Hospital conditions and treatment of women in Zimbabwe

I know this isn't a topic that will come out and grab your attention, but news isn't exactly flying around fast and furiously this saturday. Zimbabwe, for some reason, has had a special place in my heart for the past couple of years. I feel sorry for the citizens of the country, who are oppressed by a dictator masquerading as a democratically elected President-for-Life Mugabe who could care less if the country crumbles around him. Mugabe's only true concern is maintaining his power, and he does not care about citizens. If Zimbabwe had oil, we might be paying attention to them but they just seem to be a forgotton country.

Anyways, here's one story about life in Zimbabwe.

Well, this didn't take too long

Planned Parenthood has filed a lawsuit to fight the partial birth abortion ban that Bush is about to sign.

Another excellent reason to place all your trust in our government

I can't make this shit up: "Milk and meat from cloned animals will not need special approval or labelling for sale in the United States, the country's food regulator is likely to decide." We're not even sure of cloning animals can produce a clone that is able to live a long, healthy life, yet we're supposed to believe that eating the meat from one is safe? And what the hell is the problem with having a label so leery people like myself can decide what goes into my body?

Source: rall.com

Why is this even a story?

And, now more importantly, how come this story has had better staying power then lies swept under the rug by the Bush administration.

You know what I'm talking about, Harry Potter gives children headaches! It causes headaches! Pot headaches! Children, dun dun dunnn.. [dramatic pause] REEEEEAD TOO MUCH!

As if children sitting 2 feet away from a TV for 6 hours a day wouldn't cause the same result, but nobody ever complained about it then.

This story has been in the media for, what, a week now? It's time for the story to die since it never should have lived in the first place. Why aren't they talking about Halliburton's multibillion, no-bid contract in Iraq being extended, or that these no-bid sweetheart contracts have been awarded to companys that donated heaping amounts of money to the Bush campaign. And hey, whatever happened to the Wilson/Plame scandal where high ranking members of the Bush administration broke the law and risked the lives of Americans of who diligently work for their country, only so they could smear Joe Wilson for speaking out against the Bush administration's claims of Iraq trying to purchase "yellow cake" nuclear materials from Niger?

And what about that whacky 9th Circuit Court of Appeals knocking down a case against touch screen voting machines brought to their attention by a citizen concerned about the health of our democracy? She claimed the, "lack of a voter-verified paper trail in the Sequoia Voting Systems AVC Edge Touchscreen Voting System that the county installed violates her rights to equal protection and due process." But the court, despite all the recent stories about Diebold, dismissd her case as being, "a hypothetical concern about the ability to audit and verify election results, and that the impact on her right to vote is minimal." I wish I was making this up, but I'm not.

Nope, Potter Potter Potter! Oh, BTW, the economy ROCKS! We would never think about fudging the unemployment numbers to make it look like people are geting jobs!

In fact, don't read! It's dangerous! Set your TV to Faux News and rip off the knob, it's the only way you'll feel safe, happy, warm, and cozy. So just mozy over to the dark side.. Err, I mean, our side!

So I rolled out of bed this morning only to find out that my leter to my former manager never reached my former manager because I do not have his email address. I guess that's another drawback to your former manager having only having said two words to you ever and firing you without notice.

Well, it felt good to write it, anyways.

So, anyone got a job for me?

A letter to my former manager

The manner in which I have been released from my contract is wholly unprofessional and completely unappreciated. Sending an email to my contractors at 5:30, while I'm still at work and finishing my shift at 7:00pm, to inform them of my termination when I haven't even been warned or informed for this action is the biggest back stabbing I have received in my five years working has an IT help desk technician. Not only did you not warn me, but you've never even said a word to me other then, "Hi Adam." We've never even held a conversation.

I have to depend upon a job to put food in my mouth and keep a roof over my head, you know. Not to lay a guilt trip on you, but I was never aware that I had done something wrong because I was never warned. If you were not satisfied with my performance, why wasn't I warned? Why wasn't I told? Why was I simply like go like I am some piece of trash that you are done with?

Sir, I am not a piece of trash. I'm a human being and I expect to be treated like one.

Do you have a family, Dana? Do you have bills that need to be paid? How would you feel if you got stabbed in the back and suddenly lost your job? How do you think I feel?

The least you could have done is warned me, Dana. The least you could have done is treated me like a human being.

I still have a book in my cubical. Arrangements will need to be made so I can get this book back, or I will be sending you a bill.

Have a nice life, Dana. I hope you don't have too much trouble sleeping at night. Make sure I'm in your thoughts while your at church this Sunday.

"Sincerely,"

Adam Dupont

Update: I should mention that the assholes who did this to me were Citizens Bank. If you don't want to do business with assholes, don't do business with Citizens Bank.

Economic growth.. Maybe

I like the BBC. However, I have to take exception to one headline for an article they published today: "US economic growth soars". While it's true that our economy has grown, I can't see why such a positive headline was attached to this story when I can find this paragraph in the article:

But despite the massive boost to the economy, some economists are warning that growth - forecast at about 4% for the final quarter and into next year - could stumble if the US's jobs drought continues.

The headline just adds some unnecessary spin to the article, because I don't think it's all that positive. The job outlook may be getting rosier, though; I have been getting a call or two a week from headhunters because I'm too lazy to take my resume off Monster. (Of course, witht he state my job field is in, all I'm wanted for is contract positions, where I'm not actually employed by the companyt hat I work for, so I probably wouldn't get all those neat things like raises, benefits, holiday pay, and vacation. I got that 5 years ago, and my salary has only marginally changed since then, too.) But the fact still stands that a lot of people remain unemployed.

So, since the BBC added their own spin to this story, I see no problem if I do the same thing. Here are some of my favorite comments on this story from Fark:

"It's pretty easy to show a 7% growth rate when you've been running at 0% for almost a year. "

"Tell that to all the folks who've been laid off. I'm sure it'll make their day."

"Who needs job growth when you can have increased productivity? More Work! Less Pay!"

"Now if we could only do something about the unemployment and corporate welfare..."

"Amazing, isn't it, that the Republicans are so desperate to claim good economic news that they'll rave about anything - even a cry of "Look! The defecit isn't quite as massive as we predicted!"

"So the economy automatically becomes good simply by someone saying it is good? Wow, that's incredible let me try...... "I'm a millionaire........" "....hmm.....err....." "I'm a millionaire!!!!........" HEY!, how long does this take to work anyway?"

So, how come nobody ever leaves any comments?

WTF

Right wing journalist Donald Luskin is threatening to sue Atrios over statements made by readers in his comments section. They have also threatened to dig up Atrios' identity, even though he wishes to remain anonymous. This fits the definition of censorship to a T, and I certainly hope the ACLU will be on the case if this explodes into a lawsuit. Anybody who has a blog or has ever thought about having one needs to stand behind Atrios, or else you might be next.

Scary fact of the day

Lyndon Larouche has a campaign warchest of $5,652,767. That's more money then Sharpton, Moseley-Braun, Kucinich, and Clark, all of whom have appeared in the debates. The good news is that he's blown most of the dough and only has $94,859 on hand. (What did he spend it on? I have yet to see an advertisment for his campaign.)

Does he think we're as stupid as he is?

Yesterday I said the Bush adminitration should issue some retractions concerning their prior statements about the war in Iraq, and I cited the "Mission Accomplished" flying/sailing press conference that Bush held on May 1st. Well, I was certainly floored to shit when I saw this headline last night: "Bush disavows mission accomplished banner". When I read the article, though, I didn't find the substance to be as conclusive as the headline.

There's a reason for that, and I think an editorial from Buzzflash hits the nail on the head:

Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

Mr. Sforza worked for Bush. So, when Bush said yesterday that, "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished," it was a flat out lie.

What I love, though, was the Republican pundits who buy Bush's bullshit and practice some revisionist history, claiming that Bush never said that our mission in Iraq was over, ignoring the fact that he was in front of a big fucking banner that said it, on an aircraft carrier, kind of annoucing to the nation that the military was victorious in Iraq. Will anybody admit that he spoke too soon?! Of course, these are the same people who claim that the Bush administration never instigated there was an imminent threat from Iraq because Bush never said the word "imminent". Sometimes you have to wonder if they believe all the bullshit they try to shovel down our throats.

I don't know how many entries I'll make today. Everytime I try to read something, this big black box sitting besides starts ringing uncontrollably and I have to take care of it. After that task is done, I read another sentence and it goes off again. I'm lucky if I'll get a paragraph done before 1:00.

Only The Wrong Survive

If you like hardcore (as in punk hardcore, not that rap/rock Limp Bullshit), do yourself a favor and grab Toxic Narcotic's new EP, "Shoot People, Not Dope".

Listening to the second song, "Only The Wrong Survive", reminds me of what's happening in Iraq right now:

The innocent suffer so the wicked can thrive
On the millions of civilians who have lost their lives
Don't believe you're leaders they're all fucking lying
All the wrong people are dying

Go order the EP. I promise it'll be the best $5.50 you've ever spent.

Here it comes! Duck!

Blogging might be light tomorrow with the massive solar flare scheduled to smack Earth. But then again, you might not have power either, so why the hell am I posting this?

Personally, I'm hoping to see the northern lights for once in my life. If this possible geomagnetic storm doesn't deliver them, that means I have to take a road trip to Alaska before it melts.

Good question

Joe Conason asks a most relevant question concerning touch screen voting and Dieblod: "But why aren't Republicans -- many of whom fret incessantly about "ballot security" in black and Latino neighborhoods -- more disturbed by the threat of computer cheating?"

Yes, why aren't they? To add to that, why does this question even need to be asked? Why is there partisan bias concerning Diebold and computerized voting? How come Republicans not only show no concern about the security of our democracy, but they are actively working to support corporations like Diebold? As Conason also points out, Republican Rep. Bob Ney opposes legislation which would require computerized voting systems to print a paper ballot to comapre against the totals made by the machines, in case there needs to be a recount. Ney is also the committee chairman of the committee where this legislation can die, so we can assume he has the support of other Republicans.

How can anyone oppose this? Isn't this common sense?

And hey, not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but don't you find it funny that the proliferation of faulty voting systems which are unopposed by Republicans comes on the heels of them trying to remove Clinton from office, installing Bush in office when he lost the election, and recalling the governor in Caliafornia and replacing him with a man who received less of the popular vote than the candidate who was recalled? All of these actions are wholly undemocratic.

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that Republicans don't care about democracy, and that's why this has become a partisan issue.

At least the mainstream media is perking upto what Diebold is upto, Conason links to a piece by a Newsweek tech reporter in the Nov. 3 edition of the magazine. Which is great, but a technology reporter? What's the matter, the hard news reporters in the mainstream aren't biting? This story should be huge, and the fact that the Republicans are blocking efforts to insure that our leaders are democratally elected in free and fair elections should be even bigger news.

War updates

I haven't overhauled the links in a bit, but when I do I plan on adding this site: Today in Iraq. It's a daily dossier of headlines concerning the occupation, attacks, deaths, and injuries. All attack entries start with "Bring'em on".

Fires, Ecology, and Politics

Tresy at corrente has some great analysis of the fires in California, detailing how these fires happen, how neighborhoods are being built in harms way, and how the Bush administration is already trying to use the fires to their political advantage, to give handouts to the timber industry.

So, when's Saddam's "Mission Accomplished" party?

I'll freely admitt hat I didn't think about anything of much importance yesterday, it was a rather lazy day for the noggin. It happens. But, I still can't stop thinking about the attacks that took place in Baghdad yesterday. Our opposition had a plan which was well thought out and, worse, well executed. This is the same opposition that our president tried leading the nation to believe that we had defeated when he used taxpayer dollars to fly onto an aircraft carrier and declare "Mission Accomplished".

Will Bush take those words back anytime soon? Will his administration finally admit that taking the suggestion of the PNAC to give Ahmed Chabali a leadership role in Iraq wasn't quite a good idea and finally kick the man to the curb? Will they admit that the war is still going on, and stop trying to propagandize that things ar hunky-dory in Iraq, the citizens love us, and our soldiers are just building schools and yadda yadda yadda? Will they finally admit that things are fucked and their intelligence reports absolutely suck if the supposedly weak opposition is strong enough to launch attacks like the one we saw yesterday?

And just where is Saddam, anyways? How do we know that he isn't organizing these attacks? Will we ever catch an "evildoer"?

I expect to see some retractions. First of statements, and then of troops.

More abuse of power from the Bush administration

From Salon today:

Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, condoms: George W. Bush has a lot of enemies. And the question is finally starting to be asked, just what steps is his administration willing to take in order to silence them? Network anchormen and coffee-break pundits alike were abuzz over the did-they-or-didn't-they CIA leak scandal. But the outing of Valerie Plame isn't the only instance where the federal government has been suspected of using its resources in direct, if somewhat sneaky, retaliation against its political opponents. Ruining the lives of CIA agents may make for dynamic headlines, but recent evidence shows that the Bush administration also has much smaller fish to fry.

And those smaller fish are good programs which provide facts to teenages about sex, AIDS, STDs, etc. But the Bush administration has decided to burden them with audits because they do not promote "abstinence only" (ie: they actually have a grip on reality and realize that teenagers are going to have sex no matter what the government says, so the best defense is educating them about sex.)

God, I hate this guy.

Fark headline of the day

"Aerial view of SoCal fires --- there are handbaskets everywhere"

Not to take a cheap shot at some serious business. Take a look at the photo and try not to say, "Holy shit."

Source: SignOnSanDiego

Jesus.

34 dead, scores injured, by a series of bombs in Baghdad.

I think we need a little Reality Check, my friend

Ahh, Newsmax, those wild and crazy "journalists". One of my email accounts is still signed up for their mailings, and sometimes I read them when I need a good laugh. So I had to open an email with the subject, "Why America Hates the Democrats," since Newsmax has always captured the American zeitgeist.

The email had 4 short "articles" in it. I will touch upon two of them. The first one, Next for Castro's Axis: Mexico, starts out with this line: "A lot of Americans don't like Mexican President Vicente Fox". Actually, a lot of Americans wouldn't be able to name who el presidente of our southern neighbor is, nevermind commenting on his policies. The article also neglects to mention that Castro's about ready to dropdead. What's he gonna do, rule over Mexico with an iron walker?

Newsmax also proves that, once again, the media is LIBERAL! Yes, in Media Distortions in Schiavo Case, they sure set the right straight.

Some of the most biased reporting we've ever seen came this past week with the coverage of Terri Schiavo and partial-birth abortion.

[snip]

Wire services and other media leaders also called the fight over Mrs. Schiavo's fate a "right-to-die" case ... it is a right-to-live case. Yet the mainstream media refuse to call it that.

Such wisdom! The media must be biased in labeling this a "right-to-die" case! I forgot the March of the Comatose on Washington that demanded liberal politicians to let them live! That damn liberal media!

Oh, oops, Newsmax says we can't call her comatose!

We caught several newspapers, wire services and other members of Big Media falsely describing Mrs. Schiavo as "comatose."

So, if she's not comatose, but shehas been lying in a hospital bed, in a vegetative state, for the past decade.. What exactly is she?! Please Newsmax please, lemmie know!

They continue:

"What's your position on the forced feeding of the Florida woman?" asked a poll we spotted on the legal Web site FindLaw, as if food were being stuffed down Mrs. Schiavo's throat against her will.

Notably absent was a poll asking "your position on the forced starvation" she was suffering before Florida's Legislature and governor intervened.

Well Newsmax, how should it be defined? If forced feeding isn't the right phrase for someone who has a feeding tube forced into her which, according to her husband, is against her will, what should the poll have asked? "Should the happy-go-lucky feeding tube be removed from the not-so-comatose (really!) women?" The poll questionabout forced starvation that they would rather have the media ask isn't as unbiased as Newsmax likes to think, but since Newsmax refuses to recognize the right-to-die movement, they hardly care.

You see, boys and girls, this whole email I was sent, and Newsmax's mission as a media organization, can be defined in one term: Propaganda. They take the news and add so much spin to it to illustrate their whacko beliefs that they try to tell you that the media is liberal because they to not tow the Newsmax line. They even go as far to spread lies, like saying that woman isn't comatose. Then they refuse to recognize a "right-to-die" movement, like any sane person would choose to be a vegetable. This is how far removed from reality Newsmax is.

And just think, the Bush administration would agree with everything they say. Seeing that Bush only gets his news hand delivered to him by his aides, I wouldn't be surprised if his aides handed him this bullshit from Newsmax.

One final, off-topic note: since Bush admitted in front of a national, primetime audience that he doesn't research the news on his own, shouldn't that scare you? Shouldn't he be impeached? People might think I am nuts for seeing that he should be impeached simply for not reading the news on his own, but think about it this way: admitting that he doesn't do his own research into making presidential decisions is nothing more then comin right out and say, "Yes, I don't make my own decisions, I let other people do that for me." Isn't this in violation of his oath of office, in which he swore to uphold the office? If it's not him who is upholding the office, then who is it? I'd like to know who the real president is.

Just something I found at a truck stop in Kentucky...

Oh, what to be for Halloween...

With dreams of a black dress shirt accented by a purple sport jacket, I told my roomie that I wanted to be a pimp for Halloween.

"The dog is already going out as a pimp." Damnit, I've just been shown up by a dog!

"But if I'm a pimp, it would be a good excuse to say [insert scummy mexican accent here] 'Heeeeeey! How about some fine, young punta?!'"

"Well, you could say that..."

So I mulled some thoughts around in my head for a few minutes, and as I brought my dirty plate into the kitchen, it hit me. I came up with the perfect costume. It was genius. I had to tell my roomie.

"I think I know what I'm going to be for Halloween."

"What's that?", she said.

"I'll dress up in an all pink outfit and when somebody asks me what I am, I'll say that I'm the clitoris."

My roomie doesn't even flinch or look up. We've known each other for 6 years now, and she's used to these random thoughts coming out of my mouth. "You'll have a lot of trouble finding a date."

I retort, "Well, with my costume, at least I can say that I can find the clitoris."

This starts a couple minutes of conversation about how men can't find something so easy, which I can't understand. I mean, it's right there. Then my roomie commented on her friend who said one of her boyfriends was "trying to start a fire" looking for it one time, and we laughed.

Welcome to morning conversations in our household.

I enjoy pain

I watched Bill O'Reilly friday night. God, is this guy an asshole.

He was bitching about movies like "Kill Bill" getting favorable press reviews. His main gripe, if you haven't already guessed, is all about the children. What if a child sees this violent film, baw baw baw, parents can't watch them all the time, baw baw baw.

That's right, parents can't watch their children all the time. That's why it's their responsibility to instill their children with responsibility and a sense of knowing right from wrong. Maybe I'm from a different planet or something, but I believe that's called parenting.

One of Bill's guests tried saying that violent films like "Kill Bill" are not art. I forget his name, so I'll just call him Fuckhole. So, news to Fuckhole: who are you to say what is and isn't art? If anyone uses their creativity to create something, that's art. End of fucking story. Just because you don't happen to like it doesn't make it any more or less of an art piece. Beyond this, inciting that "Kill Bill" has no artistic value just because it's a violent movie is absolutely ludicrous from an artistic and historical standpoint. The choreography alone of a scene with 35-40 sword-wielding actors in a kung-fu fight is a pretty impressive feat. Maybe Fuckhole should go see the movies he claims has no artistic value before making the claims of a silly, silly clueless man. As for history, I remember reading "Beowulf" in high school. If I remember correctly, he story had death and dismemberment in it. My summer reading lists were filled with books about war and gang violence. One can make the case that violence has always been a staple of great literature. Hell, look at the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.

Furthermore, O'Reilly complaining about violence in Hollywood? Gimmie a break. What moral ground does this guy have to stand on when he supported war in Iraq? Are we now supposed to think that a war which killed untold thousands of innocent civilians not only lacks violence, but our children should support it and hear about it on the news every night? The gall of this man to rally against violent films while he supports death and dismemberment of people abroad. Could anything be more hypocritical?

Honestly, why does this guy even have a fucking job? Why is he famous? How could people believe this trash? How can people even continue to take Fox News seriously when they refuse to fire a fuck up "jounralist" like Geraldo Rivera? How can they be "Fair and Balanced" when their anchors take part in panel discussions about the issues? I mean, have you ever seen Tom Brokow in a panel discussion, nevermind on a weekly basis like Brit Hume? No, of course not. No matter your opinion of anchors like Tom Brokow, they at least recognize that they are supposed to be objective journalists. Not Hume! The man who accepted an award from a group which believes in the total and absolute destruction of the Democratic party because they are delusional enough to believe they are socialists and terrorists is supposed to be their "Fair and Balanced" anchor!

What gets me is that people believe this. They actually believe that the media is too liberal and that Fox News is a counterweight to it, instead of what the channel really is: a mouthpiece of Republican talking points.

I realize that I probably haven't said anything new with this rant, but what the fuck? Do you ever get the feeling that the half of this nation is absolutely nuts? Doesn't it drive you crazy that the Republicans have crowed their myth about the "liberal media" so much that many people think it's a reality? And what's their attitude if you disagree with them? Why, you're unamerican! You must hate America if you don't agree with every single word that I say! I mean, how can you even talk with somebody so unreasonable?