Indoctrinating Hitler.. Er, excuse me, Bush Youth
I would use, "From the 'More reasons why the world hates us' department..." for a title, but it's already been used once today. Here's what passes for a toy these days: a Bush action figure in a flight suit.

From the product description: "BBI proudly introduces the latest issue in its Elite Force series of authentic military 12- inch figures, President George W. Bush in naval aviator flight uniform. Exacting in detail and fully equipped with authentic gear, this limited-edition action figure is a meticulous 1:6 scale recreation of the Commander-in-Chief's appearance during his historic Aircraft Carrier landing. On May 1, 2003, President Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) in the Pacific Ocean, and officially declared the end to major combat in Iraq."

We're supposed to be proud of this?

Right now, I just can't find the words to describe how I feel. "Brainwashing" and "propaganda" come to mind, though.

From the "More reasons why the world hates us" department...
The US used napalm-like firebombs in Iraq.

This just in from the "Oh God" Department...
Arnold Schwartzenwhatever is running for governor of California. So far, there have been no outraged, "HOLLYWOOD IDIOT!," calls from the Republican media since the man, who has never made a political speech as far as I know, is a Republican. Hmmm.. Who smells a bunch of hypocrites? Anytime a non-Republican in Hollywood speaks their mind about politics in this country, the crackles from the Republican media never cease to end. We've heard it all before: they're idiots, all they do is act, wha do they know about politics, policy, world affairs, etc., why should we listen to them? Yet when fuckin Arrrrrrnald runs for governor, NOTHING! None of those fucktards are crying out about Arnold being a "Hollywood Idiot". Fuck these assholes. Could their contradictory stance on Hollywood show any more bias?

Springer ain't running
Matt posted a link about Jerry Springer running for Senate in Ohio. Unfortunately, Spring has decided that he will not run. This is unfortunate, of course, because of the entertainment value that the 2004 election just lost. Could you think of all the non-voters in Ohio Springer's candidancy would bring out? It would be great. Pimps would be in the voting line, offering anyone who voted for Springer a BJ from his bitches.. I can see it.

When I lived in Cincinnati, the Democrats had the feel (and funding) of a third party. Springer, even if he lost by a landslide, would at least be a candidate with name recognition and he could do some fund raising for the party and strengthen it. But that's not going to happen.

Trickle Down Blogonomics
My posting is going to be light for the next couple of weeks. I have started a new job which has me working 7:00 - 3:30. which gives me some time in the morning and a wee bit more time at night to go online. Since I am sill living with my parents, who refuse to join the 21st century and get call waiting, I can't download a program that tells me if anyone important is trying to call, therefore I can't go online for any decent amount of time until 9:00. By that point, I don't have time to do much.

I should be all moved into that house in Providence by next week, but a DSL line is yet to be installed. The house, 90-100 years old and the last man who resided there was 87 so it has never really been modernized, the only phone jack is in the kitchen. So, until I get DSL, getting online is going to be a pain in the ass. I'll write when I can, which I really want to do, I just don't have as many opportunities to do so right now.

I'm sure Matt will give the blog an update once or twice a week, and maybe by the time he's flying back to RI, I'll have a DSL line and I can get back into the swing of things. Getting a paycheck to afford these things will help, too.

Anyways, I already hate my job. Anybody wantt to hire me for a help desk job in the Providence area? I'll quit where I'm working right now to go back into a cubicle.

Col. Hackworth continues to speak out
Anyone who says, "Rumsfeld is an arrogant asshole. That's a quote, by the way," has earned my respect. And it's very rare when I respect a conservative hawk, but today's lead article from Salon leaves me with even more respect for Col. David Hackworth.

Some readers may remember that I praised Mr. Hackworth last March for speaking out against the war in Iraq, even though I probably wouldn't agree with him on any other issue. Mr. Hackworth is not an anti-war activist: he served in WWII at the age of 15 (he lied to about his age to get enlisted), and also fought in Vietnam. His concern is for the welfare of our troops and how the Bush administration ("asshole" Rumsfeld in particular) has been handling the Army and fighting this war. Back in a March radio interview, Mr. Hackworth surpised the shit out of me by coming out against a war in Iraq, saying that the country was not connected to terrorism and, even if they did have WMDs, they had no way of delivering those weapons to their enemies. ("How are they going to get their chemical and biological weapons here, in a wheelbarrow?") I had heard this man on Republican radio before, he was a regular guest on the Michael Reagan show (yes, THAT Reagan) where Michael used him for military analysis. Like I said, this man is a hawk, not an anti-war protester, so I was floored when he came out against military action in Iraq.

The Salon article expands on his views, and his communication with the troops in Iraq, bringing us the story that the Pentagon will not tell us. Troops are not receiving basic health and rations, tanks are breaking down because there are no spare parts, the war is bring fought incorrectly and RUmsfeld has bungled the whole thing, and troops are even cut off from communications with home while generals toodle around on the Internet all day, sending flowers to their wivies. All while Iraqi guerrillas are turning, "An Army of One," into an Army of one (or two) a day, binding their time to launch an attack that could kill hundreds of troops.

The article says that Mr. Hackworth gets around 500 emails a day from disgruntled troops, posting a few on his website, Hackworth.com. This site, and Salon's article, are required reading for those interested in the truth.

Dr. Kelly and his Dirty Bomb?
I first heard of this story on Newsmax, but after researching it I didn't think it was much to comment on. Given the reaction from the press and how little attention the story has received, editors across the world agree with me. But, I figured I would write about it, lest anyone try to hold this up as proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Dr. David Kelly is now said to have amassed evidence that Saddam had built and tested a dirty bomb in 1987. This was revealed in an interview with The Sunday Times in June, which is appearently on their website but I cannot get to the article becasue only paid subscribers are allowed to see it. I was also not able to find this interview through a Lenix/Nexis search. Sites like Newsmax, a Republican Goon Squad disguised as a media outlet, are a;ready using this story to lambast those who were against the war. To quote from their article: "The stunning revelation by the British scientist, who committed suicide last month over the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could have anti-war Democrats running for cover."

Yes, this revelation from 1995 was so stunning that the British government somehow either forgot to put it in their dossier against Iraq when they attempted to make their case for war, or thought that the evidence of a dirty bomb was just plain weak. Only one of these options makes sense.

Furthermore, let's remember that Dr. Kelly was the scientists who claimed to a BBC reporter that the British government "sexed up" their dossier against Iraq anonymously, therefore his public statements and anonymous statements, wherein the latter he never expected to be held responsible for his words, this difference needs to be stated, which none of the articles I have read about this story have pointed out this difference. The British government was breathing down the necks of their defense officials, trying to get them to support the case for war, and Dr. Kelly made his dirty bomb statements to The Times as a member of the government, doing what was expected of him. Dr. Kelly made his statements to the BBC anonymously, meaning that he would speak more freely with less fear of someone in the government finding out that he made these statements.

It's also worth pointing out that the US has still not found evidence of any WMDs, and that includes dirty bombs.

The point may be moot anyways, because Downing Street is already trying to dismiss anything that Dr. Kelly has said.

Cause and Effect
On the frontpage the Providence Journal's "Money and Business" section today, there is a picture of a call center worker from India. (I would post the photo, but it's not online and, unfortunately, I do not have a scanner.) The caption to this picture is priceless: "MANISHA MARTIN, 27, takes telephone calls in Bombay, India, from U.S. welfare recipients." The picture goes with an article titled, "Job Flight", which discusses white collar computer jobs and call center jobs being outsourced to other countries.

I have no problem with oher countries vying for jobs, since they too have economies to maintain. However, do you notice anything wrong with the caption of this photo? We have a worker in India who is taking calls from US welfare recipients. The number one reason why an American has to go on welfare, I imagine, is because they cannot find work. Isn't it an insult that a welfare recipient who cannot find work has to talk to a worker in India to discuss the welfare program? Wouldn't it solve a couple of problems if we just give that welfare recipient one of the jobs that's going to India? Isn't outsourcing like this hurting our country and our economy by forcing people to go on welfare when they would normally just have a job if companies were not going through a rash of outsourcing? And is this Indian worker in the picture employed because a government agency outsourced the position, just like how the Republicans outsourced to India so their workers could call American homes and ask for donations to the GOP? The article did not discuss who contracted welfare calls out to India.

This is an outrage. It just adds insult to injury. One reason why people are going on welfare is because businesses are geting too greedy and they are sending American jobs overseas while our economy is suffering. The executives are then just hoarding the money, while complaining that they had to do this because their comapny wasn't making any profit. However, I don't see any jobs from their ranks being cut, nor do I see their pay being cut. We shouldn't have to have welfare recipients talk about their options with workers who are in India, we should be giving the welfare recipients those jobs that are going to Inida.

Like I said before, I have no problem with other countries looking to bring jobs into their borders. They have economies to run, too. However, when our economy is suffering and the only thing bringing unemployment numbers down is the fact that half a million people have just stopped looking for work, we also have an economy to run that we have to worry about first. And we shouldn't be letting jobs slip away.