Sunday, February 29, 2004

Here are my pre-emptive Oscar predictions:

The winner for best actress will be that woman from that movie about the woman who killed all those people.

The winner for best director will be, hands down, Peter Jackson.

The winner for most truthful oscar acceptance speech of last year will be Michael Moore.

Thursday, February 26, 2004

According to Forbes magazine, if elected, John Kerry would be the third-richest President in US history, third to Kennedy and Washington, respectively. You can look at the article here.

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Is Greenspan retarded or something? Hey, here's a thought on how to ease the mammoth half-trillion deficit and allow people like me to get social security when we retire: why not cut military spending? Ooh, there's a radical idea. Do you know that close to 300 billion dollars is spent each year on the military? Hell, a fraction of that would cover a lot of social programs. According to IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) figures, the US spends about as much on the military than practically any other nation in the world put together. And, of course, there is always the cost of the war in Iraq, which is not even mentioned in the 2005 budget, at the top of the page, ticking forever higher. Greenspan calls himself a smart economist. Bullshit.

Sunday, February 22, 2004

Don't you hate it when you have collate a mountain of indexed references into a reformatted outline over the course of several hours? Yeah, I know, crazy.

Saturday, February 21, 2004

I have been thinking of what to do for the 1st anniversary of this blog (this coming Monday), and so I decided, being that there aren't any good templates, I am keeping this one indefinitely. Also, I have gotten rid of the Google search bar and the poll thing (because no one was using either, so go figure), but I have added a real-time counter of the cost of the war in Iraq.

Monday, February 16, 2004

Here's another example of how PC bullshit is beginning to take over this country. CBS may have to make a disclaimer before every program that they air, which may read like this: "The following program may possibly be offensive to any or all groups, organizations, or religious affiliations, et al. We sincerely apologize in advance for any moral grief that we may inflict, you fucking whacked-out pansies."
Today I saw the re-release of La Battaglia di Algeri ("The Battle of Algiers"). It is an incredible film, first released in 1965, banned in France, and screened by the Pentagon in 2003. I recommend that all Americans see it. In black-and-white with subtitles (the two languages spoken are French and Arabic), it is about a foreign power facing a violent insurgency in the country it is occupying, perpetrated by a minority of terrorists. Sound familiar?

Monday, February 09, 2004

CBS: Please, air this ad!

Saturday, February 07, 2004

After seeing the preview on Apple's trailer website (apple.com/quicktime/trailers), the movie Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow looks pretty damn good. Entirely CG, except for the characters themselves, the film appears straight out of the old Superman cartoons of the 1940s, with the classic, art deco style and metallic, grey tones. It looks like it's going to be a good one.
On March 21 of last year, I published a post about the rationale for going to war with Iraq. Coming up in a couple of months will be the 1st anniversary of the war, and I think it is time to publish it again to refresh y'all memory. Oh, and on Feb. 23, which is in about a couple of weeks from now, it will be the 1st anniversary of this website. Well, here it is:

Subject: WHY THIS INVASION MAKES SENSE
From: Progress
Date: Mar 20 2003 5:37PM

Peacenik: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?

Warmonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM: Absolutely. ... unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George B-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense:

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up.

*****
UPDATE: I do not rescind that the election will be between Kerry and Bush. However, although Bush will probably find some way to win, I predict that it will be an extremely close election. Closer than 2000, even. This nation is now more divided than it has ever been. According to the Constitution, in the event of a draw (that is, both candidates have the same number of electoral votes), the winner is decided by the House of Representatives; which, as of now, is controlled by the GOP, which means that Bush will most likely win anyway. May God help us all. All us true patriots, anyway.

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Well, it does begin to look like the 2004 election will be Kerry vs. Bush. And who will win? It will be Bush. Yes, that's right. I know, I hate that fact, too. But, it is a very unfortunate truth, like the very unfortunate truth that we will all die some day. Well, it isn't that bleak, but we will be looking at another four years of Bush/Cheney/Rumself/Ashcroft & Co. God, I hope that I am wrong. I really do.
Joe Lieberman has officially quit the Democratic race. Thank God.
David Kay, US chief weapons inspector, has bluntly admitted that the Bush administration, "were all wrong," in his words. So, practically our entire "rationale" for going to war has been officially shot down. But, no matter, that's not why we went to war; at least, that's what Bush wants future textbooks to say. We went there to liberate. Well, then, explain Powell's long speech to the UN Security Council about Iraq's deception over their alleged WMD, or Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, which contained several erroneous data about Iraq's active biological and chemical weapons programs and their large stockpiles, that were at the forefront of the march to war. The Bush administration knew what they were doing. I have doubted that the Bush administration had lied to the American people, and the entire world; I have believed that they merely were given very poor intelligence. Now, I am beginning to doubt that. I am now starting to believe that they really did lie. Maybe. But what I can be certain of is that regime change begins November 2nd.
All that I have to say about all of this backlash over the Super Bowl XXXVIII AOL TOP-SPEED Halftime Show is that people really need to calm the hell down about this. So what: a millisecond of partial nudity, who cares? Really; why is this such a big deal? And this whole FCC inquiry into "what really happened" is completely ridiculous. Move on.

Sunday, February 01, 2004

Fact is, I only really watch the Super Bowl for the new commercials. Speaking of which, the HEMI-powered Dodge Magnum and the ultra-powerful, holy fuckin' awesome Ford GT ads were great. That is, the latter of the two was. The beer ads are always the funniest, aren't they?
So, apparently Apple has sold out to the bastards at Pepsi-Cola. The good news is that they have teamed up to give away "100 million free songs." One out of three people with specially-marked caps will get a 10-digit code that they can use to redeem one song out of the iTunes Music Store's database of, um, 100 million songs. Sounds good: all you have to do is buy three 20-oz. bottles of Pepsi (so that one of them will be a winner according to their statistics), get the code, download iTunes (if you have a PC, Macs already have it built-in; and it's free), get a free Music Store account, type in the code, and choose one song out of 100 million. So, if you want to make a CD of free songs (now that's 20 songs, as CDs go), all you have to do is buy 60 bottles of Pepsi (1 in 3 wins one song, yeah that adds up right), which should cost about $120. With that kind of money, you might as well just go out and buy about 10 or 12 CDs. It's kind of a fool's bargain, but hey, who cares. It's free!