ALREADY, I HAVE WRITTEN
DOZENS OF COLUMN RELATED PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Sometimes I think I oughta
just change the name of this column to WHAT THE SHIT IS GOING ON IN
THIS COUNTRY?! I mean seriously.
Take this Howard Dean business
for example. I know the republicans are scowering the shit out of his
past. The media wants him dead, and they'll do whatever they can to nail
his balls to a wall and then pee all over him. You know, practically every
politician is getting a bribe or a blowjob or some stupid shit and all
everybody can find on this guy is, "he went 'Yeeeahhh!!!'"
That's a fucking scandal?
How did this even make it on TV? It's been the top story all week. Shit,
even Michael Jackson is real news compared to this! This is a
waterskiing squirrel. They're writing epic poems about a 2 second video
clip of the guy being goofy to rile up a crowd. I mean, they had more intelligent
discussions on the red carpet coverage at the golden globes. They didn't do that for Bush's "fool
me once, shame, shame on me, shame shame shame, you can't fool me again"
or whatever he said. They didn't do it for dropping his dog or falling of
a segway (previously believed impossible) and it took them months to notice
him standing on the aircraft carrier or saying "bring 'em on" or lying about
uranium or etc.
But Howard Dean goes "yyyeaaaah!!!"
in a funny voice and they're outraged.
I've been beating up on
Fox, uh, News for a long time so let me take some swipes at CNN. I can't
turn the fucking channel on without seeing Robert Novak (now known as "Bob",
he's on so much) criticizing Howard Dean. Novak was on one CNN show the other
day talking about "the now infamous speech" and he said "that was what Howard
Dean wanted to show America, and America didn't like it."
Oh yeah, Novak? Well America
didn't like you outing a fucking CIA agent in your column, but somehow
you are still working and being taken seriously. America didn't like you
leaking democratic memos stolen from their computers! (Don't tell
me you didn't think there was something suspicious about getting secret
democrat strategy memos from republicans. You're a grown adult
now, you can figure this shit out on your own.)
Two tips for the cable news
assholes if they want to have at least some sort of vague appearance of
being real news:
1. don't act like a guy
going "yeeeeaaahh!" is a serious issue worth discussing
2. if you're going to have
a political analyst talking about what the democrats should do, don't have
it be the white house plant at the center of two huge political scandals.
I mean actual scandals involving compromising national security for political
retribution and big time partisan dirty tricks ethics violation related
program activities. Those type of people don't have the most credibility,
in my opinion.
Of course, the way they justify
playing the "yyeaahhh!!!" clip over and over again is by saying that it means
Howard Dean is "angry." What the fuck? First of all, we're ALL fucking angry.
This isn't an unusual thing if Howard Dean is angry. If Bush doesn't make
you want to put your fist through a wall, you must be the fucking buddha.
Second of all, going "yyeeaahhh!!!" doesn't mean you're angry. The dude
was smiling. He was hyping up the crowd. When the "hype man" for a rapper
goes out and says "put your hands up! put your hands up! yeah! yeah!" does
it mean he's angry? No. He's happy. Angry is when you start tossing chairs
around or throwing garbage cans through store windows or rolling cars or
punching people in the balls or smashing heads through glass or "hulking
out." If he had been angry he would've worked "motherfucker" in there three
or four times and stomped on something.
I can predict what's next.
As the shocking "yeeeaaahhhH!!!" scandal begins to die down, and Dean builds
a little more Momentum® in other primaries, he'll be out in the
cold somewhere and they'll get a shot of him talking with a little bit
of a booger on his nose.
The clip will be shown on
the cable news channels, the late night talk shows, the sunday morning
talk shows and the prime time interview shows. It will be joked about in
monologues and discussed on talk radio and in newspaper editorials. CNN's
Talk Back Live will have a call in poll about how the booger will affect
Dean's campaign. The experts will agree that after "yeeahhh!!!" and now
the booger, Dean is finished. Mainstream voters do not want a booger on
the president's nose. Novak will say that Howard Dean may think America
wants boogers but America does not like boogers. Dean and his wife will
have to do a big sit down interview and Diane Sawyer will ask his wife how
many times in a day Howard has a booger on his nose. Does he ever wipe it
on anything. Does she ever have to do sort of a rub her nose gesture to
give him the suggestion that he should check for a booger. Even the people
who thought the booger wasn't a big deal at first will start trying to
defend the booger. He doesn't usually have a booger. Did you see that new
speech, he was doing a lot better, there were no boogers at all. It's back
to the old booger-free Dean.
Meanwhile we'll still have
a $447 billion defecit, I won't have fuckin' insurance, nobody will have
jobs, Halliburton will continue getting away with murder, Osama bin Laden
will be lounging on a beach somewhere, an unidentified 13 year old kid locked
up in Guantanamo Bay for more than a year without charges will start wondering
about changes in his body, there'll still be soldiers dying every day,
Afghanistan and Iraq will remain in total chaos without the democracy they
were promised for christmas, our nuclear power plants will still be unprotected,
John Ashcroft will be sitting hard on top of our civil rights, homophobic
zealots will be checking for margins to scribble on in the constitution,
STEROID ABUSE WILL BE RUNNING RAMPANT!, I guess...
...and we'll be talking
about "yyyeaaaaah!!!" and a fuckin' booger instead of what the fuck we're
gonna do about this mess these assholes pushed us into.
Now, I can't vote obviously, and if I would I would vote for ANYBODY
that would run against Bush. I swear to god, I almost would even vote for
fucking Lieberman over Bush, that's how hardcore I am about this. I would
vote for R. Kelly over Bush, even if he had a little girl for a running
mate. I would trust him more.
So I'm not going to endorse
somebody or say not to vote for somebody. But I don't think we should fall
for this media blitz that's trying to trick us into hedging our bets and
voting for the establishment democrat. I don't hear people saying "I voted
for him because I believe in him!" I hear, "I voted for him because I heard
he was the one who has Electability®." I'm voting for him in case
other people will vote for him also.
I'll say this about John
Kerry. I like that he's a vietnam vet who came back and protested the war.
His catch phrases are pretty good. He has three words for Bush: "bring it
on." (I think it should be "bitch, it's curtains," but oh well.) He has
a message for the special interests and all those fuckers: "We're coming,
you're going, and don't let the door hit you [where the good lord split you]
on the way out." (I would add, "I just cleaned it.")
But there's one thing I
can't get over: he voted for the Iraq war resolution. He fucking fell for
it.
Sure, it was cool when he
told Rolling Stone that he didn't know Bush would "fuck it up so bad."
And yes, he was lied to. But you remember my columns. I knew it
was all lies. You knew it was all lies. Dennis Kucinich and many
other democrats knew it. Millions of people all around the world knew it
and took to the streets to say it. We got pictures, man. We all knew it,
so you'd think the vietnam vet who came home and protested the war and now
he might be president - you'd think that guy would be able to figure it
out too. He's not Robert Novak. He's not Radio.
So Kerry voted for the war,
Howard Dean said "yyeeeaahhhH!!!!" in a funny voice. I guess they decided
which one was the bigger scandal, but I disagree with their choice.
One more thing about
CNN. I watched the state of the union on there. I don't know if you noticed
this, but at one point Bush said he wanted to make a constitutional amendment
to define marriage as "between a man and a woman." In other words, "I hate
gays so much, I'm willing to ruin the constitution to prove it."
If you think about it, the
whole idea makes no sense. First of all, from the government's perspective,
marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. As far as Bush is concerned, marriage
is a legal status. It's going into a court room and getting a judge to
sign a paper. It's signing up on the internet to be a reverend. It's eloping
at the church of Elvis. It's going on Fox and having america vote for who
you should marry using a touch tone phone. It's a joke gone too far about
britney going to las vegas and getting married for the weekend. Religion
has nothing to do with it on your end, Bush. That's not up to you.
And second of all, if you
have to specify it as between a man and a woman, doesn't that mean that
it really isn't? Like, if we don't SPECIFY that gays aren't allowed to get
married, then one would naturally assume they were, right?
Just to really hammer the
point home that these guys are heartless, amoral scumbags with the nectar
of human souls dripping from their lips and staining their thousand dollar
ties, Dick Cheney stood up and applauded the constitutional amendmant comment,
and his own daughter is a lesbian!
This no doubt will be a
notorious moment in history, like those pictures of George Wallace trying
to prevent black kids from going to white schools. This asshole is actually
asking to amend the constitution to prevent civil rights.
And after the speech I watched
a good hour and a half of CNN, supposedly the most liberal of the cable
news channels. They never even mentioned it! It wasn't even on their radar
as a major part of the speech. In fact, it's a week later and I still haven't
seen it mentioned on tv. No criticism, no praise, no footage of log cabin
republicans acting out that scene from SCANNERS. Nobody cares.
Meanwhile, did you notice this David Kay thing? In one of the state of the union's funniest gags, Bush cracked, "already David Kay's report has found dozens of weapons related program activities." This of course was a pretty big change from last year's speech, where there were hundreds of tons of specific weapons that could kill such and such amount of people.
And then to build on the
joke, David Kay resigns a couple days later and says he doesn't think there
were ever any weapons during the '90s! That was hilarious. I wondered how
they could screw up so bad that even their stooges are starting to turn
on them. But now I'm starting to suspect something more diabolical. As David
Kay does more interviews, he keeps putting the idea out there that the CIA
gave bad intelligence, and that Bush is a victim!
We remember, of course,
before the war, when the intelligence community was saying there wasn't proof
of weapons, and when they were saying their intelligence was being cherrypicked,
and that they were being pressured (including by Cheney, in unprecedented
personal visits) to come up with intelligence that would support going
to war. And now we're supposed to believe this.
Look, I'm no fan of the
CIA. I don't enjoy their work. But it is pretty clear to anyone who's been
paying attention that it wasn't their bright idea to go in there. George
Tenet even testified to congress that an invasion would be the only thing
that could cause Saddam to give weapons to terrorists.
But if this is the strategy,
it might turn out to be pretty funny. I personally wouldn't want to piss
off the CIA. Isn't that like pissing off the mafia? Imagine all the things
the CIA knows about Bush and Cheney that we don't know. If they piss off
the CIA, they could go down pretty spectacularly. Hopefully, they'll cover
it on CNN.
ABOUT THE OSCARS
The one thing that prevents
me from changing the column title is that these academy folks seem to be
getting a little hipper. There were alot of long shots I was pushing for
this year that actually made it.
*John Depp. A comedy role
as a drunken pirate in a silly summer blockbuster based on a Disneyland
ride. Completely deserving of an oscar nomination, but you'd never think
he'd actually get one. Hooray for justice.
*the little girl from WHALE
RIDER. (put another r. kelly joke here) This girl was flat out great. But
they were pushing her for supporting actress. Somehow she still got lead
actress. good job little girl.
*Triplets of Belleville
song. Perfect opening to the film that gets you absorbed into the world of
the movie. did you notice the cartoon Django Rheinhardt had fucked up trailer
fire fingers under his Mickey Mouse gloves? Later the song shows up again
in an amazing way. Plus it's catchy as hell which seems to be all these
nincompoops want. I was hoping it would get nominated but I was surprised
it did. Can't wait to see who sings it on the show.
*LOST IN TRANSLATION. Yeah
we all loved this movie but when we saw it we never thought it would get
nominated for best picture. That kid sure knows how to direct a picture.
Best movie from a Copolla since CAPTAIN EO.
Well I gotta go now but thanks everybody and drop me a line some time thanks
--Vern
2/28/04
I will be covering a number of topics this week, so if you don't like
one just skip to the next one. thanks.
ONE LAST TIME. GAY PEOPLE
CAN GET MARRIED. GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
Okay, I thought my last
column would be the definitive word on the gay marriage debate, but for some
reason they keep talking about this. Especially since Bush announced he
wanted a constitutional amendment to put some limits on that pesky "equal
protection" crap our forefathers accidentally left in there. This was treated
as big, historic news, even though the asshole said the same thing in his
state of the union address. which in my opinion is supposed to be a pretty
major speech. But anyway let's go over this again in more detail.
Let's say you've been an
unelected president for 3 years, and you've used lies, propaganda and false
premises to start two losing wars that you admit will last for many years
or even for generations. You've desecrated parts of the constitution and
opened an internment camp in Cuba that is sure to come back to haunt you.
You've gone from a surplus to the biggest deficit ever. You've lost a record
number of jobs. And let's say your poll numbers are plummeting and people
are starting to notice that this "recovery" you keep talking about still
hasn't happened, and that you never found the weapons you claimed you knew
for sure were in Iraq, and that your vice president and his war profiteering
buddies are involved in a new scandal every fucking week and that the stories
about you, like, showing up for your National Guard service may have been
a little bit, uh, exaggerated, and that even republicans ridicule your inept
attempts at a state of the union address and tv interview.
On a bad day like this,
who do you call? Willie Horton, of course.
For my young readers and
overseas types who don't know the story about Willie Horton, he was a black
convicted murderer in Massachusetts who was released on a furlough when
he raped a white woman and stabbed her fiancee. In one of the most notorious
cases of negative political advertising, the Bush Senior campaign used
Willie Horton's image to smear his democrat opponent Michael Dukakis as
soft on crime, even though it was a republican before him who had started
the furlough program. The basic gyst of the commercials was "Look at
this scary black dude! Michael Dukakis wants him to rape your family and
destroy the virgin innnocence and purity of the white race!"
People were of course offended
by these sleazy and racist tactics. The Bush campaign distanced itself
because none of the ads they made under their name actually mentioned Willie
Horton, they just mentioned the soft on crime shit. The ones that did mention
him were made by independent groups like "Americans For Bush" and "National
Security Political Action Committee" and I mean, how are they supposed
to control all these other groups? According to J.H. Hatfield's biography
Fortunate Son, "In a successful effort to provide his father with
plausible denial, Junior had raised the necessary funds and assisted in
establishing the various 'sponsors' and political action committees that
financed the controversial ads."
Well whether it was the
scary black dude or something else, Bush won that election. And now Junior
needs to do the same thing. Unfortunately, Willie was not available this
time around. Nobody believes in the "super predator" anymore, and if they
did they'd probaly put him on tour with 50 Cent. So what boogie man do
they have to keep us cowering under the covers? Loving gay and lesbian
couples. SPPOOOOOOOOKKKY.
That's right, 18 year old
voters. Bush = hates equal rights for gays, democrat = is against equal
rights for gays, but does not openly hate equal rights. In other words, if you don't vote
for Bush, your friends might think you're gay. Granted, a vote for Bush might be
a vote to draft your bitch ass and send you off to one of his wars. But
in the plus column, it also puts you on the non-fruity side of the more
important metaphorical war, the Culture War. You know, that war that seems
to flare up again every time a republican president is doing bad or a democrat
president is not doing bad. Because the democrats may be against gay marriage
and civil rights, but not nearly as much as Bush is. He's willing to fuck
with the actual Constitution! That's crazy! He's a crazy motherfucker! That's
why you love him! When you come back we might not be able to afford a real
flag to cover your coffin, but at least it will be very clear that you enjoy
sticking it in the pussy and not in the ass, unless it is a girl ass. There
will be no question, if you enjoyed anal sex before the mortar attack, it
was ONLY heterosexual anal sex, sometimes both loving and consensual, one
would imagine. Because that's what america and freedom are all about. The
idea of a dick going in a non-female ass is troubling. Very troubling. It
is an issue that needs clarity.
Okay, I'm calling bullshit
on this. This is the year 2004, isn't it? Let me... yeah, I just checked,
it is 2004. Listen to me people. I'm not gay either. And I can
understand your "trouble" and "confusion" I guess. For example I don't
agree with some of the hair dos that the lesbians have. I can admit that.
But that doesn't mean we need to go back into the Constitution and put an
asterisk next to the part about equal rights. Are you really telling me
with a straight face that if our forefathers had known equal rights for
everyone meant everyone everyone, that they wouldn't have put it in
there?
Let me put it this way.
I do not like Queer Eye For the Straight Guy. I think it's a gay minstrel
show. I don't like Will and Grace. That wacky gay spaz drives me up a
fuckin wall. I never read Rosie O'Donnell's magazine. I don't get Showtime
or live in England so I've never seen Queer as Folk. I hate Joel Schumacher
just as much as the next guy. I've never heard a Melissa Etheridge or Indigo
Girl album. I don't think that "YMCA" song is as cute and hilarious as
everyone else does at their heterosexual weddings. And I doubt I'd want
to hang out with Dick Cheney or Newt Gingrich's daughters. Is Nathan Lane
gay? I hate that fucker too.
But I think every one of
these people deserves the right to be with the person they love. And if
they spend their lives together, why the fuck should they not be given equal
treatment in their taxes, in their hospital visitation, etc.? Go watch IF
THESE WALLS COULD TALK PART 2, where an old lady has to watch sadly as an
oblivious relative gives away the belongings she shared with her lifelong
love. And tell me that isn't the saddest shit you've ever seen. You can think
it's icky when two guys kiss, that's fine, but to go out of your way to remove
equality from the Constitution - that means you are definitely, without a
doubt, a total fucking asswipe. (Scientifically. Sorry.)
There are alot of people
out there these days, especially women, who try to be open minded about
the gay guys. They LOVE to watch them decorate apartments on tv and make
obviously scripted "gay" cracks like "I see straight people." They like
to see them give makeovers on talk shows. They love their gay hairdressers.
And the drag queens! Oh, they're so much fun. And so are the lesbians up
there strumming guitars and hosting talk shows and wearing nice dresses
on HBO shows and shit.
If you enjoy any of those
things and you're against the right to gay marriage, then you are also
an asswipe. You are the guy from the A-Team in that movie "The Long Walk
Home," who loves having Whoopi Goldberg as a maid but thinks those coloreds
have crossed the line with their bus boycott. You're John Ashcroft making
racist comments in front of his governor's mansion staff of black convict
servants. You want them to tap dance for you and play basketball and sing
"A Wonderful World" but you don't want them to get uppity and start wanting
the same legal rights - er, I mean "special treatment" - that you have always
had. Yeah, tell me the best way to shave and help me spruce up my apartment
and speak armenian so I can propose to my girlfriend, that's great. But you
wanna propose to YOUR boyfriend? I don't think so. This is America, faggot.
Come on, people. Think about
what you're doing. You're trying to "defend marriage" by not allowing it.
You think that gay people are promiscuous, so you won't let them be in legally
recognized monogamous relationships. You say the parts don't fit, ignoring
the fact that they seem to be doing a pretty good job making them fit. You
say that marriage is about having children, but you're not changing the constitution
to say that people who are infertile or don't want to have kids can't get
married. You say that nature doesn't want them together, but you take medicine
when nature wants you to die or pluck weeds when nature wants them to replace
your chemically produced lawn. You say that the Bible is against it, but
you still wear poly-cotton blends and cheat on your wife and send your son
off to kill for his country even though thou shalt not.
How exactly are these people
going to hurt YOUR marriage? When you see two women in love sharing equal
protection under the law, does the twinkle go out of your wife's eye?
The magic just isn't there anymore, is it, now that men are holding hands?
Do you feel like, shit man, that ruins the whole point of why I got
married, now that other loving couples share the same constitutionally
guaranteed protection under the law.
What makes you think they
are going to "ruin the institution of marriage"? You really think they
won't do at least as good a job as straight people at that shit? Maybe
if you didn't threaten to shut down their weddings they wouldn't have to
rush into it, like you did. Maybe they won't cheat and divorce, like many
of the people who signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" did. (Larry Flynt,
where are you?) At the very least we know lesbians who hate each other won't
get married just because of a pregnancy.
(And by the way, before
you use that "marriage is only about making babies" bullshit again, could
I get you to swear on a Bible that you never want to get another blowjob?)
Now days many homophobes
are willing to use the old "some of my best friends are gay" line. But
for more people than they realize it is actually true. Like many americans,
I have gay friends and relatives. So this shit is personal to me. I have
managed to stay untouched by his wars so far. I don't know alot of arabs
so I don't know anybody that's disappeared. I still have income so far
even if my insurance is fucked. If I was like alot of people, I might not
have cared what he was doing to my community and my country and my world.
But then he stood there at that podium and looked into my living room and
said, "YOU! I'm going after YOUR family. I'm taking them out of the constitution.
Also I'm against steroids. See ya."
And the absurdity of the
gay republicans was finally revealed even to themselves, forcing the Log
Cabin Republicans to finally denounce Bush. Welcome to the club, guys. Wish
you would've thought of that before you became republicans, though. Hey,
stick around maybe you'll get your own TV show like all the black republicans
do when they find them.
If you are still against
gay marriage though, no problem. Just find a church that doesn't offer
it. There are many available. Meanwhile, the rest of us non-asswipes won't
care who is allowed to have legal partnerships by our fair and constitutional
government.
HE GIVES YOU SEATBELTS,
AND THIS IS HOW YOU TREAT HIM?
or
ATTENTION DEMOCRATS: QUIT
BLAMING YOUR OWN SHIT ON RALPH NADER
Okay, so Nader is running
again and I understand why it makes people nervous. They think it might
take votes away from the democratic nominee, and obviously we, as citizens
of the world, need to do whatever it takes to have ANY FUCKING BODY who is
not Bush in office as soon as possible. If you look at all the madness these
fucks have accomplished in 3 years, you can only imagine the nightmare of
4 more years where they're not worrying about re-election.
And honestly, one of the
big reasons people voted for Nader in 2000 was to show symbolically that
they didn't see that much difference between the autobots and the decepticons.
It seemed very legitimate at the time and it obviously has a basis in reality,
but Bush has worked very hard over these last 3 years to show that in
fact there is a BIG fucking difference.
So if I was allowed to vote
I too would be swallowing my pride, cowering in the corner and voting for
the lesser of two evils like a pussy.
BUT, that said, I am not
against my man Ralph running. So here are a couple messages for the democrats,
presented to you in a convenient numbered type format.
1. People like me (but who
are allowed to vote) are not democrats. If most democrats were like Jim
McDermott or Dennis Kucinich, we would be proud to be democrats. Unfortunately
there are alot more democrats like Tom Daschle, who was sent fucking anthrax
in the mail and still won't make sure the government, like, arrests the
guy they think did it. Or like Joseph Lieberman and Zel Miller, republicans
trapped in democrat's ties who are still taken seriously as democrats
even as they argue that democrats need to turn into republicans. We are
not in the same party as those fucknuts. We just usually vote democrat
by default, because obviously we're not gonna vote for a fucking republican
(are you insane?). But we'd rather have a viable third, fifth or seventh
party in there that actually stands for what we believe in. And we're
not going to let Bush or anybody else scare us into giving up on that goal.
2. Don't worry, we're gonna
vote for the democrat. But we don't have to fucking like it. John Kerry
and John Edwards both have good things about them. I like that Kerry co-founded
Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a very good group. I like a speech I
read that he made back then. I like that he voted against the defense of
marriage act (although now he seems to be going the other direction). But
he, like Edwards, still sold us up the fucking river in these last couple
years, voting for the Patriot Act and the Kill Everybody In Iraq resolution
just because the political mood of the moment was COMPLETE AND UTTER INSANITY
and it would be politically unpopular to, like, do what was obviously the
right thing. How are we supposed to trust the democratic party when they
don't consider those to be important issues? I hope either one would do a
pretty good job in office, but as senators they were not there for us when
it counted. They fell for that line of bullshit that you had to agree with
any horrible fucked up idiotic shit that Bush did otherwise you were being
unpatriotic. War on terra, america, freedom, there is a crying eagle, never
forget, boot up your ass, etc. None of us here in reality fell for that bullshit
and we deserve leaders that don't either.
3.STOP FUCKING BLAMING NADER
FOR 2000. The statistics don't hold that up and neither does common sense.
If I see one more person trying to use percentages to make a point about
this I'm going to whack him on the head with the book that explains that
we have an electoral type system here. If it was about percentage then there
would be no question, Bush would be working at the country club where he
belongs and not be president. Anyway if Gore had cared about doing the right
thing for democracy in Florida, he would've said to recount all the counties,
and coincidentally he would've won. Instead, he tried to play the ol' partisan
bullshit, he strategically chose the counties he wanted them to recount,
and it was only by that failed strategy that he lost. So he fuckin blew
it by getting greedy and then by stepping aside when they cheated. It was
Gore, not Nader, who decided that "the best thing to do for the country"
was to give up on democracy and let the republicans have it. Nader had nothing
to do with that.
4. Stop taking things so
literally. Just because he has the right message doesn't mean anybody's
gonna vote for him. His votes were insignificant last time. This time he's
running a less serious campaign, without the Green Party so he won't be
on as many ballots, with a much larger turnout of people wanting Bush out
of office, with people taking their votes more seriously after 2000, and
with an onslaught of the media, democrats and even genuine liberals attacking
him constantly as a spoiler, an egomaniac and a loon.
If you democrats really traded
in your values for "the most electable candidate" and the guy STILL has
a problem against George Fucking Bush, by far the worst president in the
memory of any living human being, then you've got a fuckin problem there pal
and maybe it's time to go Green anyway. Or at least curl up in the corner
and cry like a baby.
DUCK HUNTING WITH DICK
AND ANTON
Even if I wrote this column
every day I'd never be able to keep up with all the madness of the Bush
regime. But here's one that I keep thinking about. Dick Cheney, whose
refusal to release the documents about how his friends in the energy industry
wrote his whole fucking energy policy is about to go to the Supreme Court,
still thought it was okay to go shoot some ducks with supreme court
justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia's defense of course
is, "Dude, nobody ever told me I wasn't supposed to hang out with people
whose cases I'm about to oversee. When did they start this rule?"
I'm sure they will claim
that it's all real professional duck hunting business and they really
aren't very good friends at all and even if they were this Antonin is
a real good judge and he would never let his friendship with the guy or
the fact that he installed the fucking bastard into office affect the
outcome of the case.
But still, I would think
that Mr. Cheney, the consummate gentleman, would know better than that.
He would know that even if it is not technically illegal, it is a good
idea as a leader of our country to NOT CREATE THE IMPRESSION OF A BLATANT
LACK OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE and of course MAKE SOME TINY LITTLE GESTURE
TO RESTORE OUR NATION'S FAITH IN THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT
HE HIMSELF DESTROYED IN 2000.
I mean come on people. We're
talking about Dick Cheney. A real class act.
THE SUPERBOWL SHUFFLE
Some people have asked me
what I think about all this Janet Jackson business. Well, number one, Janet
Jackson NEVER held a candle to her brother michael. Sure it was cool when
she did that thing where she tipped over the chair, but I am not a fan of
Janet or Ms. Jackson in the case that you are perhaps nasty. I am not a citizen
of the rhythm nation. I was not impressed when she arranged a special about
herself to declare herself an "icon." (Michael's special he made for himself
was way better. He had Marlon Brando on a couch on the side of the stage.
Awesome.)
So as a former pop icon
struggling for attention, it was a brilliant move. Suddenly people are talking
about Janet Jackson for some reason.
I didn't see the thing because
I don't watch football. But what is the big fucking deal? Even babies suck
on titties. This is nothing new. If people were offended by the symbolism
of a kid who has made millions ripping off Michael Jackson turning around
and ripping off Michael's sister's shirt, that would be one thing. But
if all it is is a nipple they are scared of, I don't get it. I'm not saying
this was planned, but I think this is just another Willie Horton issue
like gay marriage. The republicants want you to think HOLY GOD, THE TITTIES
ARE COMING FOR ME. They don't want you thinking about issues like "Oh
shit, I have no job and my insurance money is so high that I can't afford
a flack jacket for my son in Iraq, and as far as I can tell my $270 tax
refund check doesn't really balance it out." They want you to think about
gay men throwing titties at your children.
We're not retards, we're
starting to catch on that every fucking election season they start talking
about THE CHILDREN, OH LORD THINK OF THE CHILDREN, how are we going to
stop them from the evil men with the dirty, dirty movies and video games
and prefabricated pop music with the pepsi tie-in? But bringing up a transparently
phoney non–issue like this in THIS election season, with THIS war going
on, is the biggest fucking baby maneuver imaginable. Attention all pundits
and politicians: go to your room, you don't get dessert. We're enrolling
you in special classes in the morning.
BUT TO END ON A POSITIVE
NOTE
The season is already over
so there's almost no point in bringing it up, but I just want to say that
that show THE SURREAL LIFE was even better in its second season than it
was the first time. You might remember my fascination with the one last
year where they were on the beach and Emmanuel Lewis heard a coyote and he
ran to the tent and pulled out a huge machete. This year didn't have anything
quite that spectacular but what it had instead was alot more heart.
If you're not familiar with
it, what this is is a reality type program but instead of just getting some
random assholes to live together and stab each other in the back, they get
a weird combination of celebrities past their prime. They only stay in the
house for about a week and they don't really compete against each other,
so there's less sleaze, but it's always entertaining because how often do
you get to see the gal from 90210 chewing out Corey Feldman, or MC Hammer
sharing a bunkbed with Webster?
The master stroke for this
season was casting both Ron Jeremy and Tammy Faye Messner (formerly Baker).
I'm sure it was supposed to cause tension, but the great thing is that
the two of them became really good friends. I'm gonna have to finally rent
that Eyes of Tammy Faye movie, because this show really made her out to
be pretty cool. She's like the nice old grandma you wish you had who accepts
you for whoever you are. There was one episode where she had a book signing,
and 2/3 of the people who showed up were drag queens or butch lesbians.
And she loved them.
I've seen Ron Jeremy make
fun of religion before, even getting impaled by a crucifix in his cameo
as a sleazy priest in Toxic Avenger 4. But Tammy Faye was so nice you could
tell he just loved her. Even in the last episode, where that crazy old witch
lady Sally Jesse Raphael made a guest appearance and tried to shame Tammy
Faye into turning on Ron, they stayed tight. Tammy said Ron was "the neatest
man I've ever met" and Ron said, "If someone tried to take a Bible away
from Tammy, I'd kill 'em."
The rest of the cast was
good too. Erik Estrada seemed like a really cool guy. I'd hang out with
that dude. Last season Corey Feldman was the jackass, this year that role
was split off into Vanilla Ice, Trishelle from the Real World and Brandi
somebody from Baywatch. Vanilla would always blow up and he'd call Estrada
"Hasselhoff" as an insult. I think that's unfair because there is no other
name to call a rapper that is worse than "Vanilla Ice." You can't go, "Shut
up, Marky Mark" because even that is considered a step up, isn't it? And
the Baywatch gal was ridiculous - she refused to bathe at first because she
didn't like the color of the tub. But all of these people end up doing something
nice or apologizing or something so they seem somewhat sympathetic by the
end.
But the highlight was definitely
Ron and Tammy Faye. It's enough to make an old man kind of sort of mist
up, in a way. It was like an Israeli and a Palestinian holding hands. I
love that show. I don't know how they can top it next year.
anyway that's all, more on
movies soon, I promise.
You'd think by now
I'd learn to stop apologizing for not writing enough. But I am a polite type
of individual so I say I'm sorry alot. It's what I do man. I'm sure as fuck
not gonna WRITE when I could be apologizing.
No, actually I am
writing, just out of the public eye for now. I'm working on an ambitious
project. I finally decided to bite the bullet and write me up a book. It's
not gonna be a collection of my works or my memoirs or nothing, although
I want to do those too. This is gonna be a very scholarly type of study of
the works of a specific iconic individual in the Cinematic type world. It's
somebody I've written about before, and I decided the topic deserved a whole
book. All you film professors out there, I know you're reading this, so leave
a blank line on your syllabus. And if anybody out there 1) happens to be
in the publishing industry and 2) has the balls to blow the lid off the world
of film writing with me, then let me know. But right now the plan is a self
publishing type deal. That means the book might be a little more expensive
than I wish so save up your allowance kids. It'll be worth it.
In the mean time I'm
trying to keep my sight updated at least occasionally. I've seen some good
movies like ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND but I figure if I'm only
reviewing occasionally I should stick to the violent and badass works since
those are my forte. So sorry I haven't reviewed that one.
Meanwhile I've done
a few early reviews for The Ain't It Cool News, and some of the fellas in
talkback actually complimented my "rants" in this column and said America
needed them more often than once a month. Well, obviously I love America,
so here I am boys, I'm gonna give you a new column. Because everyone who
likes my column loves freedom, and everyone who doesn't hates freedom, and
that's where the clash is.
Seriously man, that
last sentence - Bush really said that to explain why some Iraqis continue
to attack the foreign army occupying their country. Because they hate
freedom. They are worried that if a foreign army continues to occupy
their land, that it will mean freedom. So they attack that foreign army in
hopes that it will lead to tyranny. They are the opposite of freedom fighters,
they are freedom fighter againsters. They are fighting and even committing
suicide to stop their own freedom.
That's what Bush said.
What I heard though was, "You guys are a bunch of stupid retards, you will
believe any ridiculous bullshit I say, so I will say the most asinine and
illogical thing I can possibly come up with, and there will not be an outcry
and I will still be president. Ha ha ha suckers."
You can forgive him
for believing that because so far in his presidency it has worked pretty
good. But I think the camel has been carrying way too much straw for way
too long. And now, as a wise half man/half vampire once said, motherfuckers
are trying to iceskate uphill.
I mean I know their
poll numbers have been declining for a long time and most of their Karl Rove
maneuvers have been backfiring, but I think it was Richard Clarke that finally
made me believe they were going down. This guy goes out and testifies under
oath about everything we always suspected was going on in the Bush administration,
and they don't even refute a single thing he says! Actually, they refuted
a conversation he said he had with Bush in the situation room on September
12th 2001. They said that's not true, Bush wasn't even IN the situation
room on that day.
And America said,
wait a minute, THE PRESIDENT WASN'T IN THE SITUATION ROOM ON THE DAY AFTER
SEPTEMBER 11TH? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
And they said, no,
did I... no I didn't... did I say that? I mispoke. What I meant was, he
was in the situation room ALL FUCKING DAY. He would've been in there for
48 hours if there were 48 hours in a day. But due to bureaucratic red tape
there are only like 20-22 hours or some stupid Democrat bullshit like that.
But however many it was, he was there for all of them, doing all kinds of
leadership stuff. He was TOTALLY in the situation room that day. TOTALLY.
That's, I think that's what I said. That's what I meant to say.
They sent practically
the entire cabinet to the talk show circuit not to refute Clarke, but to
call him a partisan. A republican! From their own administration! From the
Reagan administration! A guy who was considered a notorious hawk! And now
he's a pansy liberal because he disagrees with them. And notice how they
all call him "Dick Clark" instead of Richard, to make him sound like some
goofball from TV's Bloopers and Practical Jokes. The same technique they
used for both Iraq wars, changing "Saddam" to "sodom" during combat. (And
what's the deal with Rumsfeld pronouncing bin Laden "bin LAY-din"? Is he
trying to just seem totally out of it to seem cool? Or is he the only one
who knows how to pronounce it properly?)
My favorite part was
when Dick Cheney said don't listen to Richard Clarke because this guy was
totally "out of the loop."
Yes, the VICE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES just told us that THE HEAD OF COUNTER-TERRORISM was
"out of the loop" about what was being done to stop terrorism.
I repeat. The VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
just told us that THE HEAD OF COUNTER-TERRORISM was "out of the loop" about
what was being done to stop terrorism.
I should probaly repeat
that one or two more times, but instead I'd like you to go back up two paragraphs
and read those again. And then pause to contemplate. Can you believe this
shit? This is real. This is the America we live in today. Don't you feel
safe? Either Clarke is telling the truth, and we're totally fucked, or Cheney
is telling the truth, and we're TOTALLY fucked.
This week of course
there was the Condoleeza Rice testimony. The testimony that she so badly
wanted to give, but just couldn't, but then when a historian on the staff
for the 9-11 commission faxed her photos from the Pearl Harbor commission
and vowed to send them out to every major media outlet in 24 hours, suddenly
she agreed to testify. I didn't watch the testimony (I ain't gettin up that
early to watch some lady lie) but it sounds like the highlight was when
she tried to explain how a memo called "OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE
WITHIN THE US" was not really a big deal because it didn't SPECIFICALLY say
to do something about it. I mean, how was she supposed to know she was supposed
to DO SOMETHING about al Quaeda cells within the US planning hijackings?
Just because they had caught Ahmad Ressam coming over the border with a huge
amount of explosives here in Washington state in 2000, that was no reason
to take al Quaeda seriously. I mean, if somebody wanted her to STOP these
terrorists they should've fucking TOLD HER. She's not a mind reader.
Maybe it was a misleading
title, like LAST OF THE DOGMEN or DOGVILLE. There are no dog people in either
of those movies. And what about HALLOWEEN III? That's not really a sequel
to HALLOWEEN. That briefing could've been about anything.
My favorite moment
of honesty in the testimony I've watched was from old Rumsfeld. There was
a point when they were asking him about why nothing was done to intercept
the hijacked planes on 9-11. He explained that protecting the borders is
not the duty of the Department of Defense.
And he's right, too.
The Department of Defense has nothing to do with defending the United States.
Why do you think they were able to make a whole separate department supposedly
for doing that? I really wish they would call it something more accurate,
like Department of Invasion.
I'm glad that all
this coverage of the commission is finally starting to make people notice
the HUGE FUCKING ELEPHANT that's been in the room the whole time. The one
I've been pointing to frantically all along and everyone tells me I'm a nut,
there's nothing there. Because somehow these guys really had people believing
that "NATIONAL SECURITY" was an untouchable strength of the Bush administration.
Even though they let the twin towers get destroyed and the FUCKING PENTAGON
TO GET HIT BY A PLANE (!) while Bush was on vacation. And then started a
war with a country arguably connected to the attacks, and before finishing
the cleanup ran off to fight an unwinnable war in a totally unrelated country
that did nothing to us.
These guys are definitely
incompetent and probably insane. But they are able to take their most glaring
weakness and, using the media, convince people that it is their biggest,
most undeniable strength. Yes people, although it SEEMS like we have fucked
up more than anybody has ever, actually what it is is we have shown Steady
Leadership.
Finally, it seems,
that myth is starting to fade away.
One year ago this
week, they knocked that statue of Saddam Hussein down for the cameras, and
Bill O'Reilly declared that it was time for those of us who were against
the war to admit that we were "on the wrong side of history." I'm sure O'Reilly
wouldn't be capable of remembering that he ever said that, but now it's a
year later and even he admits that Iraq is a horrible mess. Both major religious
factions beginning to fight back, a popular charismatic leader not in America's
backpocket, mercenaries being burned alive and their bodies paraded around,
civilians being kidnapped and tortured on video. That's, you know, kind
of a mess that maybe we should have, like, not started. But this is "a new
kind of war" so our army goes back to the same old standbys, the main one
being "fall right into their trap." I'll give you a few hints, guys:
1. DON'T shut down
a newspaper, if you claim to be bringing democracy.
2. DON'T kill their popular leader, as I'm sure you're considering.
3. DON'T blowup a fucking MOSQUE, no matter how badly they goad you to.
That shit looks bad, in my opinion.
I saw a story on the
news the other day, "Americans are beginning to worry about the cost of
war." That's interesting, because I seem to remember us worrying about that
before the war. Somehow WE knew that this would be a mess. WE knew democracy
couldn't be grown like sea monkeys. WE knew Colin Powell was full of shit
when he talked about those aluminum tubes and those trailers. WE knew that
if Saddam had weapons they were probaly old and useless. WE knew that catching
him would have no effect on the people fighting back, because they were not
connected to Saddam. WE knew that there was no terrorism in Iraq, but that
starting a war there might stir some up. WE knew that invading would make
the world hate us more and be a very successful membership drive selling
point for al Quaeda.
WE knew alot of stuff
that, unless someone is lying here, the government and the media didn't
figure out until very recently.
Now, this is probaly
asking too much, but I hope America and American media will learn a lesson
from Iraq. But somehow I suspect that next time this comes up the same suckers
will once again trust what the government says, no matter how fishy it sounds.
Because they want to believe in their team, they want their team to be the
best and they want their team to win the championships. There is no questioning
the team. The team RULES!
Unfortunately, this
time the coach is an asshole and the whole game is bullshit. I hope we can
fix this, but I'm not sure how we're gonna do it.
Well I've been wanting
to say something about this whole Abu Ghraib "prison abuse" (torture) scandal
for a while, but what exactly can you say that is not obvious or that has
not already been said by some other asshole? Well, hopefully I'll come
up with a few things.
First off, let's
get this out of the way: NO FUCKING WAY is this just the work of six or seven
numbnuts soldiers. Yes, those people are scumbags who clearly enjoyed what
they were doing and should go to (regular) jail for following unlawful orders.
But I'm sorry, I'm not a fucking retard, I'm not buying this bullshit. No
bottom of the totem pole grunt is going to be stacking up naked prisoners,
raping people with glowsticks, setting dogs on people, attaching wires
to people's dicks AND posing for hilarious novelty photos next to the victim,
if they are worried they might be found out. These people were comfortable.
There were apparently intelligence people shown in at least one photo, and
there were CIA people at the prison. I wonder which one of these six acting
alone bad apples brought along the electrodes, hoods, whips and chains? And
how did they know so much about the best ways to humiliate Arabs?
Sure enough we now
find out from Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker and somebody else in Newsweek
that this was an extension of a secret program of torture and sexual humiliation
that was being used against terrorists in Afghanistan, now being offered for
the average Iraqi on the go swept up at random and locked up for months without
recourse. It's a program signed off on by everybody going all the way up
to the number 2 man, Bush, designed to get information out of high risk terrorists
but used on old ladies who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong
time when we invaded the wrong country for the wrong reasons. Welcome to
democratic Iraq.
Clearly this is what
was expected to go on there and a lot of people had no problem with it. Rumsfeld
was very telling in his testimony when he seemed to have no idea that the
actual torture, raping of children, etc. was the problem. He thought the problem
was that there were photos. That was all he kept going on about. "Yes, I
knew this was going on but it's not my fault, because I hadn't SEEN the photos."
Of course, there were already reports by the Red Cross and if you've been
paying attention there was even a story in the AP long ago interviewing former
prisoners about the atrocities going on there. So once again we have that
wonderful choice: we have to either believe our leaders are completely inept
and don't even read the fucking newspaper let alone follow up on reports,
or (more likely) that they just didn't care.
I've already heard
interviews with two Iraqis (and I'm sure there are more) who took the Abu
Ghraib Challenge: they were locked up for subversion against Saddam and then
for who the fuck knows against Bush. And both of them chose Saddam as the
not-as-bad torture. That's not looking too good for America when you're torturing
people worse than Saddam. And this was not just happening at
Abu Ghraib. We'd already heard stories from prisoners in Afghanistan and Guantanamo.
Now that this scandal has hit the stories are coming out everywhere, from
civilians in front of Michael Moore's camera crew, to employees of Reuters
and NBC, to Iraqi police!
I will go one step
further to say that this shit is not new. Maybe these specific tortures
are some new innovations in depravity, I'm not sure, but I'm afraid that
the military, yes including ours, has a long history of human rights abuses.
That's what war is about. Go find a veteran from any war and they'll tell
you stories at least about other soldiers dropping people out of helicopters,
taking "souvenirs", burning down villages, etc. Even talk to the youngsters
who were "peacekeepers" between the two Iraq wars, you hear stories about
giving thirsty Somalians bottles of water with bleach in them or hitting
hungry people on the head with the butt of a rifle just for yuks. It's a
large part of the culture of the military, where you are mentally conditioned
from boot camp on not to think of your "enemy" as human. (Not just in the
US, obviously - but the tv matrix wants you to believe it's everywhere BUT
the US.)
And the Bush regime
has made this worse with their shameless post 9-11 propaganda. You know
the routine: It's a new kind of war and we need to take a new approach.
It doesn't matter what the UN thinks (they never get anything done), it doesn't
matter what the American people think (that's like using focus groups!),
it especially doesn't matter what EVERY FUCKING OTHER COUNTRY ON THE WHOLE
GOD DAMN PLANET thinks (they're just jealous of our giant military penis),
we know our cause is just and we must act now to defend ourselves from a small
time dictator in a tiny country on the other side of the planet who at any
moment could give invisible weapons of mass destruction to terrorists that
he doesn't get along with. The Constitution doesn't apply to our own citizens
because they are "enemy combatants," the Geneva Conventions don't apply to
the prisoners from our wars because they are not official Prisoners of War.
We will shock you and awe you and topple your statues and live in your mansions
and smoke your cigars and go door to door rounding up suspicious people to
put in your prisons. We will spend over a hundred billion dollars on destroying
you, even when our own economy is in a shambles, just to freak your shit
out. We'll let you plow through our soldiers without even showing their coffins
on TV and when we run low on soldiers we'll send in thousands of mercenaries
and when you drag them through the street we will invade your town and massacre
anything that moves (but not mention that part on TV, because it's so insignificant
to us) and we WILL have our revenge for what you did to my daddy and, uh...
oh yeah but we totally
didn't mean for our soldiers to be torturing the people they rounded up.
Oh my! This is appalling. Why, I was so SURE we had closed down Saddam's
"rape rooms" that I always talk about. Well, this is embarassing. When I
first heard about this I was so upset I couldn't even do anything about it
at all for months, including notifiying congress, until after the pictures
were shown on 60 Minutes 2: The Revenge. That's how shaken I was. But now
I've regained my composure and now, NOW, we WILL bring to justice those
six or seven lone wolf bad apples who did this completely on their own with
no knowledge, encouragement, culpability or responsibility falling on anyone
else at all. Unless you can pin this on Bill Clinton somehow. We're working
on that one.
I loved how Rumsfeld
said he would only resign if he became inneffective, right after he spent
hours claiming he had no idea this was going. You can't have it both ways,
Rummy. Either you're a useless incompetent boob or you knew what was going
on. Make up your mind.
BLOWING OFF STEAM
Now, I don't care if
you've been a republican your whole life, and you're 400 years old, there's
no way you can be a reasonable person and really believe in this administration
at this point. There is a point when you have to go wait a minute dude,
you're kind of an asshole, we don't want you in our treehouse anymore.
It's the same as with Rumsfeld. Either you purposely let these crimes go on
or you clearly have no fucking clue how to lead a country (or read a newspaper).
I mean I just can't
comprehend how they even do it. I understand not wanting to think your guy
is a loser. Let me give an analogy. I like Michael Jackson. The dude can fucking
dance. "Off the Wall" - not too bad an album. Sure he's a weirdo, but I like
a good weirdo. He's like Marlon Brando in THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU. As long
as he's not hurting anyone he's cool.
But then he gets accused
of molesting a kid and I start going uh oh, I hope Michael didn't really
do it. And he pays off the kid and I try to explain it away - I ask myself
why would any parent accept the money over a conviction if their kid was
really molested? But on the other hand why would Michael settle out of court
if he didn't do it? And then he hangs his baby off a balcony and I'm thinking
Michael, what the fuck are you doing man? And then he gets accused again
and I really, really want to believe they're just railroading him because
he's a weirdo. And I try to believe it. And I still hope it's true. But I
still find myself thinking oh Jesus Michael, what is your nose gonna look
like after 20 years in the can?
The Bush regime did
more than molest a kid. What do these phrases bring to mind:
election 2000, felon
purge, secret energy task force, Enron, Halliburton, story about goats, yellowcake,
Valerie Plame, weapons of mass destruction, "dead or alive," charter flights
for bin Ladens, Patriot Act, caravan of death, no one could ever have imagined
planes used as weapons, I mispoke, no 9-11 commission, Henry Kissinger on
9-11 commission, stonewalling 9-11 commission, refusing to testify to 9-11
commission, only testify for 1 hour, okay I'll testify but not under oath
and with Cheney and only one guy can take notes but nobody can record it,
mission accomplished, bring 'em on, made in the USA, weapons related program
activities?
And that's only the
beginning. These fuckers clearly do not pass the Michael Jackson test, and
I don't think I will ever understand how they have lasted this long, because
I refuse to believe that my country is THAT stupid. With the acrobatics that
have to be performed in the brain of a faithful republican to justify all
this shit, I expect all their heads to start popping like balloons by the
time commander in chief touches down for his triumphant appearance at the
convention in New York. I predict it will be a cakewalk and they will be
greeted by flowers and candy, and New Yorkers dancing in the streets.
The most amazing thing
of all is the people who are willing to actually defend the torture and cornholing
of the Iraqi prisoners. Even Bush won't do that publicly. But that didn't
stop Rush Limbaugh from comparing it to hazing and saying the soldiers were
just "blowing off steam." You know, boys will be boys. They're just kids
having a good time, who sometimes like to take people prisoner, force them
to take off their clothes and masturbate on video and then pile them up into
a naked ass-pyramid and pose next to it mugging and thumbs-upping. I mean
you had to be there I guess, but it was hilarious.
After Bush announced
that "justice will be done" I wonder why Limbaugh didn't go after him for
being too hard on these innocent kids just blowing off steam in the rape room?
Oh well, forget that
douchebag - what's scarier is that even after this there are nutballs out
there who think we should be more lenient about torture and degradation. I
swear on the passion of the Christ I saw the bastards at Fox news just the
other day doing a report about "Should the CIA really have to keep the kid
gloves on when dealing with dangerous terrorists?" It was bad enough when
you assholes were saying this shit before, but RIGHT AFTER a report about
what was going on at Abu Ghraib? Do you know what "raping juvenile prisoners"
means? Not okay for Michael, but you want it to be the official policy of
the United States? You people are unbelievable. If that's the way you feel
maybe you should write it on a glowstick and shove that bitch far up your
ass. And take a picture of it. You've earned it, Fox News. God Bless America.
CONCLUSION
Anyway after all this,
I now believe more than ever that we have to end this fucking war immediately.
A few weeks ago I thought there was no way this situation could ever be solved
militarily, but after THIS? Even if it really was a few bad apples, how would
YOU feel as a "liberated" Iraqi? Would you trust americans after seeing those
pictures? Would you want them in your country?
John Kerry (who you
non-felons should still vote for, because he's not Bush*) and many other democrats
are repeating this Karl Rove bullshit about "we need to stay the course"
and "if we leave now it will make it even worse."
Well I'm sorry, but
there will be an Iraqi civil war no matter if we leave now or 250 years from
now. The new Iraq cannot begin until we leave. As long as there are american
soldiers in Iraq, there will be roadside bombs and suicide bombs and rocket
propelled grenades and worse. To claim otherwise is willful ignorance. Maybe
you also believe this whole Israeli-Palestine thing will blow over, but you,
uh, mispoke. That small amount of welcoming as liberators we got, that was
it boys. Don't expect that if you hang around long enough, they'll start
loving you again.
No Iraqi government
that is chosen by the US, or with help by the US, or even endorsed by the
US, ore perceived to be endorsed by the US, will be seen as legitimate. Not
by Iraqis and not by most of the world.
Of course, to leave
now (or on June 30th, as I'm starting to consider a possibility) would be
embarassing. It would mean we, the unstoppable giant military penis of death,
can't do everything we want. It would mean that we were the stormtroopers
with those giant robot walkers, and the Iraqis were the Ewoks with the sticks
and rocks. It would give us another national hangover like Vietnam. It would
make it harder to get public support for starting new wars for a few years.
It would make Bush look like a loser in the history books instead of a maniac.
This is an administration
that never, ever admits it is wrong, an administration that has never apologized
until very recently when it was forced into half-apologizing for the Abu Ghraib
rape room fiasco. Obviously saving face is very important to these guys,
so I got a perfect way for them to save face. I am speaking of course of
seppuku, the ritual suicide that was popular among samurais in feudal Japan.
It was considered a good way to make up for disgrace and defeat, and sometimes
the only honorable path. I guarantee if Bush goes up there in front of Congress
and cuts himself open without flinching, it will be praised around the world.
"I very seldom agree with Bush's policies, but I must give credit where credit
is due. I fully support the president in disemboweling himself, he did a
terrific job and I feel proud to be an American on this historic day."
Even those sick fucks
in the various terrorist groups would probaly give it up to Bush. He would
no longer be AWOL George, he would always be remembered for the seppuku and
he could legitimately be considered a bad motherfucker.
I know it might be
a little weird but I think it is worth trying. Or maybe I've just been watching
too many samurai movies. But I doubt it.
Anyway, thanks for
reading, more soon.
--Vern