data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3b205/3b20581286527a2a2f8edef2d696805ab57a42e6" alt=""
It's true! Katherine Harris's tits are this fuckin' big!!!
In the Corporate State,
Corporate media
Are State Media.
Hey, here's some meat for your mill.
This am I was reading the news and saw some groups are protesting a production decision on CBS's show "Survivor" to split the contestants into racial camps. Obviously this is a ploy to bolster sagging ratings. Evidently Sumner Redstone, the 'liberal, progressive, socially responsible' owner of CBS, believes this kind of idiocy will resonate strongly enough in the public eye to promote viewership with the drooling idiots and knuckle-draggers who watch this waste of bandwidth.
Infuriated, I dashed off an e-mail to the programming office at CBS saying I was no longer watching CBS shows until they showed some social conscience, and reminding them that this show, with it's changes puts them well into the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity, as it is sensational with no redeeming social value. "What's next," I inquired. "Teams of Jews, Muslims, Christians and Druse battling it out in 'Survivor Lebanon'?"
My duty done and my conscience salved after clicking the send button, I clicked away back to my browser; but as I flashed past the CBS main page, I saw a link which made my sphincter tighten: There, prominently displayed was a photo of Nelson Mandela, under the link to "CBS cares."
I immediately went back to the feedback page and wrote ANOTHER e-mail, this
time lambasting them for the utter hypocrisy of using the visage of a man whose
tolerance is legendary and whose reputation is without stain to shill the message "CBS cares," and then turning around and running a load of racially supercharged bilge water that is "Survivor."
You gotta lay into this one, bro, get it out there. This is KorpoRat Komedy at its worst...
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- Presidential adviser Karl Rove criticized a federal judge's prder for an immediate end to the government's warrantless surveillance program, saying Wednesday such a program might have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.Utterly neglecting to mention the PDB of August 6, 2001 which specifically warned that Al Qaeda was planning to strike the USofA inside the country soon.
Rove said the government should be free to listen if al Qaeda is calling someone within the U.S. "Imagine if we could have done that before 9/11. It might have been a different outcome," he said.Jeezis fucking christ, these shitwhistles have no shame, no memory, nothing but wholesale mendacity, fear-mongering, and deceit? These lying bastards had all the evidence, all the intelligence they would ever have needed, to prevent the attacks on IXXI, if they had wanted to pay attention to it. But Condaliarza Rice, the National Fucking Security Advisor, claimed the PDB and associated evidence supporting the warnting were considered merely "historical."
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit last week became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, ruling it unconstitutional. (Full story)Judge Taylor's opinion has been subjected to furious attacks from the right-wing shitheels who's responsibility it was to prevent both the attacks and the over-stepping of the Constitution in their zeal (ex post facto) to see them remedied by reducing the rights of the citizenry.
Rove's comments came as he headlined a fundraiser for Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who is running for governor. About 50 protesters stood outside the country club where the fundraiser was held, some with signs that said "Impeach Bush."Blackwell, of course, was the Ohio Secretary of State (and Bushevik campaign manager in the State) whose efforts to restrict the vote by possible Democratic partisans, to corrupt the franchise with the assistance of Diebold, and to steal the state for Bush, are now being so richly repaid, as he runs for Governor.
Lured by huge checks handed out by the country's top lobbyists, members of Congress could soon strike a blow against Internet freedom as they seek to resolve the hot-button controversy over preserving "network neutrality."
The telecommunications reform bill now moving through Congress threatens to be a
major setback for those who hope that digital media can foster a more democratic
society. The bill not only precludes net neutrality safeguards but also eliminates local community oversight of digital communications provided by cable and phone giants. It sets the stage for the privatized, consolidated and unregulated communications system that is at the core of the phone and cable lobbies' political agenda.In both the House and Senate versions of the bill, Americans are described as "consumers" and "subscribers," not citizens deserving substantial rights when it comes to the creation and distribution of digital media. A handful of companies stand to gain incredible monopoly power from such legislation, especially AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon.
They have already used their political clout in Washington to secure for the phone and cable industries a stunning 98 percent control of the US residential market for high-speed Internet.
Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?
This simple question is splitting America apart, with a growing proportion thinking that we did not descend from an ancestral ape. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact.Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US, says Jon Miller of Michigan State University in East Lansing, who conducted the survey with his colleagues.
"The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has
been politicised," he says. "Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of
their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue."
Miller's report makes for grim reading for adherents of evolutionary theory. Even though the average American has more years of education than when Miller began his surveys 20 years ago, the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005 (Science, vol 313, p 765).
That's despite a series of widely publicised advances in genetics, including genetic sequencing, which shows strong overlap of the human genome with those of chimpanzees and mice. "We don't seem to be going in the right direction," Miller says.
Only 40% of USers confidently acknowledge the unity and totality of nature, and admit themselves, humbly, to be part of it? Only 40% of USers recognize unambiguously their mutual affiliation and intimate relation with the great 'web of life?
Izzis a great fuukin country, or what?
Izzere ANYBODY who does not now have a pretty good idea why USers are ready to just let the perils of global change continue unabated?
Opposition to gutting FISA (which is AL-fucking-READY an affront to the Constitution I was taught) can EASILY be sold to a terror-numbed electorate as sympathy for the devil...Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., UT), who continuously decries the bitter partisanship in Washington, implied this week that Democratic success in November's election could result in terrorist attacks on America. Hatch was quoted in Tuesday's Tooele (Ut.) Transcript Bulletin as saying Middle East terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again."
Democrats are criticizing Hatch for what they see as "ridiculous" partisan hyperbole.
"There they go again trying to use smear and fear to win in November," said Stacie Paxton, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee.While Hatch now says he does not recall making the reported statement to the Tooele newspaper, it would not be the first time he tied terrorist action to Democrats seeking office.
During the 2004 presidential election, Hatch suggested al-Qaida members wanted Democratic challenger John Kerry to defeat President Bush. Terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry," Hatch said in a Washington Post story printed in September 2004.
Welcome to the politics of fear.
1) strip him of all committtee assignments,
2) revoke his access to any and all private, or partisan communcations,
3) fire his entire staff and revoke their privileges immediately,
4) suspend all his funding except the Constitutionally-mandated franking privliege, and
5) move his fucking desk into the parking slot assigned to him in the Senate garage...
What was Lieberman's role in 2000?
by margieburns on Fri 11 Aug 2006 04:06 PM
EDT
Lieberman and the White House are stumbling, bigtime, in their eagerness to overreach. One result: looking at the double game Lieberman is playing has brought this writer for one to take a closer look at election year 2000..."
(The Money Questions)
1. Why couldn’t the Connecticut GOP find a better candidate to run for Senate against Joe Lieberman in 2000? Connecticut’s state Democratic Convention, which
nominated Lieberman unanimously, was held on May 27 of that year. The state Republican Convention, where Giordano was the only candidate and reportedly even had to buy his own balloons, was not held until July. These are the Republicans, beneficiaries of exactly the high-end white-collar sector in which Connecticut specializes. It strains credulity to imagine that the GOP, with ample time, could not field even a good sacrificial goat, a local candidate who could stand a handsome loss at the hands of a famous senator in return for the name recognition.
2. Why was Joe Lieberman a no-show candidate in his 2000 Senate race?
3. Why didn’t the GOP make a bigger and nastier issue of the fact that Lieberman was running (nominally) two races at once?
4. Why didn’t Dick Cheney make an issue of it in “debating” Lieberman?
5. Looking at the ways the White House and other Republican candidates are now supporting Lieberman (over Alan Schlesinger, the GOP nominee in Connecticut), was Team Bush making the way smooth for Lieberman –as a Senate candidate -- in 2000?
6. If so, was there a quid pro quo? Is there some good reason why Lieberman never went on the offensive against the other ticket in the attack dog mode that VP candidates are supposed to take?
In other words, did Team Bush have a tacit arrangement with Lieberman?
Please please please, refer to this as a referendum on politics-as-usual-in-DC, not the War. While 60% of Americans polled now believe that the war was a mistake, that means that making it about the war means you are pissing of 40%. Make it about the DC political inbreeding and you will have support well over 80%....
Rational Actor - 8/11/06, 12:59 pm
When you go to the supermarket and buy produce or packaged goods that carry the organic label, you can feel confident that the food was grown under rigorous environmental standards. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's organic seal, which debuted in 2002, is a guarantee that your fruits and vegetables were cultivated without petroleum-based fertilizers or (with rare exceptions) synthetic chemicals, and that they aren't genetically modified.
The organic label, however, goes only so far. While the seal covers a range of environmental practices, it says nothing about labor conditions. Although comprehensive studies of conditions on organic farms are hard to find, complaints like Ortiz's are not uncommon. For example, Willamette River Organics, one of Oregon's largest organic operations, has been hit with several lawsuits charging violations of minimum-wage laws.
A Human Rights Watch report on the exploitation of adolescent workers said the atmosphere at Arizona's organic Pavich Farms was "hostile, suspicious," with laborers apparently not permitted to speak to inspectors. Threemile Canyon, a large organic dairy and potato farm in Oregon, faces accusations of sexual discrimination in its hiring practices.
Workers get no consolation in the form of higher wages or better benefits, either. According to a report published last year by researchers at UC-Davis, a majority of 188 California organic farms surveyed do not pay a living wage or provide medical or retirement plans. In fact, most organic workers earn the same as those in conventional fields -- less (adjusted for inflation) than they were making in the 1970s, when the famous UFW boycotts occurred. "The exploitative conditions that farmworkers face in the U.S. are abysmal -- it's a human-rights crisis," said Richard Mandelbaum, policy analyst at the Farmworker Support Committee. "In terms of wages and labor rights, there's really no difference between organic and conventional (farms)."
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) met with (Ohio GOP Rep. Bob) Ney last week to urge him to step aside, reminding him that with a son in college and a daughter nearing college age, he will need money, according to several congressional Republican aides. If he lost his House seat for the party, Boehner is said to have cautioned, Ney could not expect a lucrative career on K Street to pay those tuition bills, along with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees piling up.
"Ultimately this decision came down to my family. I must think of them first, and I can no longer put them through this ordeal," Ney said in a one-paragraph statement.
Depending on the fate of Senator Joe Lieberman on Tuesday, it should come as no surprise to anyone when (not if) the Bush administration announces a dramatic plan to exit Iraq sometime before the Congressional elections this fall.
As an increasing number of Republican Members of Congress confront unhappy, sometimes angry, constituents finally fed up with the absence of purpose in the continued U.S. occupation and the death and dismemberment of young American troops for no purpose having to do either with combating the jihad or making the U.S. secure, they will demand White House rescue for their political careers.
Since, with precious few exceptions, political careers trump principle, and since the cabal of neoconservatives and the religious right intend to govern forever, the genius Karl Rove will concoct a patently phony Iraq exit strategy.
But even as President Bush rolls out the bogus plan in the Rose Garden, surrounded by trembling Congressmen, and claims "victory" in Iraq, work will continue around the clock on the American fortress in central Baghdad and on the permanent military garrisons in the countryside.
It was all forecast years ago in the final scene of the movie Three Days of the Condor when the CIA official Higgins explains to the naive CIA research character portrayed by Robert Redford: "Of course it's about the oil. Do you think the American people care how we get it? They just want us to get it."
Moriarty, NM - State police are investigating the beating of an 18-year-old gay man and his female friend as a hate crime. At the request of the victim's family, Eyewitness News 4 (in Albuquerque) isn't releasing his name.
State police say the man met some friends at a Moriarty park and went to a party at an Edgewood home (on the trailer-park clustered plains east of Albuquerque).
People at the party harassed the man because he was gay, police say, so he tried to leave with his friend when the two were attacked.
"He was kicked about the head and body and punched and slapped," said Lt. Rick Anglada with state police. "He was then walked back to a camper trailer at the residence, where they locked him up inside the trailer." An arrest warrant said the man was beaten until the sun rose the next day. (Sounds a lot like kidnapping to me.)
Anglada said the attackers told the man "they were going to scare him straight."
A spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union says she's disgusted by the crime. "They were so hostile and so angry at the fact he was gay that they decided that beating this man almost to death was justified, which is crazy."
Police have arrested William York, 21, and a minor in connection with the beating. They're still looking for another man, Leroy Segura.
The minor's mother says she doesn't believe it was a hate crime. "We've got gay people in the family," she said. The victim's family says they've received numerous threats since the beating.
Hollywood Trio Endorses Governor
The move by Spielberg, Katzenberg and Saban could encourage other Democrats to follow.
By Robert Salladay, Times Staff WriterAugust 5, 2006
SACRAMENTO — Some of Hollywood's most reliable and generous donors to the Democratic Party — Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and media mogul Haim Saban — are endorsing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's bid for reelection.Their support is partly a matter of friendship over partisanship. But it could deal a blow to the governor's main opponent, state Treasurer Phil Angelides, by signaling to other Democrats that it's acceptable to embrace a Republican.
"It starts with a personal relationship. They are friends," said Andy Spahn, a spokesman for both Spielberg and Katzenberg.The two men also like Schwarzenegger's plans to tackle global warming and fund schools. But further, Spahn said, "they are receptive to the governor's taking a less partisan approach to the job and a more inclusive approach to government."Perhaps the deepest pockets among those embracing Schwarzenegger belong to the Egyptian-born Saban, who produced the "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" and eventually created a media empire.
Saban, who is trying to acquire the Spanish-language network Univision with other investors, is a former trustee of the Democratic National Committee and one of its biggest donors. He spent $200,000 fighting the 2003 recall election that brought Schwarzenegger to power.Other Hollywood Democrats on the list of Schwarzenegger supporters include
Jerry Zucker of "Airplane!" fame, movie producer Jonathan Sheinberg and Bud Yorkin, a longtime TV director and producer."I can't run away from the fact that I am a friend of Arnold. But if I disagreed with him, I wouldn't have voted for him," Yorkin said Friday. "People think Hollywood is one giant liberal. That's not the truth."
"So here's my confession: At this point I really don't give a flying fuck whether the Democrats take the House or the Senate back. No, wait, that's not true. The truth is I hope they don't. It wouldn't save us from what's coming down the road, in the Middle East and elsewhere. It wouldn't force President Psychopath to change course or seek therapy.
But it would make sure that the "left" (ha ha ha) gets more than its fair share of blame for the approaching debacle.
That may well be the natural role of the Democratic Party in our one-and-a-half party system, but I don't want any part of it any more. Which means that when I say it's a bad sign (consensus opinion always being wrong)
that Charlie Cook now thinks the Republicans are likely to lose their House and/or Senate majorities in November, I just mean that it's a bad sign for theDemocratic Party and its professional hangers on.
For the rest of us, and for whatever is left of this country's soul, it
doesn't really matter. We've already lost."
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.