Dear Mr. Ahmed Goidman (for the family)

It's finally happened. I've been messing around with online servies and the internet for like 10 years, and today marks the first day I've got one of those Spanish prisoner emails. You know, the one where the guy in Nigeria has like $10 million in an account in some war torn country, and he promises to wire it to your account, "for safe keeping," if you send him some money for expenses. Here's the letter I got in my Gmail account this morning (also, cooincidentally, the first and only piece of spam I've ever got at that account):

From: MR Ahmed GoldmanE Mail a44ahmed@yahoo.co.uk
Republic of South Africa Johannesburg
Attn: Managing director/CEO

You may be surprised to receive this letter from me since you do not know me personally. I am Mr.Ahmed Goldman. The first son of Mr. David Goldman, who was recently murdered in the land dispute in Zimbabwe. I got your contact through network online hence decided to write to you. Before the death of my father, he had taken me to Johannesburg to deposit the sum of US $10M (Ten- million United States Dollars) in one of the Private Security Companies as if he foresaw the looming danger in Zimbabwe.
This money was deposited in a box as gemstones to avoid much demurrage from the Security Company. This amount was meant for the purchase of new machines, chemicals for the farms and establishment of new farm in Swaziland. This land problem came when Zimbabwean President Mr. Robert Mugabe introduced a new land act reform, which wholly affected the rich white farmers and some few black farmers.
This resulted in the killing and mob action of Zimbabwean war veterans and some lunatics in the society. In facta lot of people were killed because of this land reform act of which my father was one of the victims. It is against this background that my family and I are Currently in South Africa and decided to transfer the fund to a foreign country since the law of South Africa prohibits refugees like my self from opening any bank Account or to be Involved in any financial transaction Throughout the territorial zones of Southern Africa.
As the eldest son of my father, I am saddled with responsibilities of seeking a genuine and trustwhorthy foreign account owner where this money could be transferred into without the Knowledge of my government who are bent on taking everything. All I seek for is an honest businessman or woman, whom I can entrust my future and that of my family; I must also let you know that this transaction is 100% risk free. If you accept to assist us, I would like you to make arrangements and come to Johannesburg, South Africa so that you can help me open a non-resident account on your name which will aid us in transferring this money into any account you will nominate overseas.
This money I intend to use for my investment and growth in your country. I have two options for you; firstly, you can choose to have certain percentage of the money for nominating your account for this transaction. Or you can go into partnership with me for the proper profitable investment of the money in your country. Whichever options you want feel free to notify me.
I have also mapped out 5% of this money for all kinds of expenses we might incure on the process of this transaction. If you do not prefer a partnership, I am willing to give you 25% of the money while the remaining 70% will remain for my family and I. If you are really capable and willing to assist me please contact me immediately With the above telephone no. Finally, please treat this matter as urgent very more confidential as possible. I am in dare need to leave this country soonest. Thanks for your mutual co-operation as I expect your urgent response.

Best regards,

Mr.Ahmed Goldman (For the
Family)

Ok, first of all, how hilarious is this? Just out of curiosity, I looked at the U.S. State Dept.'s web page about Zimbabwe, and while most assuredly incomplete, it made no mention of a land reform act. This would seem to me to be a pretty important, as Mr. Ahmed claims, it has killed many people, even lunatics in society. Maybe he's not as trustwhorthy as he would claim.

I came across this web site awhile back. Basically, they write back to these scammers, just fucking with 'em. One guy even made a few hundered bucks off of them, posing as a priest, and saying that he needed $200 or whatever to get access to the Church's accounts. It's inspiring. Check it out. For the family.

At least they gave him good beer

MADISON, Wis. — The residents of 508 West Washington Ave. were already psyched when they realized that a massive rally with Sen. John F. Kerry and Bruce Springsteen would take place on their street this afternoon.When the rock star's trailer parked right in front of their house, Danya Bader-Natal — one of the seven University of Wisconsin seniors who live in the gray wooden house-scrawled a message in green marker on a flattened box and hung it from their second-story balcony: "Bruce come up for a beer."
"We thought he might see it and laugh, but we definitely didn't think he'd actually
come over," said roommate Vivian Intermont. ...
The stunned students handed the rock legend a bottle of Capital Amber and for the next 20 minutes, he hung out with them as the Democratic candidate spoke on stage down the street.

This is literally right across the street from our old haunt, the five-two-niner. Anything from Capitol Brewery is great, so at least Mr. Springsteen got a taste of Wisconsin.

WANKMASTER SHIZZLEMAH IS IN THE GODDAMN HOUSE

My goddamn rock solid ghetto shiznit name is Wankmaster Shizzlemah.
What's yours?

Thank you for the pills, Dr. Miranda

I am now medicated, and hope to be feeling better quite soon, which means more proficient blogging. You can read this if yer bored. Which you are. Else you wouldn't be here.

UPDATE: Or watch this. BUNNIES BUNNIES BUNNIES

The one-fingered victory salute

This one's for you, hippies!!!

Holy fucking balls

The Album Art downloaded when you purchase music from the iTunes Music Store is transferred to iPod Photo along with the music. So while iPod Photo plays your tunes, you can enjoy the Album Art — in color, of course — on the Now Playing screen.

Also? I hate U2, but man, this is cool.

Day-Quil influenced Things Of the Day

Words:
-Megalopolis
-Pipe

Music:
-Willie Nelson: "Pancho and Lefty"

Pen:
-Sanford Uni-Ball (fine)

Cartoooooooooon:
-This one.

Font:
-Arial 14-point (bold)

#6 ranked Wisconsin Badgers

Can I get a "FUCK YEAH?"

AP Top 25
1 Southern California
2 Oklahoma
3 Auburn
4 Miami (FL)
5 Florida State
6 Wisconsin
7 California
8 Texas
9 Utah
10 Georgia

Podcasting

Y'all should check out Coverville, a nearly daily radio show in MP3 featuring the best and worst in cover music. You can download 'em to yer iPod, too, and listen to 'em whenever you want. Lots of fun, and some really great music.

Oh fuck. Really?

Ha.

Kerry goes to Jupiter

Via Instapundit:

To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry. ...
Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.

Oh! Oho! Oh SNAP!

Oil for Food update

The Council on Foreign Relations has a sort-of FAQ up about the UN Oil-For-Food scandal. This is easily my favorite part:

What did Iraq buy with the money?
The Duelfer report says that Iraq went to great lengths to build a missile system that exceeded the range limits imposed by the United Nations. Companies from China and Russia sold, or negotiated to sell, missile guidance systems, the report says. A Polish company supplied a propulsion system. An Indian company built and sold Iraq a missile-fuel processing plant. All in all, the report alleges that six governments and private companies from a dozen other nations were willing to ignore sanctions prohibiting arms sales. Among European allies, France’s military industry had extensive contacts with Iraqi officials. The report describes, for example, repeated trips by an executive from the French company Lura, which sold Iraq a tank carrier.

So, basically, we have foreign countries willing to put American troops in harm's way to preserve their business interests. No blood for oil? Et tu, Jacques?
I have to admit, though, that I'm a bit surprised to see Poland in the list. But, then again, they are, literally, a bunch of Polocks.
"But why..." I hear you asking, across these thousands of miles, "why have I not heard of this scandal on my eminently balanced nightly newscast?" Dig this:

Despite nine ongoing investigations into UN corruption, how many full stories have tackled the topic this year on ABC, CBS, and NBC? Four. Three on NBC, one on ABC, and zero on CBS. The debate moderators ignored it, too.

(link via Protein Wisdom)
Hmmm...I wonder why that is???

Pretty fucking weak, Angry Hippie

I have to say that I'm quite disappointed. Couldn't even rouse your unemployed ass for a single post? I'm sure Bush has said something stupid in the past two days. No comment at all? WEAK.

Don't worry, readers, Angry Hippie will forthwith be deleted from the system, and will no longer infect your impressionable minds with his foul non-rhetoric. Feel free to spout forth vile, anti-hippie rhetoric in the comments.

More later.

blog crasher

Allright, hippies, something special for y'all this week. Work is spiriting me off to an undisclosed location for the next few days, and I won't be blogging really at all. But I know how much you love this shit, so I've lined up a guest-blogger.

Frequent commenter The Angry Hippie will be taking over blogging duties here at least until Friday. Please show him all the graciousness and eloquence I've come to expect from you. This is his first time blogging, also, so please go lightly on him if he "accidentally" links to a picture of his wang or something.

I'll sniff you jerks on Friday.

Take THAT, hippies!

Oh! Oho! Ohohoho!!! There's a reason the GOP symbol is an elephant. Any foxy young democrat ladies wanna see "the bridge to the 21st century?" Or "see the results of my internal poling?" Or...uh, "not vote for John Kerry?" Ok, I guess there's really only two jokes there.

Endorsements

You can stop holding your breath, the New York Times has officially announced its endorsement of John Kerry.
In the surprise column, however, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed the President.

Read all of both of them.

UPDATE: Angry Hippie, a horribly misguided Nader supporter in 2000, wants to know who has endorsed the goofy fuck this time around. No newspapers yet that I can find, but Ross Perot's old hangout, the Reform Party, has thrown its insignificant weight behind him. The Greens, Nader's party in 1996 and 2000, have ditched him this year.
That dog won't hunt, Monsignor.

America: FUCK YEAH, Pt. 2

We condescended to patronize the local megaplex last night to catch Team America: World Police in a depressingly un-crowded theatre. Depressingly, I say, because as many people should see this movie as Fahrenheit 9/11.
First, lets get it out there that the movie is flat-out fucking hilarious. One co-attendee said, somewhat misleadingly, that he's never laughed so hard at only four jokes. Misleading because there's much more than four jokes, although they do rely heavily on the South Park quadrangle of swearing, making fun of foreigners, dick jokes, and bodily fluids. Again, though, truly hilarious.
But the focus of the movie, fighting terrorists (albeit with puppets), cannot be removed from current political context, so let's look at it that way.

For those that haven't seen it yet, and don't want the plot or jokes ruined, don't read any further.

The clear enemies in the movie are, of course, terrorists and those who would sponsor them, namely Kim Jong Il. But the movie doesn't shy away from exposing America's more embarrasing tendencies toward unabashed patriotism, cultural cluelessness, and wanton destruction. As FoxNews put it in a preview of the movie, "Team America is out to save the world from terrorists, but who'll save the world from Team America?"

In the same interview, Trey Parker and Matt Stone admit that they don't really know anything about foreign policy, and from watching the film, you'll get the sense that they wish that other members of the Hollywood community would do the same. Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, etc. etc. actually take up arms to defend Kim Jong Il and his terrorist plot against Team America, all in the name of "peace." The UN gets it's comeuppance as well, when Hans Blix gets eaten by a shark after threatening Kim Jong Il with a very nasty letter for his refusal to allow unfettered inspections.

The movie accomplishes it's goal of offending pretty much everyone. Redneck flag wavers would be offended by the assertions of America as the blond-haired, blue-eyed, democratic savior of the world, if they were only smart enough to realize that they were being made fun of. Lefties obviously will be upset, and in fact, several patrons at our screening walked out shortly after the Michael Moore puppet made his appearance. Which, while somewhat missing the point, is fine with me, because if we can't agree on and laugh at some really crucial facts (namely that terrorists and Kim Jong Il are bad, Hollywood actors don't know shit about foreign policy and should butt the fuck out, and that Michael Moore is nothing more than a fat blowhard jackass), we've got bigger problems than movie attendance.

I think that the overall point of the movie is that, by and large, America is doing the right thing in fighting terrorism. However, in that it focuses more on Kim Jong Il than on Osama bin Laden as the figure of global terrorism, and in that it completely ignores the issue of Iraq, it's obvious that the creators disagree fundamentally with the direction the war is going. In fact, the Islamic terrorist plot is a bit of a red herring in the plot of the movie. Whatever. Fine. But it's other big point is that people like Michael Moore and the collection of Hollywood types portrayed are not doing the cause any good at all. Stalin called them "useful idiots," in that while they prevaricate and pontificate and protest, the trul evil-doers continue with their plans, completely uninterested in dialogue or negotiated solutions. That point is writ large onscreen, and early reaction from the butt of these jokes shows that they're not really getting it.

I don't want to turn this into some sort of polemic, though, thereby discouraging you from seeing the movie. But just like South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut had at its heart a fundamentally conservative message of parental responsibility, so does Team America have a point that sometimes might is right. Or, at the very least, that to not fight this war is wrong.

I have a problem with this

Via the VC (that's Volokh Conspriacy, not Viet Cong...gunz down, John Kerry), I watched this clip of John Stewart on CNN's Crossfire. Now, I have some issues with the Daily Show, and with Jon Stewart in particular. Namely, aside from a brief burst of productivity when Stewart took over, I just don't think it's been very funny recently. Being a Kilborn partisan, I much preferred what I would call "the early years." But I'm surely not above acknowledging that Stewart's tenure has produced some lasting moments.

Anyway. Near the opening of the clip, hosts Tucker Carlson and the odious Paul Begala let Stewart rant a bit, and try to explain why he thinks Crossfire and others of its ilk are "bad for America." Now, the issue to be discussed here is obviously The Daily Show's place in the new media hierarchy. More and more people, particularly ill-informed young people (and by young people, I mean first time voters and others too stoned or lazy [oops, I mean "jaded"] to pay attention), but plenty of others are well, are now getting their news from talk shows like The Daily Show, David Letterman and...ugh, Jay Leno. What effect, the academic would ask, does this shift have on the attitudes and voting behaviors of young people?

It's a question I'll not take on here and now, possibly elsewhere and later. However, it's important to note that these shows make no pretense of objectivity, fairness, or really even truth. Despite the fact that the shows occasionally will feature a one-on-one interview with an actual newsmaker, gathering one's news by watching these shows is akin to playing that grade-school game "telephone," where the first person in line whispers something like, "Four score and seven years ago..." and the last person announces that he heard, "George Bush wants to re-instate the draft." These shows simply do not do an adequate job of informing the viewer.

Nor would Letterman or Leno necessarily say that their shows should take on the task of informing their viewers. Most of the time, Leno sucks up to people like Dennis Rodman, and Letterman just breaks stuff. Stewart has said the same thing, that his show is comedy or "fake news," and that it's our own fault if the only news we get is from him. But Stewart knows that the kids are tuning in, and while he takes ostensibly takes shots at both sides, one side predictably gets shot at more than the other, and Stewart shrugs off the responsibility of the impression this creates by claiming it's only "fake news."

The Daily Show used to be about lampooning news casts, and the utterly ridiculous newsmagazines like "20/20" or "Dateline." (Aside: yes, one day I'll make up my mind about how I'll forthwith consistenlyformat the names of newspapers, magzines, tv shows, movies, albums and song titles. But until then, just shut yer snarky-ass up.) But now that network news has coasleced into a parody of itself, doing the best they can to prove the internet conspriacy theorists right, The Daily Show is just one of the crowd, and is all about taking down President Bush.

Yes, yes, I know. Halliburton. And yes, yes, they take some shots at Kerry, too. But more often than not, it's a day-by-day retelling of "Bush is stupid," "Bush is an evil genius," "It's all about the oil," "UN-oil-for-food whatnow?" talking points. Any conclusions one comes to belongs to you alone. We present (albeit with jokes), you decide. It's comedy! It's opinion!

I respect that Stewart is on some sort of crusade and has no qualms about calling out people even like Ted Koppel to be much more of an aribter of truth. And I've got no problem with people taking partisan shots at Bush. I've got no problem with them doing it in a fake-news show format that millions of people watch. I've got no problem with people taking partisan shots in a movie. But for the love of crackers, people, don't try to tell me it's a fucking fact, and don't tell me that you're being fair. This is why the mainstream press is in such trouble. Acknowledge your bias, and you won't be held to such high standards. But if you think you can get away with it, and when you think you're smarter than the rest of us, you'll find out very quickly that you're wrong.

The Hall of Douchebags

Please think about this page before you take a picture of your band. Please.

AMERICA: FUCK YEAH

Team America: World Police

Well, the big release is today. The New York Times posted a review, but instead of reading it, you should read Ann Althouse's review of the review.
The Weekly Standard also has a review. I'm not going to read either the NYT or Weekly Standard reviews until I've seen the movie. I'll post my own review after I see it.

UPDATE (copped from Althouse): This is interesting, from Entertainment Weekly (subscription needed):

After Parker and Stone received a letter from the Oscar winner [Sean Penn]— in which he condemned them for recent comments in Rolling Stone urging uninformed voters to stay away from the ballot booths — the duo had a laugh at the actor's expense. ''It was like he missed the point,'' says Stone. Adds Parker: ''It's obvious what he's really pissed off about is that we made him into a puppet and had him eaten by a panther [in the movie].... It's hysterical, because nothing could make us happier. It's like, Spicoli's pissed at you. What does he think, we're going to be like, 'Dude, Sean Penn's pissed at us! What should we do?''' One thing they brieflyconsidered doing was taking Penn up on his offer to escort them around Iraq: ''We were going to take him over there and kick his ass,'' laughs Stone.

The worst economy since Hoover

WE WILL FACT CHECK JOHN KERRY'S ASS.
Well, not really, but I did want to point out some numbers about the horrific economy that Bush's reckless tax cuts have caused:

You'd think that a high-performance economy, producing above-average growth and below-average inflation, would be a re-election ace. After all, during the 10 recovery quarters since the end of the 2001 recession, real GDP--the most comprehensive measure of the economy -- has averaged 3.4% growth, in line with the average post-World War II expansion rate. Since the supply-side tax cuts were passed in Spring 2003, real economic growth has jumped to 4.8%, putting it at the head of the class of the past 20years. ...

In his own defense, Mr. Bush should highlight the household survey (thenumber of people actually working), which shows that 1.69 million more are employed today than when he took office. An additional 3.4 million have gone to work since the end of the recession, with 140 million Americans currently employed -- a new record. With all these new job entrants, the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.4%. This is no Hoover economy. But to make this point, Mr. Bush must use numbers on GDP and household employment.

This comes from economist Larry Kudlow. Here's the link, but you gotta subscribe to get it. And because this is a fair and balanced blog, I feel compelled to tell you that The Economist disagrees:

In an informal poll of 100 academics, conducted by The Economist, Mr Bush's policies win low marks. More than 70% of the 56 professors who responded to our survey rate Mr Bush's first-term economic policies as bad or very bad. Fewer than 20% give positive marks to Mr Bush's second-term economic agenda, and almost six out of ten disapproved. Mr Kerry hardly got rave reviews either, but his economic plan still fared better than the president's did. In all, four out of ten professors rated Mr Kerry's economic plan as good or very good, but 27% gave it negative scores. (The complete numbers are available at www.economist.com/economistspoll.)

Are our economists partisans? We chose their names, at random, from among the referees of the American Economic Review, one of the profession's more prestigious publications.

Well, that really only makes sense if the entire American Economic Review was evenly split in terms of partisanship in the first place. Which it isn't:

Though most of our professors claim they are not interested in working in Washington, 80% of those who would accept a policy job would prefer to work for Mr Kerry.

So, y'know, grains of salt and all that.

Fry John Edwards, then

On my drive to work this morning, during the 8:00a news break, the news lady for WPTF announced to me that John Kerry would be campaigning in my home state of Wisconsin today. He will be attending a "brat fry," she said. As I'm sure you've noticed by now, that's not really all that interesting. So while I thank you for continuing to read despite your crushing boredom, consider that she pronounced the word "brat" as if the senator would be frying up petulant children instead of "heaven on a bun."
It was unclear as to whether the candidate himself actually mispronounced the word, or as to what his position would be on vending said sausages at...oh, say....LAMBERT FIELD.

Help is on the way

Drugde has a scoop. See the evidence here. Read Stephen Green here. And then read this. And then ask yourself if you can vote for a party that makes shit like this so routine that it puts it in a fucking manual.
This is, flat-out, a horrid manipulation of some folks' legitimate concern for sickening partisan political game. Absolutely shameful.

UPDATE: Should it prove true, of course.

Thanks, Mom and Dad...

...for not naming me Trot.

Closet user

Wired explains to me why I wear black headphones with my iPod:

To others, using non-white headphones is a reaction to the growing hordes of iPod fans clogging the sidewalks and subways. Others don't like wearing corporate logos, even earbuds.
"I started to feel like a walking iPod ad," said one New Yorker, who preferred to remain anonymous, in print and in person. "I actually dug out an old pair of black headphones to use with mine."
Closet iPod use is particularly acute among early adopters, said consumer behaviorist Tom O'Guinn, because they don't want to be identified with the Johnny-come-latelies.
"The only people I've met who are closet users are middle-aged ex-college rockers who have a guilt complex about rediscovering the bad-boy tunes of their youth," she said.

That's weird....I just thought the white ones hurt my ears.

Fellowship 9/11

From iFilm.com:

Michael Moore's searing examination of the Aragorn administration's actions in the wake of the tragic events at Helms Deep. With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering - or if necessary fabricating - the facts, Moore considers the reign of the son of Arathorn and where it has led us. He looks at how - and why - Aragorn and his inner circle avoided pursuing the Saruman connection to Helms Deep, despite the fact that 9 out of every 10 Orcs that attacked the castle were actually Uruk-hai who were spawned in and financed by Isengard.

Watch it here.

More from the nuanced class

Ok, this is kinda funny.


UPDATE: "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
No offense intended to all of my illustrious commentors.

WMD not found, now missing.....uh...BUSH LIED

Material for the nuclear program that Iraq didn't have has vanished.
How could Bush have let this happen!?!??!

Fart within The Matrix

It's only about 30 seconds long, but I nearly lost my shit from laughing so hard.

Only cos Veronica Mars wasn't on

Ok, well, I figured I'd be a good citizen and watch a video of the debate. At least to make up for the fact that I watched X-Men 2 for like the 13th time yesterday. Why can't Prof. Xavier run for president? If the democrats can root for a fictional character, like that ass-patter on the West Wing, than I can root for one of the X-Men.
In any case, I'm in a pissy mood, so expect lots of swearing. Also, the Packers will be playing the Titans on Monday Night Football, so expect a running commentary. Both teams come into tonight's game 1-3, both badly need a win to avoid alienating their faithful fans.
Anyway. If you can dodge the radioactive bolts of ego that this post will sling your way...my thoughts:

*Oooh. Nasty right off the bat. Kerry has a chance to throw a touchdown, explain why someone should vote for him, and not just against President Bush. He fumbled the snap.
*Bush mentions Oil-For-Food. Finally.
*Kerry: "I've never changed my mind on Iraq." Um....oooookay.
*Kerry says the Duelfer report says that sanctions were working. Uh....not so much, no.
*Bush: "It is a fundamental misunderstanding to say that the war on terror is only Osama bin Laden." Yes.
*Okay, here's a question I've been wanting an answer to for a long time: how will Kerry re-establish our pre-eminence in the diplomatic community? And all he did was talk about how Bush broke a promise about conditions under which he would go to war. Goddammit! See? This is why I get so pissed off at Kerry. Answer the fucking question, you walking haircut, and stop telling me how Bush screwed up. I know how Bush screwed up, ok?
*Lots of reaction shots of Bush...not so many of Kerry. Kerry's talking about Iran, and Bush looks bemused and a little anxious. Oh! He wanted to scowl!
*AHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..."internets!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*Whoa whoa whoa, Waffles. "The World Trade Center bombing was, what, 1993 or so?" OR SO!?!?!?! How many Americans died in the first attack on the WTC, fuckhead? 1993 or so? Fuck you.
Incidentally, Mr. Heinz, remember when we arrested the guys who did that? Like you want us to do now? And then they attacked it again and killed nearly 3,000 people? Was that a nuisance for you, Senator?
*Kerry returns to the question about how he would rebuild alliances....still no answer.
*Kerry made some good points, I think, about the underpreparedness of our homeland security preparations. He hammers the president for underfunding the DHS, the lack of scrutiny for incoming containers, and the need for more resources to deal with a possible bioterror attack. Bush comes back to say he's tripled the amount of money being spent, and that he's doing everything he can to defend America. Kerry, now (I'm paraphrasing.), "It's not about the funding. It's about whether or not we're doing everything we can to defend America." WTF? Is it about the funding or not?
(Taking a break now to catch some of the Packers game. Brett Favre's brother-in-law just died. If he plays the same way he did the last time a family member died [22 for 30 passing, 399 yards and 4 TDs, no picks, and a 154.9 QB rating], the Titans are in for an enormous ass-whuppin.')
*No, no, no, Big Ketchup. Bush did not block the plan that would allow prescription drugs to be legally imported from Canada. For better or for worse, Bush has never once used the veto in his 4 years as president.
*Bush challened Kerry to show him one accomplishment that Kerry has on Medicare in his (Kerry's) 20 years in the Senate. Kerry talks about something that happened in 1997, but I don't see anything on his web site. He just told me to go there, and I searched for tort reform, and don't see a plan for that.
(Another break here. Sloop John B just dropped by [what up, B] to catch some of the Packers' game and to eat popsicles. The Packers' defense, ladies and gentlemen, sucks.)
*Kerry sure seems comfortable talking about health care. Bush is responding...this whole thing is like an hour-long attack ad. When did Bush talk about compassionate conservatism? WTF???
*Bush is trying to justify his outrageous spending while in office. He sounds like a Keynesian. John Kerry is campaigning against tax cutting. That seems to me like a losing position. I've pointed out before that nothing has to happen for the deficit to be cut in half in the next 4-5 years.
*Kerry just mentioned Enron. Take a drink.
*Kerry is looking into the camera promising not to raise taxes. That's gonna be a commercial someday.
*Environment....blah blah blah. Wait, did Bush just say he'd "increase the wetlands by 3 million?" Rewinding...yup. 3 million what, Chimps?
(Touchdown Packers)
*What is Kerry on about labels again? He's answering questions that weren't asked.
*Waffles, you voted against Kyoto, too.
(Interception by the Titans)
*Again, it's not a good idea for America to stop outsourcing.
(Titans touchdown)
*Ok, I've completely lost interest at this point. Stem cells, blah blah. It's funny to hear Bush talk about "lines," though.
*Goddammit, if Kerry's gonna talk about Roe v. Wade in his answer about Supreme Court judges, I'm'na get fuckin crazy on his ass.
(HUGE play by Javon Walker [he's on my fantasy team]. Packers can't score, though.)
*God, do these jerks ever shut up?
*Bush is dodging the question asking him to name 3 mistakes, as well he should. What a stupid question. He's not going to enumerate his mistakes in his answer to the last questions, leave on a down note, and simultaneously open the door for Kerry to attack again. Not that that'll stop him....Oop! Halliburton! Take another drink. I have to say that I had counted on drinking a lot more, just based on mentions of the words "Vietnam" and "nucular."

I think that if anyone had any doubt about what this election was about, it has (or should've) been erased by this debate. Iraq and national security is the question in this election.

I think Kerry missed some huge opportunities to actually explain how he would enlist all this intenational support. Maybe he's not privy to all the new shit. He did sound confident and collected when talking about health care, though. Mostly, though, his platform seems to be "BUSH SUCKS, DUDE."
Bush, on the other hand, was an attack dog. He hammered on Kerry allegedly being the most liberal democrat in the Senate, and certainly did nothing to foster any notions of Bush as some sort of Periclean grand orator. I think, though, that he presented his case well, acknowledged that reasonable people can disagree, and generally defended his presidency very well.


Packer fans are streaming out of Lambeau Field, folks. They've just committed their 5th turnover, and the fans that are left are booing. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in saying that the Packers needed this win to avoid losing their fans. Packer fans are notoriously rabid, much more so than Tennessee fans. But it's an important game, for both teams. There's no love lost between me and the Packers, but I think even the faithful have to recognize that Tennessee, at least tonight, was the better team.

All best, and a sincere fuck you

Could this movie possibly get any cooler? Meanwhile, more crushing of dissent. Or assent. Whatever.

Oil-for-food update PLUS

Ok, I know that some of you really don't believe that the entirety of France's opposition to the war in Iraq in the chambers of the UN's Security Council was based entirely on commercial concerns. Fair enough. I didn't either. France has the highest Muslim population in Europe, and for Chirac to openly embrace the war would've been, politically, pretty stupid. But in the context of the unfolding Oil-For-Food scam, one really has to re-examine one's assumptions. Link via Instapundit:

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night. Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war. ...
To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.
Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights. Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

And:

"Saddam sought favourable relations with France because France was influential in the Security Council," the report said.

So, look. This is how it breaks down: Everyone agrees that the world is a better place without Saddam. Right? Good. The main opposition to the war in the Kerry camp is that the war did not have the legitimacy it needed because we didn't have the unanimous consent of the Security Council. If we had the whole Security Council on board, then the rest of the world wouldn't hate us for invading Iraq, and less American soldiers would've died in the aftermath because there would be more troops, specifically French and German troops, helping us in Iraq. Right?

But then we see this crap, about how France and Russia were very plainly bought off by Saddam. I just really see no room for argument here. The facts are that France and Russia (and possibly China) opposed the war because they were paid to do so.

Kerry now admits that his plan to make Iraq better is basically crap. Kerry voted for the war, which means he supported the idea behind it: that freedom in the Middle East means safety here at home. He has said that he'd vote for it again, knowing what we know now. His main criticism, that we went about it the wrong way and that the aftermath has been botched, has fallen apart. In fact, it's become clear, I would argue, that the Bush administration did the best it could with what it had.

I'm positive that you'll still hear Kerry bashing the administration for the way it handled the war. I'm sure we'll hear about how we need to get other allies on board in the effort to rebuild Iraq. But know that he's talking about France, and then think, "Who is really in denial here?"

The liberal case for George W. Bush

Michael Totten makes a liberal's case for George W. Bush. It centers, of course, around foreign policy:

In the 1990s and early 2000s I grew accustomed to hearing conservatives scoff at Bill Clinton's efforts as "international social work." With the honorable exception of dissident neoconservatives, post-Cold War Republicans increasingly resembled their circa 1930s isolationist counterparts.

Even after the Vietnam War -- at least when Clinton was president -- the Democrats had the right temperament for guns-and-butter liberalism abroad. The intervention against Slobo's regime in Serbia wasn't slammed as a "unilateral war." It was the Peace Corps with muscles.

But when George W. Bush implemented the Clinton Administration's policy of regime-change in Iraq, democratic nation-building morphed into "imperialism." Overthrowing a totalitarian regime was deemed "reckless." What mattered most was "stability." Just as September 11 taught George W. Bush that liberals had a point all along, liberals started to sound like... conservatives.

Folks have been making this point for awhile, and it's why prominent liberals like Christopher Hitchens have come down on the side of favoring the war in Iraq.
Bush's policy is really a refutation of "realism," as favored by his father, among others. Certainly, intellectually honest liberals would agree that "peace" encompasses a good deal more than the absence of military action, or "war." (Angry Hippie? TJ? Thoughts?) So, if the invasion of Iraq, and to the extent that it brings some measure of democracy to the Middle East (or, at the very least, dispensed with the rape rooms and torture chambers), serves liberal ends, why such vociferous opposition?

"Because I'm sick of politics. It's more about fuckin' up puppets."

An interview with Trey Parker and Matt Stone, creators of the forthcoming "Team America: World Police," reveals a bit more about their politics:

What we’re sick of — and it’s getting even worse — is: You either like Michael Moore or you wanna f***in’ go overseas and shoot Iraqis. There can’t be a middle ground. Basically, if you think Michael Moore’s full of s***, then you are a super-Christian right-wing whatever. And we’re both just pretty middle-ground guys. We find just as many things to rip on on the left as we do on the right. People on the far left and the far right are the same exact person to us.

Well, that's...fair. I guess.
Anyway, he're my favorite question and answer exchange, during a conversation about the guys' taunting of "limousine liberals:"

Do you fear that Tim Robbins is gonna sucker-punch you at the Oscars?
TREY: Oh, I’ll kick his fuckin’ ass. Are you kidding?

Excellent!
The whole article is goddamned entertaining, and you should read the whole thing. I really can't wait to see this movie after reading this, too:

TREY: I think you could take any Bruckheimer movie and do it with puppets, and it would be screamingly funny.
MATT: The whole movie has that kind of feel. We ask this question about four times a day on the set: “What Would Jerry do?” We’re gonna get bracelets made — like the “What Would Jesus Do?” bracelets. Because we’d ask, “What would Jerry Bruckheimer do?” when we were trying to figure something out. “Jerry would put this kind of song here,” or “Jerry would do this kind of move here.” “This is the way he would introduce the team base.”

Movie website here. It says there's gonna be sneak previews this Saturday, but no details yet.

S(HIT) (read: beer to the shit power)

Leave it to the company that produces the ass-rot inducing Budweiser to come up with an idea this terrible:

Brewer Anheuser-Busch on Monday said it would introduce a caffeinated, sweet-flavored beer for twentysomething club-goers to compete with the flavored rums and vodkas gaining ground on the dance floor. The new beer B(E) -- read as "B to the E power" -- will roll out in several phases starting in November.
...
B(E) infuses beer with caffeine, guarana and ginseng, along with berry aromas for a sweeter, tart taste at 6.6 percent alcohol by volume, said company brewmaster Nathaniel Davis.

So, basically, it's going to be a berry flavored tea-ish beer. With caffeine. Do they honestly expect people to go to the bar and say, "Gimme a b to the e power?" Fuck that.
However, the company also admitted that "distilled spirits are definitely in the background of this decision." I guess you just can't embarrass a Zima drinker.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I actually kinda like Smirnoff Ice Triple Black.

Debate, schmebate

Ok, so the vice-presidential debate is scheduled for tonight at 9p, the exact same time as Veronica Mars starts. What is that shit? Why can't they schedule these things for when there's shit else on, like Sunday nights, or Saturday mornings? I mean, have you seen "Desperate Housewives" or "Jack and Bobby?" I hate to say it, but on that last one, The WB has let me down. Saturday morning is a craphole of cut-rate anime and pre-teen reality shows.

Seriously, FEC, I want to watch the veep debate, I sincerly do. I want to care. But television is a visual medium, and when faced with this:


versus this:



I'll take the perky young blonde any day. And I'm sure as shit not talking about John Edwards.

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb

Amidst all the debate-related hokum and flim-flammery, comes the most thought-provoking piece I've read all week. The Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last makes the case that the Empire really wasn't that bad after all. A federation of independent governments, he argues, revolts against a bloated, impotent, and corrupt alliance, and is (perhaps) unfairly labeled as "evil."

No, no, I'm not on about Oil-For-Food again...this is about....Star Wars!

Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."

The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.

He goes on to argue that Dooku's faction is committed to smaller government, less taxes, and capitalism, and is it really such a big deal that they blow up the occasional planet? All the Trade Federation (later, and still somewhat mysteriously dubbed the "evil" "Empire"...hmmm... coincidence?) really wants is effective government, so maybe it's the Rebels who are the statist forces conspiring against freedom. Last continues:

In Episode IV, after Grand Moff Tarkin announces that the Imperial Senate has been abolished, he's asked how the Emperor can possibly hope to keep control of the galaxy. "The regional governors now have direct control over territories," he says. "Fear will keep the local systems in line."
...
In all of the time we spend observing the Rebel Alliance, we never hear of their governing strategy or their plans for a post-Imperial universe. All we see are plots and fighting. Their victory over the Empire doesn't liberate the galaxy--it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.

Very interesting. Does this mean that Luke and Han and Leia are really agents of the State, fighting against an unfairly maligned revolution who only wants to make life better for its citizens? When you think about it, we never hear of the Empire wanting to implement slavery, or colonize defenseless planets. Annakin and his mother are slaves, yes, but recall that they live on Tatooine, a planet so remote that the Empire has no reach there. Read the whole thing for equally interesting defenses of the blowing up of Alderaan, and the unceremonial cremation of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru.


Also, another article reviewing the recent release of the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD notes that not once in any of the films is the word "Ewok" mentioned, yet everybody in the world knows what it means.

Did he learn this at Lambert Field?

Via Ace.

Sunday song lyric

It's been a good week for Beach Boys fans. After 37 years, Brian Wilson has finally completed his long-lost masterpiece, Smile. In short, it's wonderful. Since I've been listening to it nearly non-stop since it was released on my birthday earlier this week, I felt an appropriate choice for today's lyric would be a tune from that album. Unfortunately (and this is my only complaint), the lyrics are mostly crap.
Perhaps the most egregious example is from the song "Barnyard," where Wilson informs us that: "Out in the barnyard, the chickens do their number. Out in the barnyard, the cook is choppin' lumber." Ummmm...ok. We waited 37 years for that? The kicker is that he collaborated on the lyrics. That is to say, he couldn't even write that by himself! Thanks, Van Dyke Parks.
In any case, nothing from the album, lyically, is worth repeating here. He even changed the lyrics to "Good Vibrations!" WTF, Brian! More songs about girls and God, please.
Anyway. As a worthy substitute, the lyrics to my favorite ever Beach Boys song, from Pet Sounds, "You Still Believe In Me."

I know perfectly well I'm not where I should be
I've been very aware you've been patient with me
Everytime we break up you bring back your love to me
And after all I've done to you how can it be
You still believe in me?

I try hard to be more what you want me to be
But I can't help how I act when you're not here with me
I try hard to be strong but sometimes I fail myself
And after all I've promised you so faithfully
You still believe in me

I wanna cry

Oil-for-Food update

Funny, I thought it was America that was the corrupt nation whose interests in Iraq were purely based on oil revenues and enriching the oligarchy.

Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars. ...
The paper suggests that France, Russia and China blocked inquiries into Iraq's manipulation of the program because their companies "had much to gain from maintaining'' the status quo. "Their businesses made billions of dollars through their involvement with the Hussein regime and O.F.F.P.," the document states, using the initials for the program. No officials of the three governments could be reached for comment. ...
The paper said Mr. Hussein's government had influenced whom Saybolt and Cotecna employed and had made it hard for them to obtain the equipment and supplies they needed. "This slowed the inspection process, making it difficult for the inspectors to carry out their duties and easier for the Iraqis to pressure the inspectors or sneak things past the inspection regime,'' the paper says.

Saddam got away with $10 billion that we know about. The fact that the main argument for the anti-war faction in the UN was that "inspections are working" seems to be quite transparently ludicrous, given these assertions.
No blood for oil, indeed. As Instapundit would say, "they're not anti-war, they're just on the other side."
John Kerry, relatedly, insists that the war would've been more legitimate in the eyes of the world had America had approval from France, Germany, Russia and China. Does it seem terribly likely to you that they would've given it, regardless of who was president?

Boobiethon!

This is why the internet is great.
Please join me in ushering in the Third Annual Blogger Boobie-thon for Breast Cancer! Basically, you go to their page and get to see tons of photos of boobies. If you donate money to breast cancer funds, you get to see even more, uncovered, boobies! Everybody wins!

No,

I didn't watch the debate last night. Surprised? Well, I was too tired and too sick to really care all that much. I watched "Clear and Present Danger" for like the 400-billionth time instead, and it was just as good as ever. It's really weird seing Thora Birch in that movie, knowing that one could put in another DVD off the shelf and see her boobies. Is that gross? Probably.

Anyway. Dan Drezner and Instapundit both live-blogged the debates, if you're interested. I know the consensus is that Kerry won, but I expected to hear that even if Kerry had, for some reason, not even shown up to the debate. That said, there's some different perspectives that you should probably read, especially if you're convinced that one candidate won. Allah has an ass-load of links, so go read!