Monday, October 30, 2006

A Global Recession

That's where we're heading if we don't address climate change. (via Think Progress)

The Guardian:
Britons face the prospect of a welter of new green taxes to tackle climate change, as the most authoritative report on global warming warns it will cost the world up to £3.68 trillion unless it is tackled within a decade.

The review by Sir Nicholas Stern, commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and published tomorrow, marks a crucial point in the debate by underlining how failure to act would trigger a catastrophic global recession. Unchecked climate change would turn 200 million people into refugees, the largest migration in modern history, as their homes succumbed to drought or flood.

Stern also warns that a successor to the Kyoto agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions should be signed next year, not by 2010/11 as planned. He forecasts that the world needs to spend 1 per cent of global GDP - equivalent to about £184bn - dealing with climate change now, or face a bill between five and 20 times higher for damage caused by letting it continue. Unchecked climate change could thus cost as much as £566 for every man, woman and child now on the planet - roughly 6.5 billion people. ...

Friday, October 27, 2006

So many evil liberals.

Yeah, this looks exaggerated. Riiiiiiiiiiggghhhttt. What a fucking doochebag Limbaugh is. I can't believe that fat thieving drug addict could actually get his body to move like this. Making fun of of someone with parkinsons! How hysterical! I laughed so hard I nearly choked on my oxycontin.

And thanks NBC for continuing to not be liberal enough to air a commercial for a movie. Jesus Christ this country is in trouble.

Variety: "NBC's commercial clearance department said in writing that it `cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.'"

Thats nice. How very American of them.

Harvey Weinstein: "The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is profoundly un-American."

Yeah, Harvey you'd think so, but what does GE have to do with real American values? The President makes those sick fucks richer, and they will not tolerate criticism of him. Just ask Phil Donahue.

And thanks ABC for keeping this raving lunatic employed. Anyone who talks like this should not be taken seriously by liberals or conservatives or anyone who has anyhting close rational thought. How many more FOX-wannabes will we have to tolerate? It almost seems like these people are afraid to present reality-based news because that offends people that believe conservative myths (aka complete bullshit).

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Truth About Terror

The GOP is America's leading terrorist organization.

I wish it wasn't true, but it is. I have been calling them what they are for years- fearmongering liars. And in the mainstream, its been hinted at before by people like John Dean, Howard Dean, John Kerry, and of course Colbert and Stewart. But no one has said it as clearly and as bluntly as Keith Olberman. Their latest ad is yet another reason why these sick bastards need to be booted out of office. They are doing Osama Bin Laden's work for him, while letting him roam free. They told us after 9-11 to "Never forget" as if someone could forget 9-11 even if they tried. But in looking back, I don't think they mean, "Never forget that we were attacked," I think they mean "Never forget how scared you were." And to make sure you don't forget, they will do what they've always done, use terrorism for political purposes while refusing to actually fight it. (Also see the shameful use of real terror alerts in the history of false alarms.)

Bravo Keith.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Champions of Morality

This is just nuts. Aren't "hit lists" for the mafia?

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Do Nothing

When the man speaks, pay attention.

Do Something!

Sunday, October 15, 2006

655,000 dead people.

Congratulations, Mr. President. Heckuva job, running that war you chose to start.

Remember that time you said it was 30,000 or so people? Oh, how you managed to shrug that off. You could almost taste the jellybeans.

Oh, dear. I can't imagine the last time I was off by over 20 times! And I mean on anything, not human live's lost because I just plain like acting like a tough guy with other peoples kids, husbands, daughters, fathers, mothers, sons. Yeah, we're resolute! It'll be shock, then, awe will follow. Yeah! YeeHaa!!!

But 655,000 people. That's a lot.

Like I said, I'm never off by that much. Like when the bill comes to the table at a restaurant, I'm shocked if I'm not within $8! Rarely do I ever think it will be a $20 tab, and it ends up being $400! And that's what I mean, that would be awful to be that far off. And that's just food and beer.

I can't imagine the daily tumble your brain must take as you try to say with a straigt face "30,000" when you know that this world has actually lost over 20 times that figure because you're a sociopath.

And while I'm on this topic, why was the Johns Hopkins/Les Roberts' study disregarded all over the media without any one of those freaking Bushspeak stenographers asking him how he conducted his study? "Who cares what all the universities and Zogby and all the other pollsters say! The President said the independent death count of his war wasn't credible, so therefore it must not be credible. Copy that!"

Why was the President (someone who has everything to gain for presenting his version of the truth) and his Press Secretary essentially taken at their word that the figure was lower, 20 times lower, then the study actually shows?

Anyway, thank God for Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.

Watching the talking heads, those that dared even brush by this subject, I saw and heard this-

President Bush: It was pretty well -- the methodology is pretty well discredited... You know, I stand by the figure [30,000]. A lot of innocent people have lost their life -- 600,000, or whatever they guessed at, is just -- it's not credible.


Les Roberts: You know, I don't want to sort of stoop to that level and start saying general slurs, but I just want to say that what we did, this cluster survey approach, is the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government isn’t very functional or in times of war. And when UNICEF goes out and measures mortality in any developing country, this is what they do. When the U.S. government went at the end of the war in Kosovo or went at the end of the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. government measured the death rate, this is how they did it. And most ironically, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars per year, through something called the Smart Initiative, to train NGOs and UN workers to do cluster surveys to measure mortality in times of wars and disasters.

So, I think we used a very standard method. I think our results are couched appropriately in the relative imprecision of [inaudible]. It could conceivably be as few as 400,000 deaths. So we’re upfront about that. We don’t know the exact number. We just know the range, and we’re very, very confident about both the method and the results.


And another thought is that -- quite unrelated -- if someone said in the 9/11 attacks, “I think only 200 or 300 people really died,” we would be really, really upset. And I think in the long view, the danger of discarding this study, if it’s correct, is that, at a moment when we as a society should be showing contrition, our leaders have essentially expressed indifference to an extraordinary level of suffering. And that’s just the wrong message in terms of either our long-term security or peace in the Middle East.

God, I wish that statement was plastered all over the tube and the papers, but sadly it was not. But Bush's "indifference to an extraordinary level of suffering" was shown all over the place.

Thanks liberal media!

And thank you Mr. President for breeding terrorists, killing American soldiers, and murdering over half a million innocent people. My only hope is that before each of them died they could hear, over the triumphant sound of "Freedom" marching straight over their deathbeds of course, the faint sound of you and your supporters congratulating yourselves on restoring honor and integrity to the White House.

655,000 people.


Thursday, October 12, 2006

Government Handouts

If this is what they're passing out, sign me up.

And, yes I'm kidding, and yes, I think giving this to people against their will is criminal and certainly qualifies as torture.


Who knew Rove and I agreed on what these people really are. (More here)

And you know what, after seeing Jesus Camp, I don't feel bad for these people who are so willfully brainwashed. They want to believe the crap Rove shovels them, so they deserve to be played like pawns.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

The true cost of pre-emptive war

655,000 souls. Just like Jesus would have done.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The hits just keep on coming...

The fact that these sick bastards covered up and took hush money from a pervert in their mists is fairly newsworthy. But, it is actually helping the Bushites from having to seriously answer for far more important stories: our war of choice with Iraq, a now-nuclear North Korea, still no OBL, Iran and of course, the corruption and influence peddling of Jack Abramoff.

Yesterday's NYT Editorial Page:

The sordid Mark Foley controversy has diverted public attention from another major Washington ethics scandal - the influence peddling involving the disgraced former superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. That's good news for the Bush administration, given freshly heightened suspicion that its dealings with Mr. Abramoff and his sleazy K Street operation were far cozier than it is willing to admit.

The White House has consistently played down the ties key officials like Karl Rove had with Mr. Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last January to conspiring to bribe public officials. But the administration has declined to publicly provide detailed answers or grant full access to relevant documents needed to establish the truth.

A newly released report, prepared with unusual bipartisan backing by the House Government Reform Committee, paints a different reality. It reveals that between January 2001 and March 2004, Mr. Abramoff and members of his staff had some 485 contacts with key White House officials, including at least 10 direct contacts between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Rove. Billing records and e-mail messages unearthed by the committee indicate that Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues spent nearly $25,000 on meals and tickets for White House officials.

The report belies Mr. Rove's description of Mr. Abramoff as merely a "casual acquaintance." An assistant to Mr. Rove, Susan Ralston, who resigned on Friday, had formerly worked for Mr. Abramoff. The report suggests that she sought Mr. Abramoff's help to obtain seats for Mr. Rove and his aides at popular sporting events, and often acted as a conduit, passing messages between the lobbyist and top White House officials, including Mr. Rove and Ken Mehlman, the current chairman of the Republican National Committee who was then a senior White House political strategist.

Indeed, it appears that Mr. Rove sat with Mr. Abramoff in the lobbyist's box seats for an N.C.A.A. basketball playoff game in 2002, an occasion Mr. Abramoff memorialized in an e-mail message to a colleague. "Told me anytime we need something just let him know through Susan."

It is plain that Mr. Abramoff had unusual access. As for his effectiveness, Mr. Abramoff rated the results as "mixed." But he scored some important victories. In 2002, for example, the administration made the unusual decision to release $16.3 million to a Mississippi tribe Mr. Abramoff represented, notwithstanding the Justice Department's opposition to the project. The role campaign gifts and contacts between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Mehlman may have played in this action is a matter warranting close scrutiny by prosecutors, and further digging by the committee.

As Tom Davis of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the committee, and Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat, take pains to note, their report is based on documents that were provided under subpoena by Mr. Abramoff's firm and, for the most part, tell just one side of the story. The White House spin is that Mr. Abramoff had a well-known affinity for exaggerating the impact of his lobbying efforts. If so, full disclosure of relevant records by the White House could help support that claim. Meanwhile, the idea that Mr. Abramoff exerted no influence with the administration seems about as believable as Mark Foley's early claim that his only interest in 16-year-old pages was "mentoring."

Oh Schnap!!!

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Holy Dear Christ

Fair and Balance"D"

Hmmmm.... I wonder if that was an "accident." Maybe it was in the talking points. Either way, I guarantee it is not the last time it happens in the next few days.

And remember when Clinton got a blowjob while working? This is worse. (No seriously, Monica was 22.) And just what did the leadership in the moral majority convince Foley to do after they learned of his problem? Well, exactly what Jesus would have done, convinced him to run for reelection.