Everyone else is doing it, so why can't we?

I got a haiku for you hippies.

I got the memo
In fact, I've got it right here
(MX missile proof)

Work blows.

Internet: 1, Michael Moore: 0

"And in perhaps the ultimate irony, he also has owned shares in Halliburton. According to IRS filings, Moore sold Halliburton for a 15 percent profit and bought shares in Noble, Ford, General Electric (another defense contractor), AOL Time Warner (evil corporate media) and McDonald's." *

Dude, where's my Google?

a bit more war

I don't know, guys, I'm a bit confused here.
It seems like you're saying that Bush wasn't honest with you, and that's why you can't support what's going on in Iraq. But didn't we just agree that Bush didn't intentionally mislead people about WMD? It doesn't follow that since there were no weapons found in Iraq after the invasion that Bush wasn't honest before the war about the "real" reason we're there.

In any case, though, I think you're forgetting what a big part democracy played in the case for war. I think it's been forgotten that democracy in Iraq as a way to fight terrorism was sufficiently prominent that it was even ridiculed by those who opposed the war. Remember how much shit Wolfowitz got for his "domino theory"? Remember how the administation fought back against those critics, saying that those who thought Iraq (or, more generally, Arab people) was inhospitable to democracy were racist, and responsible for perpetuating the soft bigotry of low expectations? Were the notions of WMD and bringing democracy to Iraq (along with Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda) not the impetus for the "shifting rationales" critique of the war? I mean, come on. You can't have "shifting rationales" if the war was only justified on the basis of WMD.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you did forget this important part of the pre-war debate, or take issue with it's very existence. I offer to you, then, proof of the primacy of this line of argument. For your approval, an except of Bush's speech on February 26th, 2003 (and yes, that is before the war) speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East.

A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform this vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction, to a free and peaceful Iraq.

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein, but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy, yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving in to place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry. We'll make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites operating under the Oil for Food program are stocked and open as soon as possible.

The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people. We'll also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners, the Iraqi people.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, and the peace that followed a world war.

After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies. We left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken.

The nation of Iraq with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life, and there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East.

Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap so their people can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps to political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different, yet the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on Earth.

In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state.

The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.

But without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders, true leaders who strive for peace, true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror.

For its part, the new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end.

And the Arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and state clearly they will live in peace with Israel.

The United States and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We are setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government and my personal commitment to implement the road map and to reach that goal.

Old patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken if all concerned will let go of bitterness and hatred and violence and get on with the serious work of economic development and political reform and reconciliation. America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace. And the end of the present regime in Iraq would create such an opportunity.

There's more (link to full text of speech). And this was considered to be a fairly major speech at the time. Even the New York Times said, in an editorial on Feb. 27, 2003:

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."

(It's a pay link now, but but trust me that I'm not making it up.)


I don't really have time to dig up more right now, but I'm very unconvinced by the line of argument put forth in the comments that Bush never talked about this stuff before the war, or hasn't been honest about why we went to war.

more war

I don't know, guys, I'm a bit confused here.
It seems like you're saying that Bush wasn't honest with you, and that's why you can't support what's going on in Iraq. But didn't we just agree that Bush didn't intentionally mislead people about WMD? It doesn't follow that since there were no weapons found in Iraq after the invasion that Bush wasn't honest before the war about the "real" reason we're there.

In any case, though, I think you're forgetting what a big part democracy played in the case for war. I think it's been forgotten that democracy in Iraq as a way to fight terrorism was sufficiently prominent that it was even ridiculed by those who opposed the war. Remember how much shit Wolfowitz got for his "domino theory"? Remember how the administation fought back against those critics, saying that those who thought Iraq (or, more generally, Arab people) was inhospitable to democracy were racist, and responsible for perpetuating the soft bigotry of low expectations? Were the notions of WMD and bringing democracy to Iraq (along with Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda) not the impetus for the "shifting rationales" critique of the war? I mean, come on. You can't have "shifting rationales" if the war was only justified on the basis of WMD.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you did forget this important part of the pre-war debate, or take issue with it's very existence. I offer to you, then, proof of the primacy of this line of argument. For your approval, an except of Bush's speech on February 26th, 2003 (and yes, that is before the war) speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East.

A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform this vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction, to a free and peaceful Iraq.

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein, but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy, yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving in to place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry. We'll make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites operating under the Oil for Food program are stocked and open as soon as possible.

The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people. We'll also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners, the Iraqi people.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, and the peace that followed a world war.

After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies. We left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken.

The nation of Iraq with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life, and there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East.

Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap so their people can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps to political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different, yet the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on Earth.

In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state.

The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.

But without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders, true leaders who strive for peace, true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror.

For its part, the new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end.

And the Arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and state clearly they will live in peace with Israel.

The United States and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We are setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government and my personal commitment to implement the road map and to reach that goal.

Old patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken if all concerned will let go of bitterness and hatred and violence and get on with the serious work of economic development and political reform and reconciliation. America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace. And the end of the present regime in Iraq would create such an opportunity.

There's more (link to full text of speech). And this was considered to be a fairly major speech at the time. Even the New York Times said, in an editorial on Feb. 27, 2003:

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."

(It's a pay link now, but but trust me that I'm not making it up.)


I don't really have time to dig up more right now, but I'm very unconvinced by the line of argument put forth in the comments that Bush never talked about this stuff before the war, or hasn't been honest about why we went to war.

'bout effing time, two

For those that are still interested, the debate about pre-war rhetoric, and the administration's recent counter-offensive, is still going on in the comments to this post.
Angry Hippie has weighed in on his blog as well, and there's more discussion here.

MORE: John McCain had this to say today:

"America, Iraq and the world are better off with Saddam Hussein in prison rather than in power. Does anyone believe the stirrings of freedom in the region would exist if Saddam still ruled with an iron fist? Does anyone believe the region would be better off if Saddam were in power, using oil revenue to purchase political support? Does anyone believe meaningful sanctions would remain or that there would been any serious checks on Saddam’s ambitions? The costs of this war have been high, especially for the over 2000 Americans, and their families, who have paid the ultimate price. But liberating Iraq was in our strategic and moral interests, and we must honor their sacrifice by seeing this mission through to victory."

Thoughts?

donations accepted

My blog is worth $2,822.70.
How much is your blog worth?

'bout effing time, too

Way to go, Dick. Hit 'em in the mouth. It's about fucking time they started fighting back.
The bit about throwing their words back at them? Dig it. Dig it so hard.    


UPDATE: Great discussion in the comments. I want to make some points of my own, though.
1.) The original point of this post was to demonstrate that, contrary to MG’s assertion, the case for war was not made of sand. In terms of WMD, every major intelligence agency in the Western world believed Saddam had WMD programs and stockpiles. Many still do. Also, as you see from that video link, so did many of today’s most vocal critics who charge that Bush lied.
2. ) I’m wondering how Bush misled the country, but not on purpose? Was someone else leading Bush (shut up, Rochester, it wasn’t the Jews)? Or was Bush earnest in his beliefs, which just turned out to be not backed up by facts on the ground?
3.)  One of the big problems I have with anti-war folks’ discourse is that I seriously doubt that even if a nuclear weapon was found in Iraq would they come around and say, “Wow. Maybe Bush was right.” MG charges, perhaps fairly, that nobody from the Bush administration has come forward to say, “My bad.” Can you blame them, when the critics are playing as unfairly as they are now? Plus, does it matter to anyone that we actually did find chemical weapons in Iraq? As to whether or not that “counts,” I’d advise you to read this Hitchens piece about how much Clintonesque parsing of language it takes to keep on the “Bush Lied” trolly. Which, that might not be a problem for Mike.
4.)  As to what would constitute a failure for pro-war supporters: I think MG is largely right about his point 3. I’m not sure how the other three points relate to Iraq, though. As for me, I think failure would come in the form of Iraq’s democracy not succeeding. I don’t expect it to turn into Vermont or anything, but regular elections and a peaceful transfer of power once US troops leave would be a huge success. Plus, if we don’t find the weapons that Saddam moved to Syria, that might not be so great, either.

re: Hey, Assholes at Fox

Q: Did Fox just really cancel "Arrested Development"? Say it ain't so!

A: Well, technically, it's not so. Fox will air the first 13 episodes, but it decided last week not to pick up the "back nine," as they say in the business. That's different from being canceled. (There was some confusion earlier as to whether Fox had ever promised a full 22 episodes to "AD." It hadn't. The network waited to see if the ratings were good before committing to the back nine. The ratings were not good, settling in at roughly 4 million viewers compared with about 6 million, on average, the last season. Either year you measure it, not good. Now, when a network cuts, or doesn't extend, your season order, that's usually a terrible sign. That's usually death. But remember, "AD" was cut from 22 to 18 last year and still returned.

As the rest of the column makes clear, Fox did the show no favors, with barely any promotion at all, and a stupid, stupid, stupid decision to move the show to Monday nights.

Alright. I'll give you that.

Crimmas is coming

What do you buy the blogger who has everything?

c'est vrais!

President Bush May Send Marines For French Riot Assistance

President Bush has authorized the Joint Chiefs to begin drawing up a battle plan to pull France's ass out of the fire again. Facing an apparent overwhelming force of up to 400 pissed off teenagers Mr. Bush doubts France's ability to hold off the little pissants. "Hell, if the last two world wars are any indication, I would expect France to surrender any day now", said Bush. Joint Chiefs head, Gen. Peter Pace, warned the President that it might be necessary to send up to 5 marines to get things under control. The general admitted that 5 marines may be overkill but he wanted to get this thing under control within 24 hours of arriving on scene. He stated he was having a hard time finding even one marine to help those ungrateful bastards out for a third time but thought that he could persuade a few women marines to do the job before they went on pregnancy leave.

I must have lost the link for this or something.

Profaniwiki!

Profaniwiki! Look up all your favorite swear words, learn about their definitions and uses (editing them, if necessary), and maybe even learn some new ones! I know I did...

Post your faves in the comments!

defensing Teen Wolf

"As coach, you need to recognize that your job isn't to do the impossible; you're not going to stop Teen Wolf entirely, but you can try to contain him by making him play your team's style of basketball. Discipline and defensive fundamentals help: nose on the ball, feet moving, channeling him into traps—careful with those, though. Soon as Teen Wolf gets two guys on him, he tends to find the open man. He's a heads-up ballplayer with great court sense, so if you're going to bring a trapping zone against Teen Wolf, make sure you have solid weak-side rotation and your defenders are communicating." *

What is this shit? Pt. whatevs

Long-lost, not forgotten. BlogRadio is back, hippies.

1. Lindsey Buckingham- That's How We Do It In L.A. For a guy who despises boomer culture, I have an oddly soft spot for Lindsey Buckingham. His ex-, of course, is a vile, witchy woman, whose aural menstruations birthed more than one horrid Mr. F. (e.g. Lillith Fair, John Mayer, etc.) "Tusk," though, is a masterwork, as is Law And Order. You'd never think that the guy who wrote "Go Your Own Way" could come up with something so weird as this. Cocaine's a helluva drug.

2. Super Furry Animals- Oi Frango! A standout from an otherwise mirthless album. SFA? No way. "Love Kraft" is a cruel joke played on fans; a self-conscious step leftwards from the sunny krap of "Phantom Power." Gruff, how 'bout more crazy techno shit and less boring-ass strummy-strummy-la-la songs? Y'know, more like this one. Please.

3. Josh Rouse- Streetlights. A great track, if for no other reason than he quotes Journey. Well, two words of it anyway. But only 588 hits for that phrase, so what're the odds? Oh man, I forgot to point out Ryan's Journey poster in the background in the pool house. Best.

4. I Am Kloot- Proof. I know nothing about this guy/band, though my pride doth protest. Real good lyrics, though.

An existential crisis

So, if I embrace the iPod, does that make me some sort of tragic figure? Do I perpetuate my own demise as a member of a mini-mass phenomenon? All this existentialism makes my head hurt.
I've put two versions of the same song on a mix CD before ("Whole Of the Moon," originally by The Waterboys, covered by Mandy Moore), and I thought it was just cool, not an indication of my snobbery.
I think I ultimately remain confortable, if somewhat embarrased by my impending obsolesence. "Because let's face it, only one thing is more incorrigible than my snobbery, people, and that's your indefensibly crappy taste in music."

(link via Angry Hippie)

the Bush Doctrine

Commentary magazine has posted an invaluable collection of short essays by some of today's most prominent conservative political thinkers on the Bush Doctrine. They ask 4 questions:

1. Where have you stood, and where do you now stand, in relation to the Bush Doctrine? Do you agree with the President’s diagnosis of the threat we face and his prescription for dealing with it?

2. How would you rate the progress of the Bush Doctrine so far in making the U.S. more secure and in working toward a safer world environment? What about the policy’s longer-range prospects?

3. Are there particular aspects of American policy, or of the administration’s handling or explanation of it, that you would change immediately?

4. Apart from your view of the way the Bush Doctrine has been defined or implemented, do you agree with its expansive vision of America’s world role and the moral responsibilities of American power?

You'd be surprised at the diversity of response.

tofurkey

Any episode where Sandy Cohen utters the word "tofurkey" is tops. Plus, how frigid was Marissa's dockside dis? Brrr! Good to see Seth and Sum getting along, though. Off-screen romance=on-screen sparks? Or Miami Vice versa? You tell me.
I hope I'm not the only one in thinking that Dean Hess gave up a little too easy when Sandy bluffed him? Plus, do Sidekicks even take pictures? Oh, yes, of course they do. Silly me.
Furthermore, what is the dizz with this Johnny dude? Is he this season's Lindsay? He "gets" Marissa. She "can talk to him." Well, shit. She said the same stuff about Oliver, no? That went well. I think it's more like Ryan hasn't punched anyone since like forever ago. And punching=ratings. That's science, y'all.

super tolerant?

First, we know that Target fills its ads with dancing, multi-culti hipsters giving off a tolerant, urbanist vibe, and runs hipster-heavy ad campaigns positioning Target as a slightly more expensive, more progressive alternative to Wal-Mart. Well, as John Aravosis revealed on americablog.org last week, Target's politics are as red as their bulls-eye logo. The chain allows its pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control and emergency contraception to female customers if the pharmacist objects on religious grounds. What's worse, the company claims that any of its employees have a right to discriminate against any of its customers provided the discrimination is motivated by an employee's religious beliefs.*

So, is this a case of fundamentalism run amok, or an issue of Target respecting cultural diversity?
Predictably, it's being portrayed as the former, since the phramacists are Christians. It doesn't seem that Target's policy is to only respect certain religious beliefs, so maybe Target is too tolerant for the left's liking. As usual, the left is tolerant only when you agree with them. Can't have it both ways, hippies.

RELATED: Again, when does liberal “tolerance” begin to tolerate conservative views, or, indeed, conservative judicial philosophy, which often has little or nothing to do with conservative politics? This is one of the most disheartening things about today’s left, and one reason why I simply can’t bring myself to vote Democrat.

RELATED.

RELATED.

RELATED.

Look, I read mostly middle-of-the-road blogs. I don't read Kos, and I don't read Michelle Malkin, ok? And I have to say that stuff like this is, from what I've seen, much more common on the left than on the right. I mean, between this kerfuffle, the pie throwing, and the downright disgusting way that lefties have treated Condoleeza Rice (calling her Skeeza, Bush's "house nigga,"and depicting her in cartoons as Aunt Jemima) and Colin Powell (depicted as Uncle Tom), I just don't see any paralells on the right. I mean, is Ann Coulter out there calling Barney Frank a fag, writing about how he's selling out white male interests? No. (One could make an argument that her calling some lefties "treasonous" is comparable, but I'd argue that her attacks are not based on physical qualities, such as skin color, but rather on policy.) Why is it that the left gets so angry when you don't agree with them? Why the conspiracy theories? Why the hate?

Sony, "rootkits," and My Morning Jacket

If you don't listen to My Morning Jacket, well, you should. They're great. The new Wilco, some say. But I'm going to stop short of recommending that you go out and purchase the actual CD. Apparently, Sony (which owns MMJ's label), has been doing some supremely shady shit lately, putting some potentially very harmful software on some CDs, which installs itself when you put it in your computer (in order to, for example, copy the songs to yer iPod).

Basically, it can cripple your system, rending CD drives ineffective, and slowing performance to a crawl. (Read the comments on that link to find out what a big deal it could be for Sony.)
There are some simple ways around it, it seems, but failing to do so could infect you.

This guy got a response from My Morning Jacket themselves about the problem, and the band seems cool about it, even going as far as posting ways around the scheme on their website. Also, check out his post on why Sony's "digital rights management" is really a thinly veiled attack on their market competitor Apple.

Sony has been super shady about copy protection. Many of their CDs have these stupid-ass DRMs; their online music store sells music in a format that only Sony players can play (ironically, they attack Apple for doing the same thing), which is lame; and even their iPod-like players couldn't initially play MP3 files. A company this lame doesn't deserve your business.

Who wanna go 16s wif Yoda?

Watch Yoda rap, and bust some hott moves.
Is that appropriate for the younglings, master?

down by the old mainstream

Tweedy also plans to bring back Golden Smog, his roots-rock supergroup with the Jayhawks' Gary Louris and Soul Asylum's Dan Murphy, for their first album since 1998. We hope it sounds a lot like "Until You Came Along".

Sweet. I hope it sounds like "Until You Came Along," too.