economic policy, and that he has an army behind him created by the same influences. Simply, Osama bin Laden becomes truly scary when the realization comes that he can be, and has been, and continues to be, replicated.

I'm never going to come close to the clarity and poignancy of an internationally best-selling author (and Managing Editor and Senior Writer for truthout.org), so I'm going to strongly encourage you to go over and read this work for yourself.

But his point is easy and clear: When a man witnesses American military might being used to accomplish this...

...it's a pretty sure bet that he's going to have a problem with Americans for the rest of his life. He may even be inclined to do something about it.
Osama bin Laden is a damned murderer of innocents, with thousands of notches in his belt. His actions are indefensible by any measure. Yet to dismiss him as something other than the creation of his experiences, to categorize him as some unique freak whose motivations are beyond comprehension, is to deny the most important dilemma that faces our world. Monsters are not born. They are made.

When an Iraqi sees his neighbors, friends, his very own family treated like this...

...do you really think that he's thinking "Oh, it's just a few bad apples blowing off some steam.".

Or do you think he might be a bit more inclined to view these actions as the violence of an oppressive invader.

I don't blame America first, dispite what that pill-popping hypocrite Limbaugh says. America didn't do this; a fanatical fascist element of neo-conservatism framed a foreign policy that made this possible. Unfortunately, I don't think this man knows the difference, or cares...

The freepers and neo-clowns will happily claim that each and every one of these people deserved their fate, that they were terrorists or insurgents or criminals. But what you need to realize is that the only opinion that matters is that of the man deciding whether or not he wants to do something about this...

We accused Saddam Hussein of collaborating with bin Laden, and of being involved in 9/11, despite the fact that bin Laden has wanted Hussein dead for years. We killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians. We raped and tortured Iraqi men, women and children in the dungeons of Abu Ghraib. All of our poor history in the region has been distilled into that one nation, a place that now manufactures bin Laden allies by the truckload.

Saturday, September 18, 2004

What Do You Mean by "Free"?, Part I

Welcome to the first installment of Bill of Rights 101. As an armchair historian, I'm sickened by people who bandy "freedom" around without any understanding or appreciation of what it actually means. "They hate our freedoms" is one example. To my knowledge, Osama bin Laden has stated that he hates our presence in Muslim holy lands, and he hates our support of Israel; but never once has he said that he hates The Bill of Rights or The Constitution. "Land of the Free" is another phrase that rubs me the wrong way: Almost no one who says that phrase can define what they mean by that. At least, define it and be right at the same time.

So, without further ado, let's get started:

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first sentence is clear: No laws either supporting or denying religious beliefs. This is the infamous "separation of Church and State" clause. While religious conservatives insist that the second part is violated by prohibiting school prayer, Constitutional scholars (ie, the Courts) have decided long ago that both conditions must be met in any given circumstance. To whit, school prayer isn't Constitutional because it would violate the first part of the first sentence.

The second sentence, the "Right to Free Speech", has been the most-contested, and most-upheld, section of any piece of legislation in US history. As with any interpretation, historical context is paramount: In the Colonies, you could be arrested for bumping into a friend on the street and mentioning to him that you thought the English were a bunch of pompous jerks. Furthermore, your local newspaper could be shutdown or siezed by the government if they were to inform your neighbors about your arrest. This Right was included solely for the purpose of guaranteeing every American the Right to talk to anyone else about anything else, and for the media to do the same.

There is a 200yr history of court battles seeking to impose limits on this Right. Google for specifics, but here's a synopsis: You can't call someone else a name for the sole purpose of hurting/angering them (no "Fighting Words"), you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (Free Speech is for discourse, not mishief), and you can't conspire to commit a crime (defining "crime" is the tricky part -- conspiring to commit a terrorist act is certainly a crime, but is defying a city ordinance in order to stage a peaceful demonstration a crime?).

Which brings us to the last part of the First Amendment, the Right "of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Remember that back in the 18th Century, the Colonists tended to make their concerns known to the English by gathering into large mobs at night, after having spent the afternoon boiling up some tar and plucking a whole lot of chickens. What this Right was telling Americans was that they could assemble into huge groups to address the government, that the government would not be able to take away that Right, but please leave the roofing supplies and poultry at home.

So, to sum up, here's the First Amendment in a nutshell:

1) Church and State can never be at the same place at the same time.
2) You can say anything you want, in any public place, so long as your intent is socio-political discourse, not mischief.
3) You can demonstrate against the government in any public place, as long as you do so peacefully.

Now here's your homework: Are any of these parts currently under attack by this administration?



Friday, September 17, 2004

Great Galluping Goobers

The Left Coaster takes a hard look at Gallup's methodology, and comes up with some disturbing information:
Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat.

Some quick math here: Gallup is saying that if they poll 100 Democrats and 100 Republicans, and that they all vote according to their party, then they would report a 40-33 lead for Chimpy™, even though their own internals showed a 50-50 tie.

But that's not enough for Gallup: They actually increase the inaccuracy of their own polling by polling more Republicans than Democrats:

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)

Registered Voter Sample Party IDs – Same Poll
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (38%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (30%)

Not only is this a back-door kind of push-polling, but voting history shows that their assumptions of Republican/Democrat voter turnout is just plain wrong:
If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections.

And that's really fubar: Gallup has a long and exalted history, but now they can't be trusted by either Republicans or Democrats, no matter who they show ahead. If Republicans really think that their man is ahead by 13pts, they'll slack off and then get blindsided by Chimpy's™ loss in November (not that I'd mind, obviously). The converse is true of Democrats, of course.

So where does Gallup gain from their funny-numbers? Well, if they can discourage the Democrats from bothering to turn-out to vote, then their man may actually win. And I say "their man" because
Gallup's CEO, James Clifton, is a staunch Republican.

But the cat is out, now; how Gallup responds to the outing of their newfound lack of integrity will be interesting to watch -- as long as you remember to ignore the numbers they report between now and November no matter who they show is winning.


Thursday, September 16, 2004

Vote, puny ape-spawn!

For all you Naderites: If yer gonna vote for Chimpy™, why not at least do some good with it? After all, a vote for Nader's ego is a vote for Abu Ghraib. But a vote for my beer-sodden ego will get you Eaten First, so at least there will be some good from your wanna-vote-for-Nader's-ego ballot.


Proselytize, mortals!

Original artwork by yours truly. Feel free to copy, print onto bumper-stickers, etc. Carry a bunch in your coat pocket and go slap-happy next time you're near a parking lot full of SUV's at a local Klan RNC rally.


Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Now We're Talkin'

If I can't have General Clark, then
this will do fine:

He added, in his clearest terms yet of what he views as Mr. Bush's lack of accountability: "He's blamed just about everyone but himself and his administration for America's economic problems. And if he's missed you, don't worry, he's still got 48 days left until the election."

Mr. Kerry went on: "At that convention in New York the other week, President Bush talked about his ownership society. Well Mr. President, when it comes to your record, we agree you own it."


Tuesday, September 14, 2004

--Ghaith Abdul-Ahad/Getty Images

"Liberty" in a Rocket's Red Glare
(Richard Cranium, over at All Spin Zone, first brought this story to my attention. I'm merely doing my part to get the word out, to help spread the news of what our beloved government is doing in our name.)

Mazen al-Tumeizi, a reporter for the Dubai-based Al Arabiya, was reporting near a burning Bradley CFV at dawn, Sunday Sept 12th. A crowd of unarmed civilians was milling around curiously in the background. And that is when a pair of Apache gunships arrived, dispensing Liberty via 2.75" folding-fin aerial rockets.

Video of the attack--taken by Tumeizi's cameraman--can be
seen here. Warning: Not a pretty picture of democracy.

--Ghaith Abdul-Ahad/Getty Images

The US Army explained its actions:

Major Phil Smith, a spokesman for the 1st Cavalry Division, said the helicopter fired to try to destroy the burning vehicle “for the safety of the people around it”.

--AP/CBC News

Makes sense. After all, this one twit waving a terrorist flag was clearly a threat to the safety of the people around him. US attack helicopters simply had to open fire “for the safety of the people around it”.

--Ghaith Abdul-Ahad/Getty Images

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad writes for The Guardian and works as a stringer for Getty Images. When
Ghaith arrived, he began snapping pics like any photographer would, but he soon found himself caught up in his own story and was quickly wounded: The Apaches were making sure they finished what they had started...

I had just reached the corner of the cube when I heard two explosions, I felt hot air blast my face and something burning on my head. I crawled to the cube and hid behind it. Six of us were squeezed into a space less than two metres wide. Blood started dripping on my camera but all that I could think about was how to keep the lens clean.

--Ghaith Abdul-Ahad/Getty Images

I reached a building entrance when someone grabbed my arm and took me inside. "There's an injured man. Take pictures - show the world the American democracy," he said.

Yes, Democracy has arrived for these people. A free and liberated Iraq greets the new day.

--Ghaith Abdul-Ahad/Getty Images


According to this and this, Ghaith is a friend of Salam Pax and Raed Jarrar. He had his own blog for a brief time, and still has an old foto-page here.

Of more interest are his articles for The Guardian, which can be viewed here. He deserves a medal for bravery, and a Pulitzer for his repeated infiltration of the "Iraqi Resistance":
This is the front-line elite, a bunch of badly equipped men with rusted AKs and decade-old RPG rockets. When we first arrive they are brewing tea, piles of RPG rockets stacked on the walls two feet away from the fire.

"So how long you have been here?" I ask one of them.

"Three weeks now." He says he is here because he wants to defend the shrine of Imam Ali. "I'm unemployed and have nothing else to do."

He is 17.

(Ghaith Abdul-Ahad after Sunday's slaughter)

Monday, September 13, 2004

(click image to view)

More Fun with Flash

Just for giggles, I thought I'd remind folks of this hilarious Flash animation:
The "Dishonest Dubya" Lying Action Figure.

The list of quotes and the remote control are interactive. Click on a stupid quote and you'll hear Dumbya™ actually say it. Click on a remote function and he'll actually do it (the image above is a screen-capture of the result of clicking on the "choke on a pretzel" button).

Bookmark, and send to your friends =)


(click image to view)

Guerrilla Media

The Freeway Blogger has been around for a while, but I thought I'd put the word out for those who haven't heard of him yet. Operating on the premise that he can reach more people for longer and for less money, he's taken to putting up signs all over LA's busy highways:

When you put a sign on the freeway people will read it until someone takes it down. Depending on its size, content and placement it can be seen by hundreds of thousands of people.

I think he's on to something.

Here at Freewayblogger we feel that free speech is meaningless unless it extends to everybody: not just to those who can afford it. When the founders of this nation said that everyone was entitled to freely express their political opinions, they didn't mean we could hammer up a sign out in the woods somewhere, they meant we could hammer it up right in the middle of the town square. Why? Because that's where all the people were.

Amen, brother.

One Good Move, I also wanted to share THIS. I don't know who did the music or the animation, but it's well done and loads quickly (even dial-up users can enjoy this one). Kudos to whoever did this great work.

Flash animation is tedious work for the likes of me, but my roommate and many others find it rather fun to do on their home computers. This is media that anyone can use. Blogging isn't the only inexpensive form of political activism after all.


Thursday, September 09, 2004

More Gloom With Graphs

Just stumbled accross No Bush in '04 this past week. If you want priceless video clips of Chimpy™ in "mis-action", then this is a must-visit for you. Bookmark and enjoy.


Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Happy Now, Chimpy™?

it's official: The death toll of US Servicemen and women in Iraq passed 1000 today. The count is now 1004, and still rising.

Via Brian C.B. over on Eshaton:

1000 Americans died to keep Saddam Hussein from giving weapons he didn't have to terrorists he didn't know.

Hey Shrub™, how many more have to die before you get a fucking clue?


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't 


Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com Listed on BlogShares