How ironic for them to rip off the Neuremburg Files.

A pro-Israel organization has set up a Web site to monitor professors and universities for pro-Arab, anti-Israel bias -- a move some academics are decrying as campus McCarthyism and attempted intimidation.

The site names schools and specific professors. Forum director Daniel Pipes said the think tank hopes eventually to monitor 250 North American academic institutions.

The full story here, and there's actually a nice spin to it... unlike the obvious comparison one can make to these site operators, that being the psychotic freaks who post abortion doctor information, professors are actually writing this site and demanding to be put on the list. Kinda takes a bit of edge off the "let's scare them into submission" angle, don't it. Maybe it's because unlike abortion, in the Middle East debate you can't just get randomly executed for having a contrary viewpoint.

Oh, wait.
 

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The latest from Media Whores Online, which on most any other day provides logical and rational informative political commentary:

In a nauseating show of bad faith, Michael Moore and other Naderite forces have threatened to oppose any Democrat who supports war against Iraq.

They've already jumped ship, playing the Republicans' game. But now they want to jump ship again, all the while drinking Karl Rove's well-prepared batch of political Kool Aid.

There are many shades of opinion on the Iraq crisis within the Democratic Party. Reasonably so. But the demagogue Moore sees no shades. And now, following Rove's textbook to a "T", he is acting as if its the ONLY issue before us, all else is irrelevant, all dissent from his position will be squelched, eradicated, killed.

It's exactly, precisely, completely what Karl Rove has been plotting since last spring. Politicize foreign policy in order to rip the Democrats to pieces, and keep the ultra-right wing in power for yet another generation.

In fact, these would-be moralists like Moore have only the most cynical views of the current crisis. They want to use it, pure and simple, to wreck the Democratic Party, which has been their aim (the same aim as Rove's) for years now. They fantasize that then, THEN, THEY WILL INHERIT THE EARTH. Just like the Communists in 1930's Germany.

Don't fall for it. Don't be tripped by these people, who have never had anything but their own sectarian interests at heart.

Ignore them. They want to sacrifice your life as well as those of your children and grandchildren in their bizarre experiment, the purported goals of which will never, ever come to pass.

Now, as I've said multiple times before, I don't side heavily with the core beliefs of the Green Party any more than I do with the Democrats, because my main interests in terms of politics are those that these two parties share: equal rights, decent education standards, and opposition of right-wing oligarchy. I will also repeat the fact that I am a big fan, and frequent reader, of MWO, specifically because they try to further these beliefs.

That said, this is completely fucking ridiculous.

I mean, honestly, what exactly is the point of this post they made today? It obviously isn't an attempt to change any Greens' minds (and viewpoints) over to the Democratic Party, because it gives them almost the same level of respect as a drunken husband gives his repeatedly-battered wife. Yet again the bastions of Democratic idealism fail to accept that there is a massive difference between embarrassing the opposition by disproving their theories and humiliating the opposition by dehumanizing them with insults. The former is the principal aspect of political debate; the latter is the easiest way to never want someone to change their mind ever again.

And Moore and Nader in tune with Karl Rove to use the idealism of Greens to destroy the Democratic Party from within as some kind of neo-Communist scheme? Of course! How silly of me to never have seen it before! And I bet the Illuminati are in on it, too! Oh, and the Kl'hurgs! Don't forget the vicious reptilian Kl'hurg invaders from the planet Zhimpak, who wish to take over the earth, barring the elimination of their only obstacle- Al Gore! My GOD, they've already brainwashed Cynthia McKinney! How many more must suffer before the madness ends?

I have the utmost respect for the mission and ideals of the people at MWO, but they seriously need to take a deep breath on this one. They of all people, being true supporters of the Democratic Party, should know that one of the party's greatest historical weaknesses is its disability in group organizational structure. stoking the fire of an already volatile base is not going to tip them back into the pot; if anything it's just going to boil them over.

And above all, I repeat that the attacks on Moore and Nader, who despite their lack of political campaign insight are still two above-decent human beings, is just plain silly. I hate to say it, MWO, but it's the kind of babbling accusations that one would hear at. well. at a Nader rally.
 

 

Oh, well this is certainly good and will lead to no future problems whatsoever.

A letter, with valuable link, from a new reader identified only as Bill the Splut. (Heh.)

Thanks for the very funny Scrooge post! It certainly cheered me up after reading about the main candidates to replace Saddam when-not-if we blow up the world again[.]

The CIA's 3 stooges: Either an Enron-level embezzler, a leader of the invasion of Kuwait and massacrer of anti-Saddam Iraqis, or the general in charge of using poison gas on the Kurds. I only WISH I could say that this surprised me.
 

 

Eh, who needs to go to work today.

This delightful little flash program lets you mix and match and create your very own George W. Bush speech. I could, and very well might, do this for hours.
 

 

Newest comic posted- "Bush is Nothing like Hitler." Enjoy.

Update: Less than 650 votes away from the Top 20, bee-yotch.
 

 

Nope, this isn't horrible at all.

From Michael Moore's website: A bill is currently being pushed through Congress that will give health care providers, including those that are federally funded, the right to refuse to perform abortions or administer contraceptive medication for personal moral reasons.

Let's get right to the point. This is a perversion of medical practice.

To be a doctor or nurse is to agree to attend to the needs of the patient. The law, and I believe the oath doctors and nurses take. requires them to respect, among other things, a woman's legal right to do what she wants with her own reproductive abilties. This is NOT an issue of "if you don't like it, go to a different hospital." This is an issue of "if you don't like it, don't be a doctor." I will not accept the idea that medicine is a consumer good that has bargains and comparison shopping. Essential services that refuse to perform parts of their services don't have the right to be one.

Being abortion is the only reason this concept is possible; the very notion that a doctor could refuse to perform heart surgery or prescribe any other form of medication because he doesn't feel like it would have his or her license stripped from them instantly.

My guess is that the growing coalition of churches and hospitals is the basis for this: all we need is for every "St. Someone-or-Other's" to suddenly have the legal ability to refuse women the right to choose.

The bill has been titled the "Abortion Non-Discrimination Act," which is a great name for a bill that specifically allows you to discriminate against the right to an abortion. Double-plus Ungood.

Among other things, it "Expands the definition of "health care entity" to include (in addition to physicians) other health professionals, a hospital, a provider sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, and any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.

Essentially, this means that a hospital hiring a doctor specifically to fill their women's services position could not be turned down because of his refusal to perform women's services. Congressman, please explain how that make any fucking sense whatsoever.
 

 

Bull(market)shit!

I am sure that I, as all of you who read stuff like this website, have been angered on more than one occasion by the rambling Randian rhetoric that is Forbes Magazine. But never in my life have I had to deal with this, the most ridiculous, baseless, un-researched piece of financial analysis I have ever had to deal with in this seemingly Democratic society.

Scrooge McDuck is worth only $8.2 billion?

Are you fucking insane?

Now before the flood comes to my Inbox telling me how this is a lighthearted fluff piece, how complaining about this is pointless and no one cares, I say this: screw you. I care. There are certain basic facts of life that I was reared with as a child that I will defend to the end of my life. Among the greatest of those is the simple fact that Scrooge McDuck has more money than anyone can ever goddamn dream of.

I don't know how the people at Forbes came up with this figure. I don't know how a reporter of Capitalism justifies Santa as the richest fictional character, either. Santa Claus is a humanitarian non-profit. I mean, duh.

The list ranks Scrooge at fourth, which is an insult. Even the vaguest glance at anything related to the mythos of Scrooge McDuck will place him far and above the richest of all fictional characters- more then Richie Rich, more than Daddy Warbucks, more than Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor combined. (I'd like to point out I have no beef with Bruce Wayne. He's Batman. That by itself makes him the most awesome person ever. But right now, we're comparing salaries.)

So, to the editors of Forbes, here's a little bit of help from someone with, granted, slightly more than a vague glance at the McDuck mythos. Time to make Poppa proud.

Scrooge McDuck is the richest living being, with a net worth so high it is incalculable by rational terms. His last official tabulated net worth was, to the decimal, five multiplujillion nine impossibidillion seven fantasticatrillion dollars and sixteen cents. (A multiplujillion, written in numerical form, is a one followed by about 164 zeros, greater than the googol, the highest rational number calculated by man.)

The list identifies his source of income as "mining." This is grossly inaccurate. McDuck earned his original wealth as a Klondike gold prospector, procured after he bought miner's equipment upon the sale of his great-grandfather's gold teeth, later to be found as the source of inheritance identification on a massive business deal involving the delivery of two century-old horseradish. Look, I didn't come up with this, it's all in the books, people. McDuck's business practices are wide and numerous, including oil wells, railroads, gold mines, farms, factories, steamships, theatres, ping-pong ball manufacturing, automotive plants, sawmills, radio stations, canneries, fisheries, race horses, experimental ice cream research, space travel, and newspapers.

McDuck also possesses investments which are, ironically, so valuable that the only person able to afford them is McDuck himself, thus rendering their value as not merely priceless, but literally incalculable. These assets include the remnants of the Trojan Horse, the Kaffer De Gaffer African diamond mines, the world's only candy-striped ruby, the world's only living unicorn and Egyptian Sebek crocodile (the rarest and second-rarest living animals, respectively), the only 1916 U.S. quarter in circulation, the Incan gold of Pizarro, rare chickens that lay square eggs, and a small moon composed of 24-karat gold, which in itself would be worth vastly more than $8.2 billion were it not for the fact that actually delivering the moon somehow to earth would cripple the entire gold standard.

This level of business and acquisition prowess, combined with the fact that McDuck has never, to any know report, willingly expended any extra money, accounts to a being that has so much soft money on hand that he needs a money bin large enough to hold its volume of 3 cubic acres. (Assuming a cubic acre is the square root of 640 square feet to the third power, that would make the volume of the money bin over 48,000 cubit feet.)

Let us also not forget, everyone, that South African businessduck Flintheart Glomgold is currently tabulated as the second-richest Duck in the World, as his last official net worth calculation is so incrementally close to that of Scrooge McDuck's that the ranking is literally due to McDuck owning twelve inches of string more than Golmgold. Again, folks, this is all there in the books if you bothered to read them.

So you're telling me that a duck who has 3 cubic acres of liquid assets and a fucking moon made of gold isn't the richest fictional character ever created? Shame, shame on you, Forbes Magazine. Now go run the numbers again.

(Happy birthday)

 

 

Jolly good Axis of Evil right there. Cheerio.

Anyone read that big 'ol report that the United Kingdom released earlier this week detailing how Saddam is actively trying to acquire the materials to make a weapon of mass destruction? Kind of makes you wonder where nations in the Axis of Evil might be getting their materials. Well, if you're Iraq's largest (and fellow Evildoer) neighbor Iran, the answer is simple: you get the materials from the United Kingdom. Now go get a towel and clean all of your coffee off the monitor.

So, what's the deal here? I mean, we don't let Saddam have aluminum, for Christ's sakes. We're giving his next-door neighbor a prime atomic weapon component. England: please feel free to justify your belief that I'm just paranoid, and that Iran really has alternative uses for Beryllium, a metal that serves virtually no other significant purpose than for use in nuclear and other military weapons, and that this is absolutely no way whatsoever the most ludicrous double-standard on behalf of the United Kingdom in recent memory. I'd really, REALLY like to feel better about this.
 

 

Participate in the great Iraq venture for only pennies a day! Oh yeah, and your soul. You're all going straight to hell.

Well, I think we can establish that the last shred of ambiguity has been removed from the international rationale for attacking Iraq. Apparently, as if some gigantic menu has been established in the back rooms of the U.N somewhere, various nations are now throwing in their personal bids for what they want in return for supporting regime change. Let's take a quick peek, shall we?

Russia wants assurances the $7 billion Iraq owes it would be assumed by a post-Saddam Hussein regime and that there will be less criticism about its Chechnya policy. China would appreciate support in its crackdown on Islamic militants in its Central Asia border areas.

France wants future access to Iraqi oil fields. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait hope for U.S. protection for their own vast petroleum reserves. Egypt and Jordan could use more economic assistance.

Turkey also would prefer that an invasion of Iraq not take place in the summer; the timing would be bad for tourism, a major prop of the Turkish economy.

So, let's see. Money, security, oil, security for oil, money, money, and... tourism (translated: money). Well. At least we have a good reason and all that. Oh wait, here's a few more that I just made up:

The magical land of puppies and ice cream wants only the hope that its children will grow up in a world where there is no more terrorism.

Switzerland, recently stripping its class as a neutral nation, wants in just to prove its masculinity.

Luxembourg is willing to provide its entire vast army of twelve men with big sticks for the heavy price of being easier to identify on a third-grade histor class wall map.

The illustrious armies of Narnia truly believe that by destroying Saddam all evil in the world will perish forever. However, their army suffers a critical flaw of being combat-ready only when you're not looking for them.

Denmark is bored.
 

 

A quick pair for your Tuesday morning rush

Ashcroft to Oregon: screw you.

California to Bush: screw you.

I'm sure the Bush administration actually has a definitive policy on whether or not they support state's rights, but hey, I'm sure they were just thinking "Ah, screw it." God, I'm witty.
 

 

Oh, and another thing

I've been getting these weird e-mails from some online dating/matchmaker thing that keeps telling me "Somebody likes you!" or "You have a secret admirer!" or something like that. I'm on the general assumption that this is just spam, which is why I never ever reply to these things.

So if, in fact, you are trying to let me know you are secretly in love with me, it would be really helpful, as well as beneficial to our future relationship, if you just came out and told me that you want me. I'm sure I'd appreciate it. For one thing, I'm aware that there's apparently this influx of really hot chicks making their presence known on LiveJournal. I'm so up for that.

First of all, I'm not as bright as you think, so when I get these secret admirer e-mails I cannot even for the life of me grasp whom it might be. I mean, sure I've got idea on who I'd like it to be, but I doubt that "my entire Senior year's Girls Soccer team" actually has a valid e-mail address, not to mention that I know God hates me, which eliminates Plan A.

Second, I have a horrible, horrible memory. So every now and then I get random e-mails or IMs from people who tell me something in a familiar tone, or even go as far as to compliment my personal appearance, and I have no fucking clue who these people are because I met them maybe eight months ago and we talked for five minutes and between then and now I must have hit myself on the head with various heavy things at least seven or eight times.

So, seriously: ladies. I'm a guy. Guys are, on the whole, rather dumb. So if you're actually trying to make the first move here it would really help if you gave me just a slightly less-subtle sign, because to be perfectly honest, despite all my apparent rapier political wit, when it comes to romance I get distracted by shiny objects. Oh, and blonde girls in tight clothing. I get distracted by those a lot too.

Update: Wow, did not expect that many people to write, especially the one or two girls who expressed their apparent undying love for me. Thanks to all, even though none of you provided suggestive photos. I'm kidding. I swear.

Second Update: Advance apologies to anyone who linked here from any of the women's rights websites that referenced any of my abortion articles or other women's issues. The humble artist/writer of this comic and its website wishes to express thouroghly that he is not, in fact, a sexist asshole, and is simply, for the record, a 21-year old single male.
 

 

"Timmy, I failed you because you're a friggin' idiot."

Though not necessarily the World's Stupidest IdeaT, I'll mark this as one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life. Apparently students in high school across the country are using "netspeak" in their homework assignments:

Deborah Bova, who teaches eighth-grade English at Raymond Park Middle School in Indianapolis, thought her eyesight was failing several years ago when she saw the sentence "B4 we perform, ppl have 2 practice" on a student assignment.

"I thought, `My God, what is this?' " Ms. Bova said. "Have they lost their minds?"

No, Ms. Bova, but I'm afraid they have lost their brains. At what point did teenagers become stupid?

I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm going to get a debate here, but I'm holding no quarter to this. It's English. And even if it was History, or Math, or any other course where you're supposed to write something as an assignment, using 'net abbreviations (translated: made-up words) merits an automatic decrease in grades. Little Tiffany with the B4's and the ppl's up there needs a bit more. If that's a 14-year old, I think the PalmPilot needs to go away for a while, because this is obviously someone who should not be near any mechanical or electronic equipment until she learns how to fucking read and write.

See, I'm aware that I'm not an English major. This is something that my mother, who is an English major, inadvertently pointed out to me any time she ever critiqued at my request anything I ever wrote during school. I am aware, however, that my problems in writing for this site are not because of my poor English, but because I never learned how to type. I average thirty-seven typos for every fifteen words I write. I've gone through five backspace keys on this computer alone.

I will also acknowledge that I do not, technically, have handwriting. In other words, I don't remember how to write in cursive anymore, having not been forced to do so since third grade. I mean, honestly, when was the last time any of you sat down and hand-wrote a long personal note to someone? I understand that technology has made e-mail replace the pen and the stamp. But you know what, kids? When I write someone an e-mail I do my best to write is as if I'm actually talking to them in a coherent language.

It's really quite simple. You probably say "fuck" in front of your friends. You don't say in front of your English teacher. So do them all a favor and don't write the equivalent of verbal epithets on your assignments just because your used to doing it in front of your friends, okay? You're all being idiots. Stop it.

 

 

Just in case you didn't think it was this obvious that all of this fighting makes no goddamn sense whatsoever

Until his death at the hands of a Palestinian suicide bomber in Tel Aviv, 19-year-old Yoni, a bright, engaging Jewish student from Glasgow, had lived a life of privilege in the neat tree-lined streets of the city's southside.

Yasmin, a seven-year-old Palestinian schoolgirl, had grown up in startlingly different surroundings: war-torn Ramallah. Worse, she had suffered kidney failure a month short of her fifth birthday.

Last night, it emerged that, true to Yoni Jesner's wishes, his Scots family had instructed doctors to donate their son's kidney to a Palestinian refugee.

Dina Abu Rimila, the young girl's mother, said last night that Joni had saved her daughter's life. She said: "I don't know how to thank the family of the victim of the attack. I and my family feel for the pain and thank them for the donation that saved my daughter's life."

The full story here. I recommend reading it and then taking a few few minutes to think about it.
 

 

Weekend Roundup

Okay, I've noticed, both as I check the blog backlog and the comics I've been working on, that most of what we've all been talking about this week has been Iraq. And rightly so, considering all the stuf that's gone down this week in regards to it.

That said, I've officially been overwhelmed with the continuing influx of Iraq-related news, so I'm gonna throw these in with all the other noteworthy reader letter this week and try to get back to some other work.

Assuming all of the stories I have been given are true, the following additional revelations have come to light about Iraq that have not already been discussed on this or one of the "major" sites: Bush planned Iraqi regime change before he even became president, Bush Sr. during his stint at the CIA was largely responsible for arming the man he and his son would later declare as the worst man alive, and Bush wants to officially adapt the military strategy of the United States as one that by any means necessary will not allow any other nation to become a superpower. Oh goody. Thanks to Thomas as well as one or two other people who did not provide actual names in their e-mails. I still love you all, though.

All of the aforementioned articles furthers the statement I made a few days ago in that our country is clearly being run by a cadre of individuals who do not care that at least two or three of their own have completely lost their minds. In addition, reader Syke provides this story about the protestors during Rumsfeld's speech the other day, with the following noteworthy comment:

Is it just me..or is there a slight contradiction here? AFTER two women are removed from a Congressional hearing room by capitol police for asking questions (that the the Congressman should have been asking) Rumsfeld says this:

"Of course, people like that are not able to go to Iraq and make demonstrations like that because there is no free speech."

Well, umm, if they were escorted out by capitol police..then they really couldn't make a demonstration questioning plans to go to war? Hello?!

Good point, Skye, but clearly we have not been dealing with logic in regards to Iraq for the last few weeks... or in the eyes of some, the last few years. And I'd rather not spend any more time this weekend thinking about how much worse it's going to get, so I am really going to do my best to make my next post about something non-Iraq related. Next week's comic, I can make no promises, because after reading this story I think we might be having an old friend(?) coming to visit the strip again.
 

 
I don't have a title for this post, because frankly I just couldn't think of one. At first it might have been one of those offhanded "The President of the United States has gone completely insane, part whatever" tidbits, but it goes beyond that.

Likewise, I reflect now on how I am glad I do not drink alcohol, because if I did I would have been consuming it for, oh let's say the last three hours. You see, an interesting little story has just come out from the BBC, because, of course, God forbid the United States would bother to report something as insignificant as this when the first episode of Survivor is airing tonight and all.

The American secretary of state, Colin Powell, has said the United States will find ways to stop weapons inspectors going back to Iraq unless there is a new United Nations Security Council resolution on the issue.

I'm sorry. You might have missed that. I'd be happy to reiterate.

The United States is threatening to prevent U.N. weapon inspectors from entering Iraq.

The United States of America- that's the Good Ol' USA- just in case you might have made a mistake or something- the nation that, for twelve years now, has sanctioned and threatened (and enacted) multiple bombings of Iraq because of their refusal to allow weapons inspectors into their country- is now not only saying they do not want to send in inspectors just yet, but they are threatening, assumedly with military force, to block anyone else, assumedly the United Nations, from doing it themselves.

My fellow Americans, this is beyond killing irony. This is the savage raping of irony and leaving it to bleed to death in an abandoned alley. This is covering irony in gasoline and setting it on fire, waiting for it to cool just so we can get close enough to urinate on the smoldering ashes. This is going back in time and melting the arm and brain-chip of irony so that it never has a chance to exist in the future and come back to the present day and challenge mankind for dominance.

This is something else, something in which the human mind cannot grasp the appropriate word for just yet.

Now, we have discussed many times how the President is not likely the main man in charge of the country, if you know what I'm saying. But someone out there, up in the halls of the West Wing, or maybe deep in the basements of the Pentagon.. one of those guys has some clout. And one of those guys has completely lost his mind. And I don't mean in a cutesy "let's make a funny post title" insane, I mean a genuine "this man is no longer fit for office and need a doctor right now kind of way.

And I think it is very important we find him and get him out of the loop immediately.

I suggest we send some inspectors. As we can see, it's not like they're going to busy in Iraq any time before. oh, I'd guess the first Tuesday in November.

 

 

We'll be foolish... er, fooled... again

I'f you didn't watch it last night on The Daily Show, then I'm sure you've heard the clip somewhere else or read the transcript by now of our fearless leader blatantly forgetting what he was saying in the middle of saying it.

For the last two years now, longer if you count the election season, there's been the whole argument about why we keep finding Bush's garbled words so hilarious. I'm sure there's more to it than my own little viewpoints, but since one's own little viewpoints are exactly what personal website were created for, here's my attempt at a (gasp!) rational, somewhat non-partisan analysis of Bush's waning vocabulary:

Bush is a president who is seen by many as the embodiment of the spoiled rich brat who has had his entire life handed to him. He took the helm from a long line of percieved characters: a slick bullshitter, a wimp trying to re-assert himself, a "man's man" former cowboy actor trying to keep his screen presence, a grassroots non-politician, and... okay, Ford really didn't reflect anything. He just fell down a lot. It's not like anyone voted for him.

George W. Bush, however, instead of working around or capitalizing on the stereotypes his critics give him, seems to almost endorse happily every notion of "un-presidentialness" that is handed to him. He brags proudly about his near-failures in college, becomes adversarial when approached by those who seem to be testing his intellectual ability, allows himself to be videotaped picking his nose and giggling about a woman being sentenced to death, and is known in press clips more by his vacation slides in Texas than his determined actions in the White House. In essence, Bush's character goes out of its way to convince everyone in the country that he's some simple dolt who still doesn't understand why he's been put in charge of the country. Well guess what, good job, I believe it. In the eyes of the world media, he's not acting like a statesman. He's acting like a goddamn Spice Girl.

As opposed to Bill Clinton, where his opponents reflected on his eloquence and speaking abilty with the notion that he is, rightly believed, handing large shiny Franklin Mint collector's plates of raw bullshit to us, Bush's inabilty to string two coherent sentences together reminds us of all the faults that completely bastardize his entire moral viewpoint: it invokes the slurred speech of a former drunkard, the ignorant vocabulary of an uncaring college frat boy, the attention-deficient ramblings of someone who does not seem to have a grasp on, or a remote concern for, the fact that he is the leader of the free world.

Regardless of the inherent personal views of a person (and our personal views toward that person) the president is still the representative of this nation to the rest of the world. The Right railed on Clinton's sex life about how his infidelities made the icon of the American a damaging one in the eyes of the world. Though they picked a stupid theme of a person's private life, which shouldn't be looked on by anyone, let alone everyone on the planet, the Right was accurate about the notion that the president is supposed to represent the dominant actions and thoughts of the country. And how the hell are we supposed to be proud of the idea that the world might very well believe we all act and talk like him?
 

 

Gosh, it must be a typo... one of those typos that melts the polar ice cap.

For the first time in six years, the annual EPA report on air pollution mysteriously omits the entire section on global warming.

Well, golly, that must mean global warming doesn't exist anymore. My god, that was easy. Stay tuned for further updates on how the government thinks we're all complete idiots.
 

 

Apples and what may or may not be oranges

I'm sure I'm going to get mixed reactions to this because of what may or may not be a disagreement in context, but this just makes no sense to me.

A statue created in the memory of those who died at the World Trade Center last year by doing what many considered to be "leaps of faith," and equally considered many as the ultimate sign of psychological breakdowns of the human emotion- leaping from the windows of the Twin Towers to their deaths- has now been covered up because of complaints by disturbed viewers.

The statue, depicting a naked woman in an upside-down tumbling pose, was considered too graphic by attendees at the memorial statue garden in Rockefeller Center where it was displayed until today's covering.

Okay, here's where I get a little confused. Almost a year ago, conservative shit hit the media fan because an artist tried to make a statue commemorating the lost firefighters of September 11th, in which the statue was based on the famous "flag-raising photo" save the small exception of two of the firefighters being of different races than their white representatives in the photo. This was, in the midst of the Enron scandal, the Afghanistan bombings, and the still-smoldering rubble of the World Trade Center, considered to be something that people should for some reason care about.

In other words, a year ago there was massive public outcry because a memorial statue doesn't accurately depict the real event, and now there's public outcry because it does.

I understand that there's the huge potential for apples and oranges here: one statue was depicting the actions of those who were saving lives while the other depicts the act of someone ending theirs. but then there's my argument- who exactly confirmed that? Tom Tomorrow said in a cartoon about the controversial "Sensation" art exhibit that the reason a painting covered in dung is deemed offensive to the Virgin Mary is because a painting covered in dung is named "The Holy Virgin Mary." Likewise, these statues are deemed offensive because everyone automatically related them as historical representations of actual events rather than what they really are- the emotional visions of the artists who made them.

As far as I'm concerned both parties were wrong in both cases. Art is meant to be controversial, and art is meant to be interpretive. It does not mean that by interpreting it as controversial you've got carte blanche to demand its removal from existence.
 

 
Newest comic posted: "Iraq just gives everyone good ideas."

The usual deal. Read the comic, try to laugh, vote for me, make me famous. Fantasize about knowing me, being with me, having me. No. It is taboo. We can only express our love... through the Top100 voting button. Click it, and think of me. Farewell.
 

 

Your tax dollars at work, folks.

U.S. to spend $200 million to promote international support for invading Iraq. Gosh. I guess we can afford it, what with all the money we've been saving not buying oil from them and all. Oh, wait.

I found this on Salon via Joe Conason's journal, who adds this to the story:

According to today's Times of London , the administration plans a $200 million worldwide propaganda "blitz" to convince foreign and domestic audiences that military action against Saddam is unavoidable. The campaign will be "overseen by the Office of Global Communications, whose existence will not be formally announced until next month."

So, not only do we want Saddam's ass served at breakfast, we're going to spend enough money to give every citizen of Iraq free food and housing for the rest of their lives to bribe encourage the U.N. to agree with us on a war. To top it all off, it's going to be handled by a commitee that hasn't been created yet, which to some might suggest that it's being created solely for this purpose. (I guess they have some free offices what with all the HHS jobs they've been slashing this week.)
 

 

"Oh, that's not unethical and immoral, it's just good science!"

Tidbits from a recent Washington Post article:

The Bush administration has begun a broad restructuring of the scientific advisory committees that guide federal policy in areas such as patients' rights and public health, eliminating some committees that were coming to conclusions at odds with the president's views and in other cases replacing members with handpicked choices.

Some sources suggested the committee had angered the pharmaceutical industry or other research enterprises because of its recommendations to tighten up conflict-of-interest rules and impose new restrictions on research involving the mentally ill.

Other sources said the committee had run afoul of religious conservatives when it failed to support an administration push to include fetuses under a federal regulation pertaining to human research on newborns. Some within HHS said they'd heard the department may reconstitute the committee with a purview that includes research on human fetuses or even embryos -- a change seen by some as part of a larger administration effort to bring rights to the unborn.

Consistent with that possibility, HHS officials recently told committee members they hope to name Mildred Jefferson to a reincarnated version of the committee that the department hopes to create. Jefferson is a medical doctor who helped found the National Right to Life Committee and who three times served as that organization's president.

At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.

The full article here.
 

 

And now, we revel in our psychic abilities and then start bashing our heads into the wall

Less than twelve hours ago, I wrote a post in which I gave this exact quote:

This concept isn't even an argument; it's a fact. War will raise the approval of the commander-and-chief and his party, through a combination of blind hatred for whoever we branded the enemy, honest American support of their leader in a time of trouble, and complete fear that refusal to emit such support will have them arrested and detained for an unknown time without bail or a hearing.

The question, of course, is whether or not Bush honestly wants to invade Iraq solely for this reason. Well, we now have a way to determine this. As it turns out, the chief weapons inspector for the United Nations has now stated that even if Iraq conceded to unrestricted inspections this very afternoon, it would take at least five months to prepare and perform the inspections. This means, strangely enough, that Saddam could very well cripple Bush's plan by surrendering.

I was rather surprised, reading the evening news, that not only had Iraq, in fact, conceded this very afternoon to unrestricted inspections, but that the US, in less than the time it would take me to spit my Diet Coke over the monitor after reading that I had offhandedly and in no way expectedly telegraphed this, had actually answered the very question I posed in my previous post.

And I just bet you can guess the answer.

That's right. Iraq has offered to allow inspectors back and the U.S. officially does not three-fifths of a fuck. Says White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "it is a tactic that will fail."

What tactic? SURRENDERING?

Granted, there is a significant chance that Saddam is lying about this, but if he's not, then he's simply proving a fact that kept him in power for over two decades: he's not an idiot. Saddam, just as I did, realized that actually caving in right now gives him the upper hand in the majority of outcomes that could result from this. As I said yesterday, the stirring irony is right there in front of him: it has suddenly occurred to Saddam that he can make the U.S. look like the biggest, most arrogant, most incorrect piece of shit in the entire world simply by giving them everything Bush demanded at the U.N. last week. (And, on a side note, saving thousands of lives in the process.)

Unless, of course, Saddam Hussein reads this website and simply stole the idea from me. In which case I can only provide this statement: Saddam, it's standard protocol to give me a mention and maybe a site link- just something simple like "I read XQUZYPHYR & Overboard every day in the Washington Square News- NYU's quality student-run, student-published newspaper. Oh, and death to America." Oh, and your romance novels suck.
 

 

Timelines and pipelines

There are, effectively, only two significant reasons the United States has any interest in bombing the once-living hell out of the Arab Middle East. Strangely, both of them should be the most blatantly obvious reasons to anyone who actually sat down and thought about it, yet pundits will dismiss both as a violently un-American sentiment.

First of all, there is the idea that bombing Iraq will immediately raise George Bush's, and therefore the Republican Party's, approval ratings a mere few weeks before what many consider on of the most evenly-matched yet massively decisive mid-term elections in this generation. This concept isn't even an argument; it's a fact. War will raise the approval of the commander-and-chief and his party, through a combination of blind hatred for whoever we branded the enemy, honest American support of their leader in a time of trouble, and complete fear that refusal to emit such support will have them arrested and detained for an unknown time without bail or a hearing.

The question, of course, is whether or not Bush honestly wants to invade Iraq solely for this reason. Well, we now have a way to determine this. As it turns out, the chief weapons inspector for the United Nations has now stated that even if Iraq conceded to unrestricted inspections this very afternoon, it would take at least five months to prepare and perform the inspections. This means, strangely enough, that Saddam could very well cripple Bush's plan by surrendering.

On the other hand, this could only strengthen Bush's rhetoric in that we "need to take out Saddam now before he develops weapons of mass destruction." By rationalizing (if Bush can actually rationalize) that at a very minimum, the alternative to bombing would take five months, then he might be able to convince the people that we just can't wait that long. How ironic that would be, seeing how we've waited eleven years for Saddam to do something and now five more months is too late.

The second reason, of course, is oil. There's no other significant reason we would give a damn about these countries. Iraq has enough oil to dramatically alter the percentage ratio in terms of European and U.S. export. European countries do not specifically want Saddam replaced, only any form of resolution which lifts the sanctions and allows countless deals in play to finally come to Baghdad. European nations, not to mention Israel and adjacent Arab nations to Iraq, however, don't (or shouldn't, at least) endorse the "easiest" solution of invading the place, because if it turns out Saddam does have nukes or VX rockets he's going to unload all of them at random before the troops come in.

Compare the threat of Saddam Hussein to Hitler all you want; just make sure you're aware that Saddam is not going to end his term by putting a gun in his mouth. The endgame for forcible removal of Saddam involves Saddam, and whoever wished to avenge him afterwards, taking as many American, Israeli, Kird, and Saudi lives with him.

But even with the conflict in Iraq tied up, there is always the great cause in Afghanistan. And this one should be a concept that no one could have denied the idea of- hell, Ted Rall wrote about this an entire year ago. The only reason this country has any concerns to the US is because digging a long hole straight down the middle of the country creates a pipeline from the Turkmenistan oil fields to the Caspian Sea.

Any rhetoric about "they oppress women" or "they funded the terrorists" can be directed to the usual statements I am becoming far to bored to have to repeat to everyone: they're still wearing burquas in Afghanistan. They're still stoning women to death for having affairs. Al-Quaida still exists, as does its principal leaders, none of whom we actually managed to capture, or kill, or even directly locate. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from a nation we not only don't even accuse of terrorism, but are currently bargaining with to use their airbases to launch our planes from to bomb Iraq, which according to most evidence has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 except for Saddam expressing happiness about it. For that we decimate an entire country?

Anyway, this long post of mine actually has purpose from the beginning, and I apologize for taking the long way around. That whole Afghanistan pipeline thing? Ridiculous rationale, right? Guess what- it's officially happening now.

Oh, and in case you forgot, the installed president of Afghanistan used to work for Unocal.

Something is going to go down in Iraq, and I'm thinking soon. There are only two reasons Bush cares about Iraq- oil and ratings. He's not going to do anything unless he's guaranteed at least one of them.
 

 

This is an incredibly stupid idea

From the Science and Technology Department (named, mainly, to use the newest image I drew to the left there:) the newest scientific advance in health care has been raised as a method for controlling the risks of West Nile in the U.S. Though slightly costly, this guaranteed environmentally-friendly method can control the mosquito problems infesting the nation and cause no damage to the health of humans or nearby wildlife.

Except, of course, that I'm lying. What this guy here actually wants to do is bring back DDT.

West Nile virus has killed 14 people in the United States this year, including eight in Louisiana and one in Illinois. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says West Nile virus is in the United States to stay. The virus may now be found in 41 states, including every state from Texas to the Atlantic.

CDC director Julie Geberding called West Nile virus an ''emerging, infectious disease epidemic'' that could be spread all the way to the Pacific Coast by birds and mosquitoes.

It's time to bring back the insecticide DDT.

Pesticides such as malathion, resmethrin and sumithrin can be effective in killing mosquitoes but are significantly limited because they don't persist in the environment after spraying.

DDT does. DDT lingers longer and so is more effective in mosquito control.

Umm... no offense to this guy, but so does napalm. That doesn't make it a rational answer.

Now, I understand that this is a serious issue. Malaria and Typhoid, also mosquito-delivered diseases, kill people in Africa by the thousands every year. However, keep in mind that the lack of DDT is not the addressed issue in Africa as much as the fact that the U.S. and Europe refuses to allow these nations access to generic drugs and better contraceptive and STD-prevention techniques. But at this point, even the author of this editorial himself is making a laughable attempt at scaring us by using the death of fourteen people as a sign that the EPA needs to be dissolved. Forgive me for having the gall to suggest that maybe the very idea of proposing something as ludicrous as legalizing DDT spraying is being pushed by someone who basically got bored of child kidnappings and needs a new faux terror s