Friday, April 18, 2008

Daily Snap!

From the Queen B herself, as she is caught on tape bitching - and lying - about, an organization founded in '95 to help defend then-President Bill Clinton.

" endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
SNAP! Take that party activists. Hillrod doesn't need your votes in the general.

Read it all here...

Springsteen, the Elitist

Another blow to ABC News' ethics?

Turns out the woman who questioned Obama about his flag pin may have been a plant by ABC. She's been on the Pennsylvania news circuit for a bit, and while you might think that she's on the fence about Obama, or at the least undecided, it turns out she's clearly against Obama. She is also someone who has clearly bought into the myth that Clinton "is one of us" despite her silver spoon and Ivy League upbringing and her current family fortune well over $100,000,000.00, in contrast to Obama's clearly meek and lower-middle-class upbringing and lifelong struggle.

In Clinton, she sees someone who has struggled for years, just like her, and has earned the right to be president. In Obama, she sees someone who rose like a rocket, always has a smooth explanation for everything — whether it's about his former preacher or the flag pin — and who makes it all look too easy.

"That's what upsets me about Barack Obama," she says. "He takes everything so nonchalantly."

No matter how often I see examples of it, I am always shocked at just how completely uninformed and utterly ignorant the majority of the people (or sheeple) are in this country. It is always genuinely shocking, and appalling.

But then, I think there's a better angle from which to view this. I don't believe for one second that this woman doesn't like Obama because she thinks he isn't patriotic enough. If patriotism were the real issue, she would be supporting McCain. No, she is supporting Obama for the simple reason that he is a black man. I've talked to plenty of folks who won't vote for Obama, and they will give you every excuse under the sun. But if you get them to talk long enough, they will always give themselves away. They simply cannot and will not vote for a black man.

The real point here anyway is that ABC has completely ruined its reputation and credibility, and more evidence appears each day of just how pathetic the debate was conducted the other night. I hope Charlie Gibson feels the shame and embarrassment of this for a long time. I'm not so worried about Little George, who has always been a few inches and a stupid mustache away from Geraldo Rivera anyway. Charlie Gibson has to measure himself against giants like NBC's Brian Williams, and right now he's smaller than Wolf Blitzer. who can be proud of that?

Thursday, April 17, 2008

To ABC News: Screw 'em!

Sign the petition and let ABC News know they screwed up and that it's time to get our politcal dialog out of the gutters. The situation in this country is too dire now for the kind of bullshit they pulled last night. One Fox News is enough!

Make that 4

Regarding Hillary Clinton saying "Screw 'em" when referring to the issue of Southern White voters turning against Bill Clinton and Democrats in '95, another attendee - while not confirming the exact quote - does corroborate the claims of three others about her tone and tenor at that meeting.

Barber reports in his 2001 book that Hillary Clinton said "Screw 'em" about southern working class whites who did not support Bill Clinton. Two other scholar-particiants, Alan Wolfe and Harry Boyte, agree she said this. Reported demurrals (and not a clear denial) come from Clinton staffers Bruce Reed and Don Baer, not from the independent intellectuals in attendance. But independent witnesses who keep notes trump employees any day.

I have gone back to my 1995 notes to check my recollections of the event. My notes do not have any exact words, so I am not going to try to corroborate a particular phrase from Hillary Clinton or any other speaker.

But what is clear in both in my memory and my notes is that there was extensive, hard-nosed discussion about why masses of voters did not support Clinton or trust government or base their choices on economic as opposed to what people saw as peripheral life-style concerns. Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices -- usefulness to the Clinton administration, that is.

Obama passes the Commander-in-Chief test...

...for this service member.

What Barack Obama said in this debate is crucial. He is asserting the primacy of civilian leadership and dictating the constitutionally appropriate delineation of power. Bush has postured like a Commander in Chief, but does not hesitate to hide behind military officers that have no business setting the policy. If President Bush told General Petraeus, “I want at least 15% of your NCOs to be trained lion tamers,” then General Petraeus would use his authority to implement the orders and make a statement before Congress about the necessity to hire lion-taming contractors as experts to train NCOs.

This kind of clear and proper thinking is what is needed in our federal government. Half of the madness going on this country is Bush’s unitary executive philosophy that undermines the constitutional separation of powers. I can see from statements like this that Barack Obama has the insight necessary to lead not just the country, but our nation’s military, of which I am a proud member. That is change I can believe in.

Read the full post.

A matter of substance

Dear Honorable Representative Chappelle-Nedal,

I recently read in the FirstRead blog at MSNBC's website the following:

She said she's still undecided, but had some critical words for Obama. She found Obama's criticism of former President Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal "hypocritical" given his earlier stance that he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And, Chappelle-Nadal said, she finds herself frustrated that Obama's speeches lack detail.

Firstly, allow me to direct your attention to Here you will find all the detail you need.

Secondly, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal can be considered a terrorist since he is a leader of an organization designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, whereas Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - while a bit of a lunatic - is not a terrorist. In spite of the Iranian Republican Guard being designated a terrorist organization by the US, the IRG - also known as the Quds Force - reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Never has Barack Obama claimed that he would be willing to meet with leaders of terrorist organizations, in fact he has said the exact opposite.

It behooves you as a United States Representative to know such things. Please do your best to be informed of matters before you speak out on them, or form any sort of opinion. Before you slander someone for being hypocritical, it is best to understand the facts. Ignorance is never an acceptable excuse, especially for an elected official.

Jake Barlow

Help a brother - and his mother - out

Hi all,

I'm passing the hat around again, but this time it's for a fund-raiser my Mom is doing for Lew Reed Spinal Cord Injury Fund, with the money going to the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis from the University of Miami School of Medicine. Her goal is to raise $1000 by next Saturday, and every little bit helps. You can send a donation via PayPal to

After next Saturday, an email will go out to all contributors announcing the amount raised, and who contributed how much. If you want your donation to be anonymous, or prefer not to display your full name, please indicate that when you make the payment.

This is important to me, to my Mom, and to the beneficiaries of this research. Thanks in advance.

Daily Snap!

This time from the man himself in Raleigh, NC, about the ABC News sponsored debate last night (h/t to politico):

"I will tell you it does not get more fun than these debates. They are inspiring debates. I think last night we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.

It took us 45 minutes — 45 minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices.

Now, I don’t blame Washington for this because that’s just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversies and getting us to play gotcha games and getting us to attack each other. And I’ve got to say Sen. Clinton looked in her element."




M.S. Bellows over at HuffPo offers this illuminating scenario for Clinton's strategy of playing the Republican foil against Obama in this primary:

Here's the real math behind Clinton's continued campaign: 60 plus 4 = 64. Clinton's 60 years old. She knows she won't get the nomination, or the Presidency, eight years from now when she's 68 (only 3 years younger than McCain is now). But she can get it in 2012, when she's only 64 - unless Obama's already in the White House, in which case he'll almost certainly be renominated. If Obama wins this election, Clinton will never be President. If he loses, Clinton gets another shot. So Clinton strings this thing out - and does everything she can to pull Obama down - while Republican strategists cheer her on, not because she realistically believes she can win in '08, but to preserve her shot at '12.

If this really is her strategy, it's about as horrendously stupid as can be. Should she succeed in damaging Obama enough to lose against McCain, she can kiss her political career goodbye. She will have disenfranchised so many democrats in the process, so much so that there will be no second chance four years from now. She wouldn't survive another senate run in New York, let alone mount another presidential bid. And who is to say that Obama wouldn't attempt another run?

I don't see McCain winning against Obama in any scenario. White Republiscums® will vote for McCain no matter what, short of his being exposed as a pedophile or having had sex with a man. Anyone on the fence will be feeling the financial crunch so badly come November, after having spent the summer paying over $4 per gallon of gas and massively high electric bills from running the AC to survive record high temperatures. Then as fall sets in a winter creeps forward, they'll find they are barely able to afford home heating bills, and the prospect of doing much Christmas shopping will seem remote as they find they are having a harder time paying off debt as the credit crisis expands. The economy is only one reason in a long list of why McCain does not have a chance against Obama. Current polls be damned, as the economy dive bombs and Iraq descends into further chaos, come November the rest of the country will discover what I already know: John "W. Jr." McCain is the worst thing that could happen to this country.

Daily Snap!

Perhaps this should be a "nightly" snap? This particular award goes to ABC News, George Stephanopoulos, and Charlie Gibson for the resounding bitchslap they gave to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party, the American voting electorate, and to our national political dialog.

In a debate moderated with breathtaking inanity, and profound absurdity, and debate so pathetically biased towards the GOP that one could easily have confused ABC News with Fox News.

The blogosphere is full of well-worded recaps from last nights debate - if that name is still applicable - and here are the best from:

Daily Kos



MSNBC's FirstRead


If you have any great debate wrap-ups, let me know.

Also, if you watched the debate, and it made you as sick as most people, let ABC know about it:

ABC switchboard: 818-460-7477.

Or you can fill out their online feedback form.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

ABC Debate Fraud Alert

Suspicion was first raised by Kos blogger Billary Redux that George Stephanopoulos was taking notes from Sean Hannity on which questions to ask Barack Obama tonight.

When Hannity asked about the first question below about Ayers and whether George had plans to ask such a question, George replied, "Well, I'm taking notes now Sean." It did actually sound like he was pausing to take notes. And Hannity continued to feed him more:

  1. Ask Obama about his relationship with Ayers and WeatherUnderground and Axelrod's comments, "They're friendly"
  1. Ask Obama why he attended the Million Man March
George just asked the Ayers question.

More from Billary Redux:
Expect a GOTCHA tonight, and ahead of that, We need to let ABC News know we are watching ... If this is his standard, why not let Cheney Moderate the debate, or McCain even!

To put it bluntly, should a Former Clinton Official be the one asking GOP questions to Barack Tonight?!?

Screw ABC, and screw small man Stepho.

Daily Snap!

Keli Goff amusingly presents her perspective on whether or not a sexist bias against Hillary Clinton exists in the media. SNAP!

"How will black women voters be able to decide who to vote for when faced with both a black and a female candidate?." In fact I have been holding my breath and waiting for the article titled, "Left Handed voters from the South who know black females, find themselves torn between loyalty to left handed candidate or staying true to their Southern Roots."

While no one will ever claim that chants of "Iron my shirt" are anything but the sexist rants of a raving misogynist who should be deplored, denounced, (if not tarred and feathered) accordingly, this does not mean that the majority of anti-Hillary sentiment is steeped in sexism. The reality is that Hillary Clinton was viewed as polarizing by a number of men and women long before she ever ran for president.

From my perspective, I would say absolutely not, but only for the most part. Clearly, there's Chris Matthews, but while his remarks sound sexist, in actuality they are simply stupid, as are most things this vapid mimbo says.

I am in agreement with Keli, because I feel exactly the same way. I have zero problems of voting for women, or being led by them. I gladly report to two women at my job, and most of those who report to me are women, all of whom I have tremendous respect for. I also have a female representative in the House, Nancy Pelosi, whom I respect - and vote for, though I don't always agree with her. I also have tremendous respect for Barbara Boxer and I think she's an outstanding senator. By the same token, I have voted more than once for Dianne Feinstein, but I will not vote for again. If she were running for president, I would not vote for her either, and it has nothing to do with her gender. Nor does Hillary Clinton's gender have anything to do with my decision to not vote for her under any circumstance. Plain and simple, Hillary is worse than a liar. She is someone to whom lies come so easily that she cannot distinguish the truth from a lie, and this is a trait she shares with George W. Bush. She is not someone with the slightest amount of integrity, and that is what is most important to me.

With that said, I may continue to make remarks about Hillary Clinton that sound sexist, and they would certainly be more likely to be interpreted as being sexist since they'd be coming from a man. So I am quite happy when Hillary Clinton is called out by women - and not about her gender, but about who she really is. A liar. And a fraud. And a charlatan. And... well, I could go on.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

J Street

Finally, an alternative Israeli voice for peace. J Street. Check it!

Electric cars on a subscription service?

I think it could work! As a subscriber to City Car Share, I think monthly subscription plans could work quite well, and it only gets better as the infrastructure expands. Of course, there must be somewhat of a strong infrastructure to start with. But there's hope for the plan, and some big backers are getting behind this brilliant idea by Shai Agassi, formerly of SAP. Check it out:

Daily Snap!

I'm launching a new feature on this blog called the Daily Snap!, and what better to inaugurate this feature than with a wickedly funny snap from the Daily Show. In this case, the always terrific Jon Stewart fires up his pimp hand and delivers a volley of snappies to the biggest bitches - the MSM and Hillary. Oh, SNAP!

Monday, April 14, 2008

The Real McCain

I've got my copy! Buy yours today!

This should be a great read. I'm interested in learning more about a presidential candidate so despicable that he called his wife a "cunt" in front of reporters. Whether she is or is not in fact a cunt doesn't really matter to me, but I'd think he'd show a little more respect for the woman whose family is very much responsible for his entire political career.

What Would Jesus Buy...

...if he had to spend $3,000,000,000,000.00?

Who cares. But you can try to spend three trillion dollars, what the Iraq War is going to cost us. Come on, lets go shopping!

It's "Hug an Atheist Day"

Hooray for me! Someone give me a hug!

Adam's Goods to Go

While it's a damn cool thing that Adam is getting his Goods sold in Williams-Sonoma stores, they are also available for direct purchase at his new online store. Make your taste buds happy with these salts and rubs!

Man on Fire!

Annie, get your gun 'cuz Barack is bringing the heat!

This is classic Obama! Devilish grin, funny wit, and straight from the street smack talk! He should challenge Clinton to a shooting match... guns or hoops. I'd love to see Hillary knocked on her fat ass by the rifle recoil. Even more funny to see her stubby little legs come off the ground for a jump shot!

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Now that's art!

McCain's like a poor chef, insisting that his experience with the spice rack will render rancid meat digestible.
So says Jason Linkins. Based on the distinctions he clearly draws in his review of the recent hearings in the Senate, I'd say it's pretty clear on who is the most able to lead this country out of our current nightmare, domestically and in foreign affairs. It's not a woman, and it's not a white man.

A little bit of that hard truth for you

America loves liars

In fact, America PREFERS liars.

If Americans didn't love liars, we would not have been saddled with a horrible second Viet Nam that Iraq has become (as predicted it would be. And for the record, I'm calling "Iran" as our second Cambodia/Laos).

America loves liars as evidenced by George W. Bush being voted in as president for the first time in two elections.

America loves liars as evidenced by Hillary's continued survival in the Democratic primary.

America loves liars as evidenced by those shitheads among us in this country that still think McCain is a "straight talker."

America loves liars because we allowed the mortgage brokers to sell us loans we couldn't afford.

America loves liars because we ARE the liars who took out mortgages we couldn't afford, and we did so because we lied. We lied about our income, our assets, and our earning potential.

America loves liars because Americans ARE liars.

It is because of this that Americans cannot handle the truth, no matter how direct or how painful. Americans have been bottle-fed, and burped, and dismissed of responsibility by the leaders in the executive branch, leaders in the legislative branch, and leaders in the judicial branch (all conservative Republicans, for the record) who tell us all that it is okay to keep consuming and robbing the world of natural resources, and when it runs out here we can go take it from somewhere else, just like a virus).

Americans have learned to love liars, for when we're not working at Wal-Mart, we're shopping at Wal-Mart for items off the Made in the USA rack. But we don't bother to read the label that says the item was made in China, or Singapore, or Bangladesh, and when we do read the label, we just don't care. We feel good about ourselves when we bark and bitch and moan about jobs going overseas while we sit on our fat asses smoking cigarettes between gulping huffs from our oxygen tanks wondering why we're not making $20 per hour for stocking shelves from the motorized Rascals.

Americans prefer a big, fat, puffy rainbow of lies blown up our asses to hearing the hard sad truth that tomorrow might just be a less better day because of all the wanton excesses we were bullshitted into believing would be payable from that pot of gold we'd find as long as our Hummer 2s didn't run out of gas before it reached the other end of the shit-stained rainbows.

Americans love liars, which is why we're all too happy to rally behind Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's pathetic and worthless platitudes that they vomit and shit on us as easily as the air they breathe, promising another decade or two of the downward spiraling bullshit that we've been force-fed in our little Matrix pods rather than accept the cold, hard truth that if we want America to be what it once was, we're going to have to fucking work for it.

If voting for Clinton or McCain and the same bullshit of the last few decades is what it means to be an American, then I need a ticket out of here.

Obama or bust!

American Zero

I have been trying to hold back on this for so long, but I can't hold back no more.

The main stream media and press are so far up their own asses, and McCain's too, that the only way they will report honestly about him is if that one time at band camp he got caught with a "flute" in his butt. By that merit, the same 50.55% of Americans that gave Bozo Junior another shot at flying this country nose-first into the abyss is going to happily vote for McStain no matter what. Unless of course that "matter" is Johnny's cherry belonging to another man.

Hey, I'm not the one making it up, so don't shoot the messenger! But rumor has it, that like all great hotels, the Hanoi Hilton had a brothel. And we know all Republicans love their hookers. So I'll take it on faith that Johnny Mac may not have been a taker, but his record sure shows he has been a receiver.

Parse that as you will. But I also know that the only way Mac supporters won't give him their vote is if it turns out he had a gook wiener in his mouth, or up his chuff. I would love to hear Johnny Mac defend himself on either of those. His bloated jowls looks like he's swallowed one or two before. That he even calls his trophy whore of a wife a "cunt" in front of reporters is enough of an example of his latent homosexuality.

Just for the record, if Johnny Mac came out and publicly admitted he was gay, I might consider voting for him. I would consider that more honorable than being dishonest about it, and attacking gay people in a pathetic attempt to hide one's true sexual desires. is despicable, but being gay is as natural as being straight. So, I don't care one way or the other, but I know Conservatives care. That's why Johnny Mac will forever attack gays, because he wants vengeance against the "gooks" for raping him in the Hanoi Hilton. And because of that, he can't distinguish between one brown-skinned person to the next. It's why he can't tell a Sunni from a Shi'a. To him, they're all gooks, or towel-heads, or sand-niggers, or butt rapers, or the like.

So Johnny Mac is a POW hero who deserves respect? Fuck that, fuck him, and fuck anyone who thinks that! McCrap squandered whatever respect he might have deserved back in the 80s when he was swallowing Keating's cock while helping to bail out the bogus bankers who were shitting on the people who voted for him, just like he is today. Back in Nam, he might have been an American hero, but since he's been a politician, he's amounted to nothing more than an American Zero.

But hey, if you hate America as much as John McCain and George Bush, then go ahead and vote for another four years furthering this once great country down the toilet. Shit, these last eight years have been so fucking great, lets keep this party going!

Who wants to be an artist?

I am an artist who struggles every moment over what it means to be an artist. I struggle so much so that I refuse the mantle of "artist." The reason for this is that I revere that mantle, and hold it in such high regard that anyone who dares assume the honor and responsibility of "artist" must be worthy, absolutely. For a person to be an artist, that person must embody all that is good and noble, and all that is bad and horrible about humanity, and eschewing neither, but at the very least striving to present in their work the beautiful success of our human civility over our terrible animal instincts.

An exhibit recently scheduled to display at the San Francisco Art Institute by the so-called artist Adel Abdessemed, depicting various animals rope-tied by the neck to a stake in the ground bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer (by an off-camera butcher), was truly abhorrent, and inhumane. So much so that thousands spoke out and wrote so many letters of protest that eventually succeeded in closing down this horrible exhibition.

Rightfully so, in this "artist's" opinion.

To this day, I still do not know what the true intention of the artist's display of this exhibition was, so I can only guess. For a man to film himself (or someone) being so horribly cruel to animals, without offering any context - or subtext - whatsoever beyond calling it "art" (for art's sake?) is unjustifiable. The exhibition was presented with none such information whatsoever, and it was only after mass protest that the [artist] offered any frame or purpose behind his original intent. I don't buy it for one bit. The closest guess I can surmise is that this exhibit was meant to magnify how inhumane man can be. But for a man to be horribly cruel to animals for no other reason than to satisfy the wishes of another man wanting these acts captured on film is nothing short of horrible. For the director to want to capture these acts and call this art is even more horrible. This is no different than that same man filming himself (or some other man) cutting off the head of another man, and then calling it art. Instead, "non-human" animals are used, to the detriment of humankind.

Another exhibition by an artist named Guillermo "Habacuc" Vargas is equally horrible. This so-called "artist" abducted a stray dog from the streets, tied it to a stake in a so-called "art gallery," and left it to starve under the watchful gaze of so many art patrons, and other heartless humans, and called it art. Fuck him!

I understand deeply the controversy of art. I know that artists who challenge us intellectually and emotionally are often derided and hated by their contemporaries. I know that it is art what has propelled humans beyond animalism, and that it is controversial art that has forced us from one lower mindset to that on higher. Art defines humanity as much as does science, and art has pushed humanity forth beyond the dark ages of religious oppression, and art will always be our final salvation against all that is horrible about our most base animal instincts. Except when we celebrate our base animal instincts as art.

Wantonly causing the suffering of sentient beings and callously masquerading these horrible deeds behind the pretense of art does exactly the complete opposite of what art means to the furthering of humankind. If the horrible suffering of sentient animals is what it takes to move humankind forward, we are forever doomed as a species. And, if this is what it means to be an artist, I want nothing to do with that. Call me a proud philistine, and be damned the "artists."

To that end, I would consider it high art for Mr. Vargas to chain himself to the floor of a popular art gallery while passers-by watch him starve to death. For Mr. Abdessemed, he should do the same, but set up a video camera, and offer the passers-by a whack at his head with a sledgehammer. For if art be the betterment of humanity, so too would be the removal from the artist gene-pool of these subhumans. What better way for this to occur than by results of their own imaginations?