about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.
Thanks to bartcop, and mnftiu.cc (who is the comic creator).
Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 18h 2m 29s
The John McCain you never knew
Of course, this has to come from a Newspaper in Britain, because the US press is full of speculating nincompops
meaning of journalism every day.
Click here to find out why John McCain left his first wife.
‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just
does,’[ John McCain's former wife Carol].
Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who
abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for
McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a
millionaire who had impeccable political connections.
Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have
been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let
me tell you what it is – deceit.
‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away.
Everybody around him knew it.
‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for
something he thought was better.
‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that
first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’
[SOURCE:Sharon Churcher | The Daily Mail | 8 June
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For those who are curious as to the political perspective of the British press, here is A Wikipedia on the British Newspaper Daily Mail -- in case you are interested. Accordingly,The
Mail is well-known for its right wing stance on numerous issues which it sees as being of moral significance...The paper, and the
stereotypical "Daily Mail reader" have become stock characters in the UK (as the phrase "Guardian reader" has become for the
and also (because things are not that simple)
The Daily Mail considers itself to be the voice of Middle England speaking up for "small-c" conservative values against what it
sees as a liberal establishment. It generally takes an anti-EU, anti-mass immigration, anti-abortion view, based around what it
describes as "traditional values", and is correspondingly pro-family, pro-capitalism (though not always supportive of its
aftereffects), and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower
levels of taxation. The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it argues is biased to the left. However, it is less supportive of
deregulated commercial television than The Sun, and unlike Rupert Murdoch's tabloid it seems to be broadly nostalgic for what it
believes the BBC once was.
Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 13h 27m 26s
Why Chris Matthews is an a**hole
Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 12h 34m 38s
Your Whiteness Is Showing
This is totally awesome. I got the snippet from AmericaBlog, but the piece is from an old college buddy of mine
Click here for the article in Lip
Back in the day, 1987-1991, Tim had a unique way of making his point irrefutable. I'm glad to see he still has that knack.
This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their
commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are....
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what
you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up
Your whiteness is showing.
When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity,
in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press.
On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be
more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least
until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever
media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against
Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at
some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding,
and it is grotesque....
[B]lack folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they
were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from
the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell,
for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black
man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the
one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?
Your whiteness is showing.
Personally I am getting sick of Hillary supporters calling "Hillary haters" those who are disgusted by her feckless self-serving
compromises over the last 7 years. It's not like our disgruntlements don't actually have a basis in fact.
Hillary used push-polls to
try to disparage people from voting for Obama. Hillary made comments like "Obama is alienating White voters" after she won
West Virginia. Hillary made comments like "Obama is not a muslim, at least as far as I know" when the press barraged her with
that nonsense. How come she didn't stand up for Obama vociferously and criticize the person who kept asking this question and
use it as a moment to be disgusted with the way media tries to manipulate the message?
But she didn't do that did she. Just like
she didn't stand up for the constitution when the Republicans were passing laws without oversight. Nope, she played nice and
tried to work the mythical middle ground. How come she didn't act like Russell Feingold or Henry Waxman or Barbara Lee or
Dennis Kucinich, instead of trying to be Republican-lite? Did she think she could still sell her brand-name despite the
Obviously, the answer is yes. The shame is that so many people out there in the pundit media-consultant land are still talking
tripe about how 18
million people voted for Hillary and that this is supposed to represent a ground-swell of revolutionary fervor. How many of those
18 milion people are just plain racist or rigidly feminist? How many are just knee-jerk brand-name voters who couldn't tell you
why Hillary did not vote when the bankruptcy bill came up (Obama voted NO)? How many accuse Obama of voting
for the war spending, when Hillary also voted for the same appropriations bills?
Does the name blind hypocrite mean anything?
Tuesday, 10 June 2008 at 8h 52m 40s
Helping democracy by insisting upon 58 military bases
This is absolutely incredible.
BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that
will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal
along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile
act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war
between the United States and Iran.
"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a
leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said,
referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now
we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from
prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to
cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said....
The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30
major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.
" Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs,"
Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers | 9 June 2008]
So when the French helped us in the 1780's, did they insist on 58 permanent military bases? How many foreign military bases
would any sovereign nation want to act independently within the national boundaries?
But of course, only terrorists are resisting the will of the United States, right?
Monday, 9 June 2008 at 17h 37m 50s
The real story about Laura Bush Visiting Afghanistan
Laura Bush Visits Afghanistan
By CARLOTTA GALL for the New York Times
Published: June 9, 2008
KABUL, Afghanistan — Laura Bush flew by helicopter deep into central Afghanistan on Sunday on a one-day visit to
perform a face-saving media stunt for her husband highlight the United States’ continued commitment to the
country and to President Hamid Karzai, ahead of an international moment of pity for a disentegrating nation being used
by the United States donors conference this week in Paris.
Her visit comes as concern has been growing, particularly in Europe and at the United Nations, that Mr. Karzai might
soon be driven from office or assassinated by the Afghan resistance movements not be up to the task of
addressing Afghanistan’s many economic and political problems.
The occasion was marred, too, by continuing violence around the country. Eleven police officers were killed in an ambush
south of the capital, and a local journalist was found shot dead in southern Helmand Province after he was abducted by gunmen
from his house on Saturday. Also in Helmand Province on Sunday, three British soldiers were killed and a fourth was wounded by
a suicide bomber, Reuters reported.
As on her two previous visits to Afghanistan, Mrs. Bush emphasized her deranged insincerely and politically
motivated support for women’s development and educational and training projects. She flew to Bamian, one of the
country’s poorest provinces, which is overseen by Afghanistan’s only female governor, Habiba Sarabi, a former minister of
Bamian suffered some of the worst massacres and devastation under the Taliban, including the destruction of the two
colossal Buddhas just months before the United States intervention in Afghanistan in 2001. Today, however, it is one of the most
violent and chaotic peaceful and secure places in the country so much so that President Karzai cannot
leave the palace confines without being surround by 100 troops for fear of snipers.
Mrs. Bush’s visit was a demonstration of support for Mr. Karzai and his government as it prepared to beg
ask for about $50 billion in pledges of assistance from international donors at the conference this week. Mrs. Bush said she
would attend the conference.
In Kabul she met with Mr. Karzai as well as Afghan teachers in training and students in yet another staged public
relations campaign for this reporter to write about, and she announced $80 million but did not guarantee
because the program and the funds might just be terminated for two American government programs in education.
The United States Agency for International Development will spend $40 million on scholarships and on bribing the
government officials developing the campus of the American University of Afghanistan (the money barely got
to the University), and it will spend $40 million on a national literacy program over the next five years that
will dissappear into the bank accounts of various corrupt officials, she said at a brief appearance with Mr. Karzai in the
gardens of the presidential palace.
Western donors are expected to meet Afghanistan’s most urgent priorities in agriculture, energy, security and education, but
a number of them are demanding that the conference also be used for a critical review of the government’s performance, in
particular its failure to curb rampant corruption.My very point is thus proven, you see how this
Mr. Karzai promised that his government would flee go to Paris when the inevitable government
falls apart with a “very rehearsed realistic evaluation of the last six years, of our achievements, of our
progress and our problems,” especially including corruption.
He added that he was confident of continued international willingness to fund his secret bank accounts for his
dutiful role pretending to be President during the American occupation support. “We’ll come back with some significant
tangible assets assistance from the international community irregardless of the plight of to
the Afghan people,” he said.
Sunday, 8 June 2008 at 9h 9m 52s
Spying on Americans is unconstitutional
Here is the reason we have FISA laws, and the reason why ATT and the other Telecoms should not get immunity for
Reuters: "A spate of chilling snooping scandals involving some of their country's biggest corporations has
unsettled Germans who have not forgotten the dark days of the Cold War. Revelations by Deutsche Telekom, Europe's biggest
telecommunications firm, that it illegally monitored phone records in 2005 have reawakened memories of communist East
Germany's Stasi secret police and even Hitler's Gestapo. [...] The Telekom scandal, based on a report that the firm had spied on
journalists and directors to find out who was leaking information to the press, is the dominant case but others have also made
headlines. Discount retailer Lidl was investigated after accusations it was monitoring staff activity -- from toilet breaks to
suspected love affairs. Rail operator Deutsche Bahn this week denied illegal snooping despite using the same firm as Telekom.
These incidents may be seen as ordinary business practice in some countries. But not in Germany. ..."
The telecoms were invited to break the law by the Bush administration as soon as they took over in February 2001. All data (from
telephones, cell phones, and emails) was sent to government servers, without any oversight by a FISA judge. And the
government did not notify the FISA court 72 hours after the surveillance was being conducted either.
This was never about terrorism. It was about political and press intimidation so they could run their agenda over the american
people without anyone contradicting their lies and propaganda. And just look how incompetently the administration handled
This has been a case history about why we have a system of checks and balances, why we have government and media oversight,
and why the consolidation of media into large holding companies is a very bad thing for our democracy. The result is group think
and government run by the selfish interests of political insiders, whose morbid stupidity does not get analyzed or contradicted -
- and now millions have died, the economy is in shambles, and we are going to have a much more difficult time getting our
foreign policy and economy in order.
Here is the pdf of phase Two of the
Congressional investigation on how the Bush administration purposely misrepresented and distorted the actual intelligence on
Iraq to justify the agenda. This should have been the major story in the press this last week. But alas, our media doesn't tell the
American people the important news stories. Instead, CNN promotes "Alabama drummer lawsuit", "Earthquakes in Greece",
"What will Hillary do next?", "5 of 6 missing sailors rescued in Gulf", and "Troops are on anti-depressants".
CNN did one story on Thursday, 5 June 2008. Here is that story. Naturally, the CNN story actually misrepresents the Senate report by
including choice quotations from Republican partisans and the liberal use of qualifiers and secondary phrases to render the truth
Absolutely pathetic. The media that couldn't tell the truth in 2002-2003, still can't tell the truth in 2008.
The gung-ho mindless patriots need to shut the f**k up, because they are anything but patriotic. They are slavish followers of a
small group of arrogant political nincompops who have used the bumper sticker patriots to pursue their own self-serving ends,
and will leave them
holding the debts and the debacle while they flee to their mansions in Switzerland and South America on their yachts and jet
Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 9h 15m 52s
Richard Clarke speaks ... again
Will anyone listen this time? Or watch American idol instead?
Clarke talks about his recent book "Your Government Failed You." He was the counter-terrorism chief from Reagan to Dubya Bush,
and resigned in disgust in March 2003 because he is a patriotic american. He talks about how bin laden was allowed to escape at
Tora Bora by direct intervention from Centcom. He talks about how General Franks and Rumsfeld refused to allowed government
oversight into their military operations. He talks about how purposely bungled the department of Homeland Security has become,
and how it is just a cash cow for political operators and government contractors that get paid even though their projects don't get
This won't be on the history channel.
Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 8h 58m 6s
Hillary is trying to strip Texas delegates
Here is yet another reason why I have become disgusted with Hillary Clinton. I quote from John Aravosis, because he says what I feel.
Hillary Clinton, champion of the blue collar, Jack Daniels' drinking woman is now trying to unseat delegates in Texas. You see, you
can't claim that the only reason you're still in the race, after you lost, is because you want to see every vote counted, and then
repeatedly try to stop people from having their vote count in Texas and Nevada, for starters. That makes you a hypocrite. It makes
you an opportunist. And it makes you a liar. It makes you every nasty thing that the Republicans have said about you for years.
Please stop proving them right.
[SOURCE: | Dailykos.com | 29 May 2008]
[SOURCE: | Americablog.com | 30 May 2008]
Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 8h 44m 4s
How Florida and Michigan happened
Before the media starts re-writing history again, and before the ignorant masses start believing the re-writes, let's all
remember how the Michigan and Florida primary mess happened.
The DNC sanctioned Florida on August 25, 2007 by stripping away its delegates. That made it painfully clear what would happen
to any state that moved its primary up in violation of DNC rules. So what does Michigan do one week later, on September 4,
2007? Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, signs a law establishing their January 15th primary, in violation of DNC
rules. Michigan knew exactly what was going to happen if they broke the rules, they just watched Florida lose its delegates one
week earlier, and they did it anyway. And now they're acting all surprised.
There really are some atrocious issues underlying this entire conflict.
1. Florida and Michigan Democrats were complicit in all of this. This wasn't something the Republicans forced on them - they
wanted to break the rules, and they did.
2. Florida and Michigan knew in advance that they'd lose their delegates if they moved their primaries up. They didn't care.
3. The reason we have these rules, the reason we have these sanctions, is to protect the primary process, and in particular to
protect the first-in-the-nation status of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. If FL and MI are let off the hook, as
Hillary is proposing, then there are no rules, and we'll have a free-for-all the next time around when every state keeps moving
their primaries up and up and up until we have non-stop primaries for 4 years.