On the topic of Journalists with balls..
If you do not read Punk Planet yet, you better start soon because it's one of the best magazines out there. Their lastest issue features Jello Biafra interviewing Greg Palast, and this is an information orgasm. Not only will Palast blow your mind with all of the stories he writes that can never see the light of day in the American press, but his wit is sharper than a tack. Onwards to the quotes..

Jello Biafra: Were male cheerleaders common in your school? They were unheard of in mine.
Greg Palast: Who said I was trying out as a male cheerleader?

JB: So you were a dancer in the past?
GP: I'm still a dancer, just no one will pay me to do it anymore.

JB: Did you ever goto journalism school?
GP: I never touched journalism school. That's like poison; that's death. That's where they pull your brains out and give you a hairdo, bleached teeth, and a way to talk into a television camera and say, "Here I am standing in front of the White House." I think that Tom Brokaw died several years ago and has been pieced back together as an animatronic robot. His ratings have actually gone up since he was replaced by a committee of corporate marketing men! [laughs] I'm called a muckracker, which makes me unemployable in US newsrooms -- that's good.

Probably the best quote, in my opinion.. One that urges you to get off your ass and do something.

GP: When you goto my website, you have to sign up that you will continue to keep the information going and send it out to your friends. Steal it. I'm not copyrighting it. My publisher Penguin is losing their minds because I'm giving it away for free! I want people to know. I want to make the truth about the Bush family known. I want to make the truth about the Bush family a fucking virus that you can't get off the web because they can't kill it. They can threaten the publisher, they can threaten the newspaper, but they can't threaten all the websites with all the content -- they can't threaten us all.

Will the real George Tenet please stand up?
A blog called Eschaton has been all over the Bush/CIA story about Bush's lie, I highly suggest giving that whole site a good read. Matt is also correct, now that Bush has blamed the CIA for his lie and the media has gone to the CIA seeking answers, do you really think that the head of the CIA, George Tenet, is going to say that Bush is wrong? Not unless he has a death wish. This isn't Britain, where the intelligence agencies tended to back away from Blair, some officials coming out saying that they felt pressured to lie about Iraq.

Here's the fact of the matter: in March 2002, on orders from the office of the Vice President Dick Cheney, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson to Niger to find out whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from that country. Mr. Wilson found out that this claim was false, returned to America and filed a report with the CIA. He was debriefed by the CIA and the State Department. He has also been told by officials at the CIA that his report reached the highest levels of American and British government. At least on this side of the pond, this makes sense. It was the veep's office that sent Mr. Wilson to Niger in the first place. I simply doesn't make sense that the CIA would neglect handing over Mr. Wilson's report to the veep's office after it was filed.

So, this tells us that our government investigated the Iraq/Niger uranium sales and found these claims to be false 10 months before Bush's state of the union address, and these claims were reported to Dick Cheney by the CIA. So, we come back to the question that is the point of the scandal: why did Bush claim that Iraq tried to purchase uranium "from Africa"?

The one thing we know for sure now is that somebody at the CIA is lying. I'm pointing my finger at George Tenet, because it simply doesn't make sense that Dick Cheney wouldn't be privy to intelligence that his office commissioned the CIA to gather. It's a fair and reasonable assumption to say that Dick Cheney knew, 10 months in advance of Bush's SOTU speech, that Niger did not sell uranium to Iraq. To assume that Cheney did not share this information with Bush in that time period is stretching reality, as far as I am concerned. We know that Bush knew. We know that Bush lied. Why should we believe Bush now that he's blaming the CIA?

Eschaton dropped a bomb on George Tenet's side of the story yesterday, proving the man to be a liar. Before Bush's speech in Cincinnati on 10/7/02, Tenet himself told Condi Rice's top advisor Steven Hadley not to reference the Africa/uranium report from Bush's speech. We can add this to the mounting pile of evidence that top officials within the CIA and Bush administration knew that Iraq had not tried to purchase uranium from Africa. We know for sure that Tenet, Cheney, and Rice knew before Bush's 2003 SOTU address. It's unfathomable to say that Bush didn't know.

Tenet's done a shitty job covering up for Bush, and the Bush administration has done an equally poor job in trying to sweep this story under the carpet. I'm hoping that the mainstream American media finally grows some balls and asks the real George Tenet to stand up. The story shouldn't stop there, though. A story such as this questions the very motiives of the Bush administration for going to war in Iraq. If they lied about weapons of mass destruction, then what's the real [cough]oil[cough] reason?

More email to assholes
I wrote this letter to John Hawkins of Right Wing News, in reference to a column he wrote in which he lied. I expect to never receive a reply.

---

Subject: Backing a liar

I always find it rather funny how liars stick together. I certainly hope that you don't consider yourself to be anything other than a government propagandist, especially after reading your column titled, "Rewriting History To Attack Bush On Iraq".

I thought this was the best part: "But like the other "scandals" the Dems have tried to cook up since Bush came into office, this one has very little to it. In short, the CIA gave Bush a piece of intelligence info and told him it was genuine, Bush shared it with the American people, then the administration was told it was bogus, and they later told the American people about it. Had the CIA done a better job of keeping the President informed of what they knew, it would have never made the SOTU speech in the first place."

Do you actually believe the bullshit that you write, or are you just paid off by Karl Rove? Anyone and their mother knows that this is false, and that, yes, Bush was lying.

Just check a recent story in London's Independent
(http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=422942).

This article is about Joseph Wilson, the diplomat who was sent to Niger at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney in March, 2002. He was sent by the CIA.

The report he handed in proved that the claims were falsified. The article goes on to mention that Mr. Wilson was debriefed by the CIA *AND* the State Department. TOp officials at the CIA have assured Mr. Wilson that his report went to the highest levels of US and British governments.

Yet, somehow, the claim ended up in Bush's SOTU because it was listed on a "fact sheet" from the State Department.

Yes, John, I know you don't want to hear it, but Bush lied. He knew he was lying, and he purposely used this lie to make a case for war. Just like Bush has lied about Iraq/al-Qa'ida connections, just like Bush lied about dumping Harken stock, just like Bush lied about his relationship with Kenny Boy Lay, and just like Bush lied before the election about his criminal record. These were all lies, lies that Bush knowingly told the American public. Bush lied on purpose to Americans in an attempt to make sure his reputation was clean, and no we know that Bush lied on purpose as an excuse to goto war. With a history of dishonesty, it was only a matter of time before the public caught onto his act.

This, John, is shameful. The fact that you uphold his administration goes to show me, and the rest of us who read your trash and know what you are omitting from your columns, that birds of a feather stick together. I guess it's too much to wish that you would use your writing "talents", or the bandwidth and audience that your site gets, to show concern for how the executive branch is operating, and whether or not they are lying to the American People.

Unfortunately John, you have shown that you are too partisan for this. You would much rather lie about Bush's lies then care about whether your government is honest to your neighbors. Shame on you.

And if you do reply, please refrain from quoting Democrats to support your agruments. I'm a member of the Green Party.

-adam
http://loadedmouth.com

I'm back.. Kinda
Well, I haven't fixed my computer yet, so I'm just usuing another one. I don't want to see the blog, and subsequently the site, die off. I emailed Matt and asked himif he could post a few entries in my absence, but he can't. Why? Because the curse that is blogger.com strikes again! Since Blogger changed their software, Matt's system is not able to use the website. Sigh. Stability, reliabilty, they are all dreams of the past.

So, after one more day of ragging on Michael Savage, I should be back to normal blogging. Maybe two more days. Or, I could get the job at Electric Boat. Or I could be running around all weekend trying to get reference letters to give to Electric Boat management. Who knows. Seeing that I'm broke and my savings account is dwindling down, I might be asking people on here for money just to keep the site up. But I'm hoping it doesn't come to that point. Even if I have to cart my ass to Labor Ready...

It's bigger than yo' noggin!


Ladies and Gentlemen, the largest slice of pizza in the world. And damn good, too. I enjoyed one yesterday, and that will probably be my highlight of the month.

If you are ever in Northampton, MA, stop by Nini's, on route 5 and off Main St., and get a slice this big. It's only $2.10! It's huge! One of the many good things about this city.

An open letter to Michael Savage
[Note: if you are not familiar with the Michael Savage situation right now, you must be living under a nice, cool rock. THis letter is in response to aligations on Michael's website claiming that he was set up.]

Subject: Do you even believe yourself?

Dear Mr. Savage,

One has to wonder if your parents ever taught you anything about personal responsibility. It's obvious that you were never taught anything about class or respect for your fellow neighbor. I guess they never taught you to feel ashamed about lying, either.

No, Mr. Savage, you were not setup. Nobody called into the show with the intent to get you fired. And if you are a controversial talk show host who has a show on a national station, asking a national audience to call in, then you should not only expect crank calls, but be able to handle those crank calls professionally.

Judging by your grandstanding after you told someone that they should get AIDS and die ("OK, got another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse and is angry at me today?"), you and I both know that you meant for all of your comments to be aired to a national audience. You meant for everyone tuning into your last show to hear that you wished that caller would die from AIDS. Stop lying and tell people the truth, Mr. Savage.

And don't even think to invoke "free speech rights" as part of this discussion. First of all, you have stated that liberal politicians and lawyers should be thrown in the can for what they have to say, so you don't even support freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Secondly, MSNBC stil has a right to administrate what goes out over their airwaves. Your constitutional right to free speech means that you have a right to speak without being censored by the government (ie: thrown in jail, which is the exact actions you want the government to take against people who disagree with you). Your right to free speech does not guarantee you the right to be heard, or the right to have your own television show.

If MSNBC kept your show on the air, how would that reflect upon them? Do you really think that MSNBC wants to be known as the network that endorses gay people dying from AIDS? Do you really think that MSNBC wants to be the network who has a host that knowingly blurts out these outrageous comments wishing horrible deaths about minority segments of the population? Face it, Mr. Savage, after you told that man to "get AIDS and die," you signed your own pink slip.

This was not a setup. Nobody asked you to make the comments that you were fired for, you made them on your own accord. That's why you were canned. And no, I know that you have claimed that liberal bias in the media played a role in your firing, which is another lie. If the media really had a liberal bias, then you wouldn't even have a radio show in the first place, nevermind your status now as a former TV host.

How you have handled this situation, how you have continued to lie, just goes to show that you cannot be trusted to comment on any situation. You are much to biased to have your opinion taken seriously. Having opinions weighted towards one side or the other are OK, but when you purposefully lie in order to smear your enemies, then you have shown that you will do anything to look right on ANY topic. Even if it means becoming a bald faced liar.

Adam Dupont

cc: http://loadedmouth.com

MIA
Well, it finally happened. The computer dowstairs, my AMD K2 350mhz box that I built a few years back, finally went off the deepend. Due to circumstances beyond my control, Windows 98 had to be installed on the machione before I left for Ohio 10 months back. Now the computer boots up and thinks it is fine, but it refuses to recognize my modem.

The problem is pretty bad, because I haven't been able to solve it yet. If it takes more than a half hour of troubleshooting and the problem still isn't fixed, that means it's a big problem.

Please hold off on the obvious comments, such as, "He's using a 350mhx box from the 90's?!", or, "He's still on dial up?! Is he insane?!" This is what happens wshen one does not have money, and now that has really come back to bite me in the ass. I well be online and postijg again as ASAP, but that might take a while.

Matt, if you're reading this and there's nothing to do in Korea... You have something to do now. :)

MSNBC boots Savage for telling a caller he should, "get AIDS and die"
Michael Savage used to have a show on MSNBC. That's until he told a caller this: "Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis." ('Trichinosis' defined here.)

Regular readers of this blog already know what I think of Michael Savage, so I'm not going to report myself. Instead, I would like to show you what Republicans think of MSNBC's decision to fire Savage. Let's look new further than today's World Net Daily poll which asks the question, "Was MSNBC right to fire Michael Savage for suggesting someone get AIDS and die?"

The poll was posted at midnight. Right now, it's 2:30, so the thousands od votes that these polls usually generate have not come in yet. But four "No" options hold a solid majority for the lead, witht he leading vote getter so far being, "No, Savage wrongly axed for exercising freedom of speech," followed by, "No, MSNBC gave into 'gay' pressure groups," "No, remarks not nearly as offensive as what's on TV these days," and, "No, I agree with Savage's remarks."

Think about this for a second. "No, I agree with Savage's remarks," why is this even an option? And 15% of the people who have voted so far AGREE with this option! 15% of the people who read World Net Daily hope that gay people get AIDS and DIE! And this is a website that complains about "liberal bias" in the media, a website frequented by Republicans, who appearently see no problem with everyone thinking that gay people should die of AIDS. Could anything be more perverse or offensive as this? I mean, I'm offended by this. This is just plain sick and disgusting. How can this site even be taken seriously when their readers think this, and how can we not believe that some of the Republican Party core doesn't believe in this statement if they don't come out, immediately, and denouce it?

As for the first option, I'm all for freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech does not mean that I have a right to my own show in MSNBC. Savage also does not have that right. MSNBC did the right thing, lest they be the network that thinks gay people should die of AIDS. This is proof that they shouldn't haven't given the bastard a show in the first place, it's not like a number of groups who didn't want to see Savage on the air didn't tell MSNBC point blank that something like this would happen. We're not stupid. As for his remarks "not being nearly as offensive as what's on TV these days," what the fuck are those people watching?

I'm not sure if I qam angered more by Savage's remarks or the fact that the right is going to defend him. If Republicans are smart and have any semblance , they well denouce Savage immediately, and they might already have by the time you read this. But I doubt it. I seriously doubt it. Just remember this: if the right does not denouce Michael Savage, they agree with him. Let that thought roll around for a couple minutes and tell me how disgusted you are.

Empty. Please ignore, Blogger does not allow me to delete posts but I had to get rid of this one.

You wouldn't like me when I'm... Aroused
I betcha toymakers had fun conceiving the idea of this well-hung stuffed toy. Hulkster's got a log for ya, boys and girls...