I am off to see Lewis Black

Heeeeehaaaaaa. the prfainity might wake me up
I am kinda tired, I have had zero sleep, nada. and have spend all day listening to people yapping endlessly.

Missing Explosives-Round 15

Josh Micah Talking Points Memo, here Archives makes an interesting, somewhat flabergasting but totally believable assertion about why war was under-manned, and hence explosives not secured:

Part of the explanation comes from Secretary Rumsfeld's and his staff's view of military transformation, one that puts a heavy emphasis on high-tech weaponry and airpower over ground forces.
That's not the biggest reason, though.
The biggest reason is that President Bush and his chief advisors knew that it would be much harder to get the country into Iraq if the electorate knew the full scope of the investment -- in dollars, deployments and casualties -- upfront. In other words, undermanning the operation was always part of the essential dishonesty and recklessness with which the president led the nation to war.

The last paragraph is what I find interesting. it's rare that writers come to conclusions one finds truly unexpected, without making total buffons of themselves.

Verdict: BC'04 is imploding- halelluyah

A total of 37 newspapers that supported Shrub in 2000 admit they were WRONG.[Guardian]
I want to hear the media say, BC04 is officially IMPLODING!

-------------------------
VIRGINIA IS OFFICIALY BATTLEGROUND (by my verdict)
And Virginia is officially a swing-state. Now, go on, pay us some attention!
According to the latest on electoral-vote.com, The race is a statistical tie: Bush (50%); Kerry (47%). We are thrilled, of course.
I am going to a few Kerry campaign organized parties over the wekend in the area. Tuesday morning (7AM), we are getting people to the polls and making a general nuisance of ourselves. Tuesday night, we are huddling in anticipation. I am wishing for a landslide; I still can't rule out a Osama bin Forgotten stunt within the next 48 hours. Either way, Tuesday night, we are getting leglessly licqoured-up in celebration, or indeed mourning. Personal reminder: don't schedule anything for wednesday.

LEWIS BLACK in TOWN TOMORROW NIGHT
Oh and Lewis Black is in town tomorrow night at 7pm. I can't wait! I hope I can get him to sign my copy of America, the Book. I am going to have to dash to my indoor soccer match straight after that, starts 9PM. Not really, it's in the same complex - oh, happy days. We have to continue our undefeated run; our previous match was tough, we just nicked it 6-5. We'll see what happens tomorrow night.

Imus (II) and the CNN louts

James Wolcott here : asks, why does he torture himself watching Imus? So he too woke up to Imus. I switched off when Howard Dean took his bow. It seems, I was lucky. Apparently later in show, some other mongrel, aka Jim Nantz, offered his precious wisdom about Kerry's charisma. I won't go there.

I love Wolcott, he also disses the incompetents at CNN. I cashed my CNN chips sometime in Sept; I just don't have the stomach for those vainglorious louts anymore. I can safely assume they are still being idiotic, then?

So I have been experimenting with MSNBC. Hence, the rather recent Imus discovery.

Imus is hyperbolically irreverent, it's impossible to take the guy seriously. This morning after being really offensive about Clinton, he called Laura Bush a "robot," and Teresa Heinz Kerry (Mama T - to you) a "whack-job." THK, a whack-job? I laughed, because it's absurd.

A few weeks ago, he declared, "I'd rather get beheaded than vote for Bush" This was when some unfortunate person had recently been beheaded in that Theatre of Bush Dreams. Again, I laughed so hard - although it's not actually funny. It's the kind of humor, that has me tickled senseless when somebody trips and falls down a flight of stairs. I know, I know... it's tragic, yet hilarious.

The guy is nuts, but his nuttiness is like an equal-opportunity kind of nutdom.

Clinton woos voters for Kerry

I saw him, he looked fantastic. BBC

And, Imus, was being outrageously hateful about Bill Clinton this morning. His tirades are funny though, even when he is being hateful to people I like.

The vibe Bill has, is infectious. The crowd was cooking and massive. Kerry too. I thought Kerry looked more relaxed, not that I see Kerry much, being confined to a non-battleground, or better still, a battleground-to-be state (in 10 years). S'truce.

I thought, it was interesting that the crowds started chanting: Kerry! Kerry! Kerry! They cheered Clinton of course, but they didn't chant his name like that. It's interesting because, they would have us believe Kerry cannot inspire.

Osama Hiding in Pakistan

Yes. They know where he is.

Hold on to your knickers: Anytime now, they are going to whip him out.

WaPo endorses Kerry for President, coyly

Surprise, surprise, I hear you say, washingtonpost endorses Kerry? Actually, they sound like they are struggling to pull the bloody endorsement out of a rock, painful stuff. They start off:

"EXPERTS TELL US (sic) that most voters have had no difficulty making up their minds in this year's presidential election. Half the nation is passionately for George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately for John F. Kerry -- or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush. We have not been able to share in this passion, nor in the certainty"

They then do a SWOT-type analysis of both candidates, not sparing Kerry of their "consistancy" concerns . They don't lambast Bush for going to war; it's more a cool, calculated reflection, I reckon, tempered by the fact that the publication itsef supported this godforsaken war. They are more critical of Bush's domestic policies though, especially his Fiscal Policy. Those eminent business school professors' open letter must have helped. Overall this may be a smart thing... an overly enthusiastic endorsement isn't going change any bloody undecided's mind (whoever these people are).

But, this coy endorsement, seems to say, " We kinda found Prince Charming mostly charming, but unfortunately he fires blanks; and we fear he has instead turned into a tadpole. Kerry while not juicing-up our pussies entirely, is a sober candidate, therefore better marriage material. " So, if we must choose a spermanator as it were, we must acquiesce to him." While, this is not, "Ravage me now, you beast," it too will do.

PS. Ayi, the idea of Kerry ravaging anybody is unsettling. His stepsons though, that Andre Heinz especially, could do a mighty fine ravaging job, you'd suspect. hehe.

No 'specific' terror threat: Bush

A persistent stunt from the Department of Making Shit Up:

Asked about the possibility of a terrorist attack before the election, Bush replied: "I don't want to alarm anybody because I don't, I just, there's nothing specific at this point in time, (only) a kind of general intent." .... "They (terrorists) do think about whether or not they can try to disrupt our elections," said Bush, but "we have no actionable intelligence."

The Herald- (SHM)

These terrorists are mightier than you might think, god-like actually. They have this amazing capacity to transmit their thoughts to the Chosen One. Slimey bastards, there's a cunning husbandry about the details too, just to make sure you keep the faith. How do they do it?

Early results show Karzai victory. Duh?

Source: BBC News

Is it really fair that the guy who is/was appointed as interim caretaker governement seeks office in the first democratic elections? It seems like an obvious unfair headstart. It is also riddled with all sorts of corrupt potentialities. Caretakers should be forbidded from taking part in the first election. (I'm in a forbidding mood - what can I say)

If Bush wins, should America be called a Theocracy

or just a Theocrazy?

DON'T believe in Church/State Separation, No Vote

I have a cunning plan: Every dumb-ass that doesn't believe in the separation of Church & State should be denied the vote. Period. That'll settlle all of this evangelical nonsense. Seriously, it's getting to a point where they are going to have to re-establish standards as to who should be allowed to vote. A democracy of dumb-asses is a dangerous thing, clearly.

BTW, I was reminded that the separation of Church and State is a provision that exists to protect the State from the Church, not the other way round. Now, trying telling that to evangelicals, haters!

Iraq narrative gets better everyday

Now this from NYT. Actually TalkingPointsMemo has been on this story with a far better analytical stance. I won't rehash what Josh Marshall says. But this gig is just out of planet earth: Deadly weapons unsecured; deadly weapons disappear (all 350 tons of primarily RDX and HMX - love the link to rogue science, nice touch); deadly weapons later used as explosives to kill Iraqis and US/coalition troops, and everybody else that wonders into that bloody theatre. Deadly weapons known to be missing for a year, Administration concealing knowledge of missing deadly weapons, NYT says Administration says, "it wasn't my fault deadly weapons are missing." The terorists stole them; but of course. Deadly weapons still missing. But administration adds, we are winning the war on terror; no, it's up in the air whether we'll ever be safe from terror.

Brilliant: resolutely incompetent. Now show me a terrorist who believes there's something to fear from this lot, best military might and all.

Bush exploits suffering of 9/11, says Carter

Guardian: Bush exploits suffering of 9/11, says Carter.
You are joking.

The Cost of War: A mother's view of her son's Iraq

A voice we never hear from in corporate media is that of the military and their families. Tom Engelhardt of the Nation Institute fot Teri Wills Allison, whose son is serving in Iraq to pen her thoughts and experiences about this war. She writes of her personal pain but also the abandonment of soldiers returned injured, the lack of support, proper diagnosis, unjust dishonorable discharges. So much for, "we support the troops." Why the fuck does anybody, most of all those with family in the military support President Twitchy, I will never understand.

Here are some responses to the letter written by Teri Wills Allison. One woman, whose brother fought in the Iran-Iraq war writes, " Wars, all wars, in my opinion, are the ultimate failure of human beings. To say that there is no solution but to kill and maim innocent people is to say that we are, in fact, so stupid that we cannot (or worst won't) come up with a better and more humane solution..." I couldn't agree more.

AND NO, GOD WOULD NOT CHOOSE A DITHERING IDIOT
As for the evangelical slime-balls who think Bush is chosen by the God, "there you go again," taking God for a punk. Why the fuck would an all-knowing God choose a dithering idiot? What's that supposed to say about God? Was Jesus anything like this douche, did Jesus order people killed? Jesus was an "A" cool guy.

AND YES, GOD TOTALLY GETS SCIENCE
Another thing, God totally gets science. It's the pudden-head dullards who don't get it. An all-knowing God gets science; he/she is not bamboozled by it. Otherwise, he wouldn't be all-knowing now, would he?

Clinton wants to head UN?

Story from Interest!ALERT yeah never heard of them either, till now.

I really dig Clinton, it borders on the irrational - he could fart and I would find ways to figure out why it's a good thing. So this is no stretch. I am glad he's figured out his next career move. Now who do I contact to get an internship at the UN circa 2006? I'm being serious. He can harrass this, anytime.

Did Thatcher improve women's lives without meaning to?

Zoe william of theGuardian writes of Thatcher, as the accidental feminist.

Here's the deal, when I was a kid I remember that my father was an ardent Thatcherite , which basically means if you'd asked me my opinion, I would have told you everything my father said on the matter. She was a capitalist and tough as nails. Moreorless that was gist; and John Major was an antithetical whimp. Not sure what he thought of Tony Blair.

I have had to revisit or (re)form my own opinions about the Iron Lady. Altogether, she's not my cup of tea, although I think if you are at war, you probably want Thatcher in charge. Otherwise she's positively unpalatable. This reminds me of a scene I saw on Discovery Times, during the Falkland Islands war, where she comes out of No. 10 to make a brief press statement, which is avatar Thatcher. Having run the entire operation surprisingly secretively-- away from the media, she comes out and chides the media for prying, urging them to stop asking too many questions and "..... congratulate our forces." And then she stomps off without answering a single question. It's a powerful moment of disrepect in action.

Begrudgingly, I must give her due, especially now when it seems women in positions of power are more interested in appearing coquetish than competent; fuckable than able to fuck you (Only Cheney fucks people these days- and he "fucks them like they have never been fucked before"). Thatcher could have fucked anybody with the best of them. I think that's what my father liked, the machismo of a winner. He could care less whether it was a man or woman exercising it. That's equal-opportunity for you.

Democracy Fiends and Mullahs everywhere endorse Bush

So first Putin, the ex-KGB and democracy fiend endorses Bush; and now the Mullahs of Iran also cast their vote for democracy everywhere. This according to yahoo news . Amen.

Evidently, the Mullahs are unmoved by the Democrat's historical tendency to "harm Iran." Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body is qouted as saying, "We haven't seen anything good from Democrats." I wonder why? Unless Iran, this time, are playing mind games, understanding Americans hate being told what to do. Witness the Guardian's Operation Clark County backlash. Curious though, that they'd rather be "Axis of Evil" reprobates than be called on their human rights record. OK.

All that needs to happen now is for Osama to state his preference.

The Bush vs Cheney Debate - fuckin hilarious

Sim Sadler edits some footage of the Presidenial and VP debates - pitching the Prince of Darkness against Twitchy to hilarious effect. Rock on, Sim.

The Bush vs Cheney Debate

Bush Relatives for Kerry

Here's their web link. You must admire them for trying to take action. Another nail in Twitchy's coffin.

Boston Sox - World Series, and Twitchy going down

Here's to superstition, Boston reach World Series (BBC). For sure now, President Twitchy is going down. A friend of mine just pointed out that, ....and the DNC was in Boston, the RNC is NYC --- what could it all mean? Twitchy will be trounced.

Google 'saved' Australian hostage

This is just an awesome techonology effects storyGoogle 'saved' Australian hostage

It ranks with the factcheck.com Dick "Prince of Darkness" Cheney blunder-redirect to George Soros website of the VP Debate.

Tucker-Gate Revisionism : CNN is cleaning up the original transcript

a according to the drudge report - CNN editors were busy this weekend cleaning up a transcript from Stewart's Friday appearance on CROSSFIRE. One CNN executive called Stewart's performace "belligerent.".

I suspected as much. Good thing, some of us, have the full version of the original transcript.

If the transcript is an account of what happen, a first draft of history (perhaps insignificant - in this case), this kind of revisionism should be troubling. They mean to say, the exchange never happened in the manner in which it did, but rather happened in the manner in which they choose to depict. What the fuck?

If I recall, revisionists have their own special place in hell.

About the failure of the Media

My friends think I am joking when I say this: US corporate media is the worst media I have ever known, and I have lived under both Apartheid and Berlusconi maiale's own media conglomerate stunt-show (Silvio - to you). Under both these, there were always dissenting and visible alternatives that rejected the mainstream paradigm. You don't have that here. It's all hogwash, in the mainstream - for different reasons, but to similar treacherous effect. Cable News is all shit, NYT is shit, WP is variably shitty, but shitty nevertheless. Local news is a circus with shitting clowns, elephants and all. Republican media are shitty by definition, they are towing the line. Until I hear some dissent from the Republicans - they are a compost heap all of them.

This election is not about John Kerry, Bill. It's much more important than that. Kerry may be a douchebag - and I don't necessarily agree; but his douchebaggery cannot possibly be 1/2 equal that of this current lot.

I can't believe Bill started lamenting the Clinton years. How many times have I had to listen to fulminations about how immoral Clinton was? The moral argument is unwinnable with this churchy lot. Personally immoral, maybe - but we aren't fucking married to him; what the fuck do we care?

A Conversation with my Ego-Burdened Friend, Bill

On Thursday, I had a conversation with Bill, whose vote I am also determined to sway to Kerry - and I am making headway. Bill was telling me about his brother who is at West Point, emailing him campaign ads charging the flip-flopping of Kerry, which clearly Bill was believed: the he voted for the 87billion, before he voted against it chorus-line . For a guy pursuing a PhD, Bill is marginally open-minded. Research demands an open mind.

First of all, getting your information on candidates on the campaign ads is one giant regression for mankind. It's just ignorant to do that. But I wanted to make a broader point about the failure of US media, which I will make in minute. I had to first of all deal with the damn flip-flop charge. Very simply, there were two bills or two versions of the same bill presented.

Bill1: distinguished between military operational costs (67 billion) and Iraqi Nation Building (20 billion). Specifically, it proposed that Iraqi Nation Building (20 billion) not be borne by the American taxpayer without representation. they proposed ways in which Iraqis, among other things, would pay for their nation building through oil revendues and or loans. This is the version that Kerry voted for.

President Twitchy threatened to veto this Bill - demanding taxation without representation for the American taxpayer. 'Most eEveryone folded, they drafted a Bill the President wanted,

Bill2: The one that has American Taxpayers paying for Nation Building. This is the one Kerry voted against, in protest - knowing full well it would pass. Voting in protest, to me, is a sign of a robust democracy. it says, let the record show - not everyone agreed with this absurdity. In the same way that Ted Kennedy's vote against the authorization of the use of force (war) against, says: at least one guy saw through this shit.

Bill who is not incapable of understanding reason, then agrees with me. He said, "yeah, George Bush does that he simplifies everything." I am not sure what this all means, because it sounds like another " campaign slogan," albeit true. With Bill though, I know one thing: he has a huge unforgiving ego; the idea of seeming wrong or being proven wrong is very uncomfortable, actually downright traumatic - when brought to bear by a woman. Painful, painful stuff.

Oh, for some reason, Nation Building is not very unpopular with folk here.

More on Jon Stewart and the Crossfire douchebags

The great thing about this exchange is it's going to get a lot of media attention. The incompetent bastards won't of course self-reflect. There may be some schauedenfreude (i have no idea how to spell this - i'll check later) even. I just hope the electorate can extrapolate to their favorite screeching heads.

Jon Stewart calls the galling screeching head of CNN's Crossfire, Tucker , "a dick"

Yes, a dick.

It being a friday, the gym closes early so, I meandered to the gym at about 16H30, when I got there Jon Stewart was on CNN's Crossfire with the terminally creepy Tucker Carlson, and the douchebaggy Paul Begala. When, I got there, Jon was explaing why he came to Crossfire.

[I am going to actually post most the transcript - to keep for, austerity?]
....
STEWART: Will jump on it.

In many ways, it's funny. And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: We have noticed.

STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: But in its defense...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.

CARLSON: Yes.

STEWART: Stop.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.


Bless him, he was pleading with them to stop the douchebaggery that is passed off as journalism, or debate on that show and -I might add - on that cable channel as a whole. Man, I detest CNN with a passion. Tucker was being an ass as usual, he started lamenting the fact that Jon was being serious; then tried the time-tested: but you were Kerry's ass when he came to your show.
....
STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it.
....
STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit.
CARLSON: No, the opportunity to...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.
...
CARLSON: "How are you holding up?" I mean, come on.
(CROSSTALK)

Jon responded seriously. people forget that Jon stewart is an American patriot, deeply offended by douchebags everywhere. He uses his comedy to communicate the frusstration that would otherwise sound "preachy." Personally, I am offended by those who think the current state of affairs does not warrant humongous amounts of bloody preachy reason. When the fuck did people lose the sense and purpose of discourse. Who the fuck said, every fucking thing is entertainment, otherwise it's not worth hearing? This enrages me. The worst thing is these stupid ideas are being exported and globalized. How the fuck are we supposed to make progress, when even discourse is off-limits on a "debate show." I want to fucking hurt someone.
...
STEWART: But my point is this. If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard-hitting enough news questions, we're in bad shape, fellows. (LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: We're here to love you, not confront you.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: We're here to be nice.
STEWART: No, no, no, but what I'm saying is this. I'm not. I'm here to confront you, because we need help from the media and they're hurting us. And it's -- the idea is...
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is -- if the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that...
STEWART: Yes.
BEGALA: And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.
STEWART: Yes.
BEGALA: Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show.
STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great.
BEGALA: It's like saying The Weather Channel reduces everything to a storm front.
STEWART: I would love to see a debate show.
BEGALA: We're 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.
STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.
(LAUGHTER)

There we go creepy Tucker lamenting being "preached" to:
CARLSON: Jon, Jon, Jon, I'm sorry. I think you're a good comedian. I think your lectures are boring.
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: Let me ask you a question on the news.

I loved this next interaction
STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious. How old are you?
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Thirty-five. STEWART: And you wear a bow tie.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Yes, I do. I do.
STEWART: So this is...
CARLSON: I know. I know. I know. You're a...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: So this is theater.
CARLSON: Now, let me just...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Now, come on.
STEWART: Now, listen, I'm not suggesting that you're not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.
CARLSON: They're difficult.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: But the thing is that this -- you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great.
BEGALA: We do, do...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: Absolutely.
CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: What is wrong with you?
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Well, I'm just saying, there's no reason for you -- when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.
STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far -- you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.
CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.
STEWART: You need to go to one.
The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...
CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.
STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey. [hurting? creepy]
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: Go ahead. Go ahead.
STEWART: I watch your show every day. And it kills me.
CARLSON: I can tell you love it.
STEWART: It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: You know, because we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy.
CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?
STEWART: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: I just can't.
CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating. Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities? STEWART: If I think they are.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat with you, man. That's horrible.

[o00hh, sorry creepy - no more hurtful rational discourse for you, see]

STEWART: I know. And you won't. But the thing I want to get to...
BEGALA: We did promise naked pictures of the Supreme Court justices.
CARLSON: Yes, we did. Let's get to those.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: They're in this book, which is a very funny book.
STEWART: Why can't we just talk -- please, I beg of you guys, please.
CARLSON: I think you watch too much CROSSFIRE.
We're going to take a quick break.
STEWART: No, no, no, please.
CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Please. Please stop.
CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire."
STEWART: Please stop.
CARLSON: Hopefully, he'll be here, we hope, we think.
(APPLAUSE)
...

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
We're talking to Jon Stewart, who was just lecturing us on our moral inferiority.
Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?
STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.
CARLSON: Oh, OK.
STEWART: What do you think?
BEGALA: Let me change the subject.
STEWART: Where's your moral outrage on this?
CARLSON: I don't have any.
STEWART: I know.
BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material?
STEWART: I'm sorry?
BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material if he won?
STEWART: Mr. T. I think he'd be the funniest. I don't...
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: Don't you have a stake in it that way, as not just a citizen, but as a professional comic?
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Right, which I hold to be much more important than as a citizen.
BEGALA: Well, there you go.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: But who would you provide you better material, do you suppose?
STEWART: I don't really know. That's kind of not how we look at it. We look at, the absurdity of the system provides us the most material. And that is best served by sort of the theater of it all, you know, which, by the way, thank you both, because it's been helpful.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: But, if Kerry gets elected, is it going to -- you have said you're voting for him. You obviously support him. It's clear. Will it be harder for you to mock his administration if he becomes president?
STEWART: No. Why would it be harder?
CARLSON: Because you support...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: The only way it would be harder is if his administration is less absurd than this one. So, in that case, if it's less absurd, then, yes, I think it would be harder.
But, I mean, it would be hard to top this group, quite frankly.
(LAUGHTER)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
STEWART: In terms of absurdity and their world matching up to the one that -- you know, it was interesting. President Bush was saying, John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record.
But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: So I don't worry about it in that respect.
But let me ask you guys, again, a question, because we talked a little bit about, you're actually doing honest debate and all that. But, after the debates, where do you guys head to right afterwards?
CARLSON: The men's room.
STEWART: Right after that?
BEGALA: Home.
STEWART: Spin alley.
BEGALA: Home.
STEWART: No, spin alley.
BEGALA: What are you talking about? You mean at these debates?
STEWART: Yes. You go to spin alley, the place called spin alley. Now, don't you think that, for people watching at home, that's kind of a drag, that you're literally walking to a place called deception lane?
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Like, it's spin alley. It's -- don't you see, that's the issue I'm trying to talk to you guys...
BEGALA: No, I actually believe -- I have a lot of friends who work for President Bush. I went to college with some of them.
CARLSON: Neither of us was ever in the spin room, actually.
(BELL RINGING)
BEGALA: No, I did -- I went to do the Larry King show.
They actually believe what they're saying. They want to persuade you. That's what they're trying to do by spinning. But I don't doubt for a minute these people who work for President Bush, who I disagree with on everything, they believe that stuff, Jon. This is not a lie or a deception at all. They believe in him, just like I believe in my guy.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: I think they believe President Bush would do a better job.
And I believe the Kerry guys believe President Kerry would do a better job. But what I believe is, they're not making honest arguments. So what they're doing is, in their mind, the ends justify the means.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I don't think so at all.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Now, you're getting into it. I like that.
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: OK. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are joined by Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, host of "The Daily Show" and author of No. 1 bestseller, "America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction."
CARLSON: And a ton of fun, I like that too.
BEGALA: Some questions from our audience. Yes sir, what's your name, what's your name?
QUESTION: Hi, my name's David. I'm from Boston.
STEWART: Hi, David.
QUESTION: My question is, what do you think the hump on G.W.'s back during the debate was?
STEWART: Say it again?
QUESTION: What do you think the hump on George's back during the debate was?
STEWART: The hump on his back?
BEGALA: Oh, you're familiar? This is (INAUDIBLE) conspiracy theory. Can I take this one?
STEWART: Yes, please.
BEGALA: It was nothing, his suit was puckering. A lot of people believe he had one of these in his ear. If he was being fed lines by Karl Rove, he would not have been so inarticulate, guys. It's a myth.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: It's not true. There's this huge myth out on the left.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Renee (ph) from Texas. Why do you think it's hard or difficult or impossible for politicians to answer a straight, simple question?
STEWART: I don't think it's hard. I just think that nobody holds their feet to the fire to do it. So they don't have to. They get to come on shows that don't...
BEGALA: They're too easy on them.
CARLSON: Yes. Ask them how you hold...
STEWART: Not easy on them...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... saying we were too hard on people and too (INAUDIBLE).
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: I think you're - yes.
CARLSON: All right. Jon Stewart, come back soon.
BEGALA: Jon Stewart, good of you to join us. Thank you very much. The book is "America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction."
From the left I am Paul Begala, that's it for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: And from the right I'm Tucker Carlson, have a great weekend. See you Monday.

I have said it before, I don't know if it's possible to love Jon Stewart anymore than I already do, and yet today I love him infinitely more. They should just crown Jon Stewart, King, and be done with it.

And Thursday he publically announced he would be voting for Kerry - duh.

A Woman of Firsts: Waangari Maathai

From Alternet.org: A Woman of Firsts.

This is proof positive that the good folk of the Nobel Prize Committee are decades ahead any leaders, opinion makers everywhere. I cannot think of any other institution with the foresight to recognize the unprecedented holistic approach to peace, human rights, environmentalism taken by Dr. Waangari Maathai.

I can hear WASPs everywhere thinking, why didn't I think of that. This is the kind of stuff that gets patented and sold for filthy (in a good way) profit. Congratulations, Dr. Waangari Maathai. I salute you.

Knowing thy Al Qaeda Enemy - Time (Money), Money, People

I just finished reading the infamous John Kerry interview that appeared in the Times Magazine this weekend.

I won't bother with the mischaracterizations from the Twitchy campaign that led me to search for the article in the first place. Waste of time. The article is interesting because it shows an understanding of terrorism by Kerry that, i wasn't aware of and that is worthy of serious consideration. It reflects a studied and more realistic approach. So, I am wondering how does he begin to communicate this? Because apparently, that is the problem. I will say though - it pisses me off to no-end when pundits say, "I have no idea where Kerry stands..." on this or that issue. Usually, it's because they were not listening or they have no bothered to read his publications on the matter. but, I digress. I am trying to fashion a communicable message from what interpret from that article.

question: When was the last time al-Qaeda attacked a military target? Forget Iraq for a second, because that, without Dubya's misadventures, would not exist? And how many times has Al-Qaeda threatened or attacked US military strength directly. I can think of the USS Cole off-the-cuff. Everything other attack has been targeted at civilian and diplomatic structures, and each attack is a deliberately and carefully planned exercise which uses time, money and people. Time is probably the biggest cost (factor) here, followed by money then people. Time must also be calculated in dollars and cents. Benjamin Franklin said, "Time is Money." It costs money, to feed/educate/motivate and train a patient militant. So that is the nature of the enemy: Money, money and people.

I raised the military attack question for the simple reason that military forces are usually designed with opposing military forces in mind. If you are unlikely to ever face an opposing military force (in the form of Al Qaeda batallions and brigades, or whatever), then the military option at best is a backup plan. Use that , if you can't think of anything else to do, or if for some reason the enemy convenes an organized batallion or whatever (i am showing my girlie knowlegde about the military here). You could harldy use the US military against those 19 hi-jackers pre- their commandeering of those flights. No amount of pre-emptive military action could have stopped that lot, they were mostly here in the US anyway - once the decision to plan the attack was conceived. So, the military option while dramatic is not necessarily the most effective in this case. So, follow the money.

Issue One: Money and more Money
Take, the worst attack, how much did that cost? $250 000 (estimate). In other words, without access to the 250K, there could not have beeen a 9/11. There perhaps could have been something on a smaller scale, but certinly not that big. Somebody had to pay for those flight lessons, identify suitable militant leaders who could speak (some) English, bring them here, house and feed them. So, if you preemptively find/kill/ remove the (potential) suppliers of the 250K then you have eaten at the first and second biggest contributor to terrorism. Correct? So going after Osama Bin Forgotten makes sense. Except, he is not the only financial sympathisers to the cause, there are many others, known and unknown. The biggest challenge is being able to detect these people and attacking the channels they use to funnel money to their terrorist master plans. Correct?

This is not a problem you assign to the US military. This is a problem for intelligence not just in America, but across the globe. Think Inter-pol on steroids and local intelligence agencies on THG. This is also a problem for systems-people, technology systems, I mean. Oh by the way, you also need a lot Arab-speaking intelligence and systems - otherwise you are fucked. If there was any sembalnce of reality in the war on terror, there would be a boon for learning Arabic: dot.com start-up salaries for those who spoke Arabic, looked Arabic or black.

Issue Two: People ( The Recruits)
This is a more complex problem, but bear in mind that without money, you can't support the influx of people into the movemment. It's no accident that the movement is flooded by unemployed young people.

I am guessing here, but:

1) Old-fashioned spy-ware, people infiltration into the movement. Again you can't do it with white people who speak English. Your best bet: Arabs and black people who speak Arabic. John Kerry has suggested more special forces - okay, sensisble enough.

2) Constructive engagement with poorer nations of this world. This is never going to fly with insularists, but the fact of the matter is, while the rest of the world lives in abject poverty and America and its allies continue to prosper, rightly or wrongly, there will always be willing recruits - religion is just a motivational tool, and framework to make sense of the battle. The bad news is obvious, pick your own. The good news is, you merely have to be seen engaging in promising actions that inspire hope to begin making headway. Keyword: hope.

3) Fix the fucking Israeli-Palestine conflict; if the South Africans could negotiate their shit, these folk can do the same. For so long as this is a problem, and Israel get however many billion dollars from the US for its defense every year, there will be plenty religious zealots to act as potential recruits. This is so, whether you agree or disagree with the said religious zealots. You want to sort out the people factor, fix this particular problem. It's NOT the people who agree with you who attack you.

[you can take these in any order of priority-- you should probably tackle them all at once though]


4) Educate military personnel in Arabic culture and sensitivies, just in case you wind up in an Iraqi-type situation.


Issue three: USING THE MILITARY

The military option should be the least concern for any administration, and I m not being glib. Why? the US Military is the strongest in the world! Any questions? Identified enemies can be taken at will, really. This ultimately goes without saying. Dubya is not responsible for US military strength. He isn't. Strong on terror, doesn't actually mean he makes the military stronger. It is given to him that way, just like it would be given to Kerry or anyone else that way. It's actually very easy to be "strong on terror" by calling on the military. The difficulty is in making calculated moves on when and when not to use the military, and in finding alternatives that will work in fighting or reducing terrorism. Sending the man and women into battle while you watch idly from the WH on TV, (pronouncing, "Iraq is hard work") is hardly strong, nor indeed heroic. The label strong really refers to the fighting men and women. They are strong on terror. Any questions?

What? Unfuckingbelievable

there's story here from USAtoday,
USATODAY.com - Are the media playing politics?

This idiot call it balanced and fair where the analysis of the first (and second) debate is even-handed. The methodology basically counts positive and negative assessments/mentions for each candidate. Fair and and balance would be an equal assessment of both for both candidates. Forget the specifics of the 1st debate for a moment, i.e. Bush was resoundingly trounced.

How the fuck do you deliver an fair and balanced verdict where your team loses 52-2? Surely, the even handed verdict it to call the loss a drubbing? To suggest both teams play well, well just doesn't reflect the evidence. Or is it just me? Do I just not get this shit? Who the fuck pays these people to deliver such shit?

Although, I agree with the final sentiment, if grudgingly: "And the stereotypes against cable news don't necessarily hold. In the debates, Fox has been 'fair and balanced' and CNN has not been 'liberal.' ". Fox has surprized me, and CNN are just incompetent.

"This is the worst environmental president we've had in American history." RFK, Jr

In an excerpt of a speech he gave recently, Robert F. Kennedy says simply: "This is the worst environmental president we've had in American history."

This is a frightening portrayal of what this administration has accomplished, from "putting polluters in charge of virtually all the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from pollution" to, using Orwellian rhetoric to conceal their pillaging of the environment: "When they destroy the forest, they call it the Healthy Forest Law; when they destroy the air they call it the Clear Skies Bill." They have also repealed what is known as the Treble Damages Provision. which was a provision available to the EPA as a way fo getting polluters to pay for their sins: basically if the EPA decides they are sick and tired of dealing with the lawyers, they can clean up the mess themselves and charge the sinner thrice the cost of the clean up. Option, gone.

This is truly a worthwhile read. Read it: Bush's Crimes Against Nature.

Some of the frightening things have to do with the rise in the incidents of asthma, autism, cognitive impairment in children due to pullutants such as mercury and sulphur dioxide. It is bloody frightening.

I like this dude, he is my favourite young Kennedy at the moment. Part of what he does is, not just challenge government policy, but more importantly the excesses of corporate power and their impact on (American) democracy. He makes me want to shake people.


"JOB-OUTSOURCING"
Which reminds me, last Saturday, some Einstein was trying to argue with me about the inevitability of the "outsourcing of jobs" or something like it. Yes?

And what I realized was this, schools must re-teach what is meant by a "wholistic approach." What Kerry and Teresa Heinz-Kerry call complexity. Why is it that people do not understand the idea that issues are inter-related. You can solve A and exacerbate B in one fell swoop, unintentionally if you don't know this simple fact: Life is like a bowl of spaghetti, a network of inter-related entites. But, I digress somewhat.

So, you can't talk about job-outsourcing (barring the case of tax incentives for companies that do outsource jobs- why this is done, I have no idea; Ann Coulter has a word for it: TREASON) without simultaneously addressing two other issues: the notion of comparative advantage ( a cornerstone of free-trade), and Wal-Mart-type ridiculously low prices enjoyed by American consumers - actually the fact that American consumers insist on such devilishly low prices, hell and themselves be damned. While you are at it you might want to ask "profitability at what cost?"

Aside: Do economists still write about the difference between public goods and private goods, and externalities? I guess by now they must be talking public services vs. private services. (Note to self - look this up, what'the current thinking these days)

I am not going to go into much detail here, but my point is, given the inter-relatedness of these issues, job outsourcing is really a symptom of broader free-trade principles, coupled with the fact that, in America, profitability is honored as if it is more important than morality, patriotism (in an madly patritiotic country, I might add) and possibly even godliness. So, when corporations bend the rules, screw the public good, bribe government officials (make campaign donations), render masses jobless for the sake of an extra milllion pennies, by god, it is a good thing. It is the American way, and fuck you, you communist if you disagree. Halliburton, screws the U.S. military -for crying out loud- for a few billion pennies and I don't hear screams of treason.

For me, it's the "profitability at all costs" honor-code: fuck externalities like pollution, social fabric/standards of living, that is at the root of job-outsourcing and the savage rape of the environment.

PATRIOTISM
Just as a note, I don't care for this mindless patriotism thing. Europeans and the rest of world learnt what patriotism can do for the world: it brought us Hitler and Mussolini. America is the only developed nation that still has this patriotism hang-over. That and the religious, churchy thing. Grow up, the world cannot be lead with an insular outlook.


THE LEGACY OF DUBYA
One of the things that struck me recently is that, even if Bush is sent packing to Texas, his legacy of diabolical machinations will in some form or another be used by future administrations. I don't mean this in the trifling sense of politicians are the same , Kerry/ Bush same difference. That's to trifle. I mean this more substantively. For example, the way Bushyites have managed and treated the media has been trumphantly effective on their part, aided by the incompetence of the media itself . Forget that it's been a bloody disgrace from a more broader perspective. The fact is, it has worked for them. I foresee future administrations (not just Kerry - and I am getting ahead of myself here) emulating this, perhaps not as crudely, but just as effectively. There are already signs that Kerry is disenchanted with the media, he wouldn't speak to the travelling press corps for about a month or so. He simply ignored them.

Clinton devised the war room tactics and the Bushyites perfected them. What are future WH occupants learning from this administration? Mendacity, total disregard for fact, the effectiveness of spin, cronyism, etc. Four more years of Twitchy will just perpertuate the same vested interests, favor the same cronies etc. What of years to come? Well, they may have started a radical way of doing business. In which case it truly doen't matter who wins then? I hate it when I come full circle like that. I start off by refuting a premise, go through a series of conditions and wind up confirming the same premise for different reasons. Miserable, honestly.
This only falls apart if the vested interests of the new administration are the people. What are the odds?

It appears I spoke too early - about the silence of Academy

In my previous post, I lamented the deafening lack of criticism from Academy of the President Twitchy Administration. I actually then took off to the gym to let off some steam. While there, I wondered how I would word a letter I conceived to be directed at the American people about Dubya and his cohorts, and what they have accomplished. And then viola, i just got back- and decided to quickly visit alternet.org before resuming my research activitites when in their "News Log" section they have a headline "Harvard to Bush:You are Failing." Amen.

This is in reference to an Open Letter to President Dubya, written by Harvard University professors of economincs and business.

They write,

"we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown."

The letter then coolly goes into the deficiencies of this administrations fiscal policy: slash taxes broadly for the rich, and spend, spend, spend. Result: insane, insane deficits - that crowd out private investment, drive interest rates higher and stoke inflationary expectations. They call for a "dramatic reorientaion of fiscal policy, including substantial reversals of your tax policy. "

They add,

"We also urge you to consider the distributional consequences of your policies. Under your administration, the income gap between the most affluent Americans and everyone else has widened. Although the latest data reveal that real household incomes have dropped across the board since you took office, low and middle income households have experienced steeper declines than upper income households. To be sure, the general phenomenon of mounting inequality preceded your administration, but it has continued (and, by some accounts, intensified) over the past three and a half years."

They usefully point out that the Gini coefficient - a measure of income distribution- "is far higher in the United States than in any other developed country and is continuing to move upward." Amen, Amen, Amen. why the fuck to low-mid income, rural people support Twitchy

I have at various periods of my life been forced to read research published by these men and women, and absolutely nothing they have written, singularly, is more socially relevant than what they have written here - IMO.

Actually, alternet.org is incorrect in characterizing this as a Harvard Business School endeavor, this open letter was written by an 'organized" medley of professors from across the country, which in my opinion makes it more potent.

Personally, I would have addressed the American people, Dubya doesn't read. I also think you'd get more media mileage by addressing the public, not withstanding the risks of being labelled partisan. But it is a start, a very good start.

These are people whose work requires them to pay attention to detail, use multiple sources of evidence, distinguish between fact and opinion, understand causality (cause-effect) and the direction of that causality. But moreover, these are people whose work is primarily designed to contribute to the public good. For better of for worse, these are poeple who are paid to pay attention to these matters, rather reality TV and celebrity comings and goings. They should speak louder and more often .


How many times do I have to tell people George Bush is bad for the United States. I told a friend of mine, I would leave if he were reelected, and he said, "oh come on, would it make that much difference?" Besides, the bleeding obvious, it would make a difference to me, I am appalled and I spend a lot of time being appalled. Sending Twitchy to Texas would make me a lot more productive, or at least get me more sleep.

CIA "old guard" goes after Bush's one nut

This according to the Telegraph

I have always maintained that one of the worst transgressions of the Dubya administration is to make the intelligence agencies look incompetent, when the truth is actually that the intelligence was ignored from a holistic point of view. Anyone who does research will tell you that any research findings are bounded or limited by this and that (other conditions). You ignore these conditions at your own peril. Dubya & cohorts chose to ignore any contra provisos about Iraqi WMDs for political expediency. The intelligence agencies, were not incompetent per se, they did warn of the incompleteness of the information, and even contrary information, but this was deliberately ignored.

When I tell you that there is a significant co-occurence of gum-chewing and big dicks, and warn you that this does not mean gum causes dick growth, you ignore this proviso at your own peril. This doesn't mean the information or the system generting the information is necessarily faulty. It just means diabolical idiots are selectively using the information for their own agenda. Why the general state of outrage is bigger vis avis this issue. I will never understand. Somehow, the media are happy to accept blaming the CIA for "intelligence failures" and Adminstration talking point actually.

And how on god's earth is denigrating the CIA and weakening its value a strategic intervention to "protect us from terror and make us safer." Why hasn't anybody latched onto this? By falsely accusing the CIA of being incompetent, the current administration has weakened a critical armor in the effort to fight terrorism. Why has nobody made this connection?

ACADEMY AND IMPERIAL MEDIA FAILURES
Which reminds me while I am at it. There are two things I take away from the last four years and sadly also if Dubya is sent back to the White House. To my mind, the Fourth Estate and Academy ought to be two critical independent bulwarks against the assault on a democracy (by those in power). In both cases, I believe they have failed dismally. The failure of the media is now broadly discussed, and independent media players have somewhat mitigated the gross incompetence of imperial media.

What has not been discussed is the general silence of Academy. Sure, individual writers like Jay Rosen (see ) the CJR (campaign desk) and a few others speak out. But you would think, with the actions of this administration being so abhorrent, Academy would organize a unified voice that in concert says, "we are appalled with this administration, for the following reasons." That is, as educators, natural scientists, social scientists, biologists, physicists, legal experts etc., we believe this administration has worked against the fundamental interests of the Nation and indeed the world. Much like the group of diplomats and military core did. You know the whole tenure thing is premised on being given the privilege to teach, research and write without fear or favor. Confronted by an administration that is and anti-scientific research, why the fuck have the scientists protested en masse?

Corporate media employs imbeciles basically - at least that wht I have to believe to stop myself from going insane. What's Academy's excuse? I am not a politician? It's high-time, social organization like unions stopped being a cuss-word in this country. It's high-time, different sections of the population organized, spoke with a single voice for the greater good. There is much too much at stake to leave it to fragmented individual efforts.

The apathy galls me to the core! There I have said it.


Second Presidential Debate

Actually have not seen the whole thing yet, I caught the last 30 minutes. I want to watch the first 30 minutes to see what the big deal is about.
James Wolcott (Empty Volcano) has a take of course on the debate, which is always delightful.

Vice Presidential Debate - Quick Verdict

I would give it to John Edwards. He didn't slap Cheney around like a bitch, but he kept on pressing on the issues driving them home. He didn't let Cheney get away with his habitual falsehoods. He kept chiseling away, and sometimes he was funny - which works. Cheney, the troll not funny.

Actually Cheney was somewhat subdued. The vitriol was tempered. Actually he was mostly well-behaved. Although both of them engaged in some personal attacks about service-records, voting records etc. i was impressed with Edwards pointing out that Cheney voting record in Congress and as Defense Secretary was effectively no different than Kerry's. This is something of a pet peeve for me - nobody ever points this out when this lot criticize Kerry on his "he voted against the same systems used to fight the war on terror." Hogwash - so did Cheney.

This wasn't exactly a mauling, Cheney is a smart, Luciferish and sometimes disinterested during the debate, but smart nevertheless.

Verdict:
Bush-Cheney = Buy-two-get-just-one
Kerry-Edwards = Buy two, get two.

End of Story

A Shrub Loving Republican agrees debate #1 = unfettered mauling

Jay Nordlinger on Election 2004 & Debate #1 on National Review Online

Even die-hard Republicans, men who confess to "loving" Bush - men loving Bush, is a strangely gay thing - acknowlege debate #1 was an unfettered mauling:

In other words, Kerry sliced up his ass, toasted it, put it on a platter and served it to him.

An Interview with Titi Henry

The Observer has with the most interesting interview Titi that has graced the rags in a long time.

Who the hell is Titi Henry? A wizard, a god among men, that's who he is.

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

This as reported here
by the Guardian

Bush and Nazi financing? I am not holding my breadth for US corporate media to catch on this one.

Did I mention I have cashed my CNN chips. Their incompetence has just become offensive. I kept watching after they irevocably pissed me off during the DNC'04, with the excuse that it keeps in tune with what people were hearing. I am happy to announce that I no longer have to do that: as long as I assume the the most asinine things go on there, I am more or less spot on. Actually, I sent them a letter telling them I was switching off, permanently. I hope they will change if they get enough such letters. But seriously now I watch MSNBC, they are mostly less cretinous - not by much, but nevertheless bearable. Imus is fantactic though; his irrevence has me in stiches - and I am barely awake then.

Verdict: "President Twitchy," and naked men in the middle of my street

James Wolcott's reflection on the debate is just, so peachy.
James Wolcott: Tweet Smell of Success

I have been in a fantastic mood since last night's debate. This might also have something to do with the fact that, last night or rather at 2:00 AM in the morning, some hours after the debate, food and drinks, I had an hilarious encounter with a georgeous looking man, walking in the middle of my street, with absolutely NO clothes on. A friend and I were double-parked in front of my house yakking-off about this and that, with the car trunk opened - I was supposed to taking some stuff out, and then I spotted a naked figure walking past.

He says, "Hello", something ... something (inaudible).

I say, "what?"

My friend Elizabeth says, "he says, he lost a bet."

"He lost his clothes, is what he lost." In my defense, I happened to see him before he spake.

He was very naked, but very polite - which is actually a funny combination in public spaces. I guess, he was trying to dispel our amused, disbelieving stares.

I have always wondered whether staring at a man's schlong was socially acceptable, even when he has pants on. I must confess, it is not something I can totally control. My friend who is way more cultured than I, and morally partial, would not look at his rather sizable schlong. She instead, offered him a "towel" to cover himself. Spoiler, party pooper, #$%#@

His initial response was to say, "no, thank you, I only have two more blocks to walk." We both said okay, and he said, "good night."

Southern Etiquette Lesson: Evidently, it's polite to refuse offers of help, because such offers are offered in politeness in the first place. It would be rude to accept. Go figure. Try explaining that to anyone who was taught it is ungrateful and rude to decline the goodness of others (help), oyi.

Twenty seconds later our naked man changed his mind, visibly concerned that he might get into trouble with the Law for publically displaying his personal assets, he walked back to us and quietly shouted, "Do you really have a towel?" Elizabeth, pulled a kitchen dishwashing towel-type effort from the trunk and said "here", without looking at his dick, she swears. I am thinking, is that a towel? I was expecting a bath towel. Boy, he has a big dick! He'll have trouble wrapping that thing around his dick, never mind his taut ass.

He walked directly towards us to receive the "towel." He was a few meters from where I was standing when I could see his face,for the first time, as he moved in and out of the light sneaking in between the shadows of trees. He was handsome, though clean-shaven-balding. He smiled, took the "towel", and I am pretty sure he said something which I wouldn't hear if you paid me a million greenbacks. He had a fantastic smile too. Oh, how I wish I had my camera.

I was having a perfectly surreal night: Kerry had href="http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2004/10/tweet_smell_of.php">grape-stomped President Twitchy into a sullen mash ; a gorgeous, naked man half-casually walks the middle of my street, dick-flapping as it is wont to do unstrapped, and starts a polite conversation about bets and small towels.

We have recounted both moments all day in stitches.

PS. To my pips- and no, I don't know why he was walking in the middle the street and not the sidewalk. Afraid of night-joggers perhaps- scary lot.

Where were you when Kerry bitch-slapped President Twitchy?


=============================================
DEBATE DRINKING GAMES

Next debate, we are playing drinking games... I am compiling a word/phrase list of things to drink to. From the banal to the bizarre.

Like, anytime President Twitchy says, Poland - Down your drinks! "And Poland."

Altogether now: I am the base, and I am revived!

Presidential Debate No.1: Kerry bitch-slapped Bush and handed him his ass.

The Guardian says Guardian First blood to Kerry in TV debate.

There's little else to say.

Kerry was so effective, he even had sex-appeal last night. He's never done well on the sex-index. A politician you can do, is a winning politician. Period. Why do you think we love Clinton? -- and I watched the darn thing on a big screen at the Campus plaza.

Oh, likewise Dubya's reaction shots were hilarious on the big screen. I got home a saw a rerun of the debate in the wee hours , and on TV he didn't look as ridiculous as he did on the big screen.