APRIL 24, 2006

The viewscreens have been full of palaver, lauding the formation of the Iraqi "government" as a watershed event, saying "surely, in the sight of this, democracy is blooming in Iraq, and everything up to this point is now officially worth it."

Uhh- nice. Guess that makes the continuing attacks in Iraq irrelevant.. Seriously- we went through alla this crap and denial of reality, during each successive, empty, meaninglss election that took place in that husk of a country.. Again, I have to point out:

The folks who are blowing stuff up over there ain't just gonna put down their arms and give up, simply because a few guys in suits cloistered within the Green Zone signed a piece of paper. The violence just ain't gonna end, and well- as long as Iraq is unsafe for our oil colonies, our troops are gonna be stuck there.

The prime chunk of disinfo that's being spread around these days by the few remaining defenders of this atrocity is:

"In 16 of Iraq's 18 provinces, there are less than six insurgent attacks a day."

Strange- a year ago- these same idiots were lauding a total lack of insurgent activity in 16 out of 18 provinces. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that when violence spreads to provinces formerly bereft of such, it's not a winning situation. I guess in about six months, we can expect the talking heads to say that Iraq "Isn't really mired in civil war, because 16 out of 18 provinces are controlled by 16 separate militias, which are fighting exclusively in the other two."

While I'm away (see below)- take 30 seconds to click on a few Google Ads (below, and to the left- it'll make me a few extra bucks, to keep this whole thing going, while hits sink to miserable levels over the next week.)


By Jane Smiley
(Huffington Post)

Bruce Bartlett, The Cato Institute, Andrew Sullivan, George Packer, William F. Buckley, Sandra Day O'Connor, Republican voters in Indiana and all the rest of you newly-minted dissenters from Bush's faith-based reality seem, right now, to be glorying in your outrage, which is always a pleasure and feels, at the time, as if it is having an effect, but those of us who have been anti-Bush from day 1 (defined as the day after the stolen 2000 election) have a few pointers for you that should make your transition more realistic.

1. Bush doesn't know you disagree with him. Nothing about you makes you of interest to George W. Bush once you no longer agree with and support him. No degree of relationship (father, mother, etc.), no longstanding friendly intercourse (Jack Abramoff), no degree of expertise (Brent Scowcroft), no essential importance (Tony Blair, American voters) makes any difference. There is nothing you have to offer that makes Bush want to know you once you have come to disagree with him. Your opinions and feelings now exist in a world
entirely external to the mind of George W. Bush. You are now just one of those "polls" that he pays no attention to. When you were on his side, you thought that showed "integrity" on his part. It doesn't. It shows an absolute inability to learn from experience.

2. Bush doesn't care whether you disagree with him. As a man who has dispensed with the reality-based world, and is entirely protected by his handlers from feeling the effects of that world, he is indifferent to what you now think is real. Is the Iraq war a failure and a quagmire? Bush doesn't care. Is global warming beginning to affect us right now? So what. Have all of his policies with regard to Iran been misguided and counter- productive? He never thinks about it. You know that Katrina tape in which Bush never asked a question? It doesn't matter how much you know or how passionately you feel or, most importantly, what degree of disintegration you see around you, he's not going to ask you a question. You and your ideas are dead to him. You cannot change his mind. Nine percent of polled Americans would agree with attacking Iran right now. To George Bush, that will be a mandate, if and when he feels like doing it, because...

3. Bush does what he feels like doing and he deeply resents being told, even politely, that he ought to do anything else. This is called a "sense of entitlement". Bush is a man who has never been anywhere and never done anything, and yet he has been flattered and cajoled into being president of the United States through his connections, all of whom thought they could use him for their own purposes. He has a surface charm that appeals to a certain type of American man, and he has used that charm to claim all sorts of perks, and then to fail at everything he has ever done. He did not complete his flight training, he failed at oil investing, he was a front man and a glad-hander as a baseball owner. As the Governor of Texas, he originated one educational program that turned out to be a debacle; as the President of the US, his policies have constituted one screw-up after another. You have stuck with him through all of this, made excuses for him, bailed him out. From his point of view, he is perfectly entitled by his own experience to a sense of entitlement. Why would he ever feel the need to reciprocate? He's never had to before this.

4. President Bush is your creation. When the US Supreme Court humiliated itself in 2000 by handing the presidency to Bush even though two of the justices (Scalia and Thomas) had open conflicts of interest, you did not object. When the Bush administration adopted an "Anything but Clinton" policy that resulted in ignoring and dismissing all warnings of possible terrorist attacks on US soil, you went along with and made excuses for Bush. When the Bush administration allowed the corrupt Enron corporation to swindle California ratepayers and taxpayers in a last ditch effort to balance their books in 2001, you laughed at the Californians and ignored the links between Enron and the administration. When it was evident that the evidence for the war in Iraq was cooked and that State Department experts on the Middle East were not behind the war and so it was going to be run as an exercise in incompetence, you continued to attack those who were against the war in vicious terms and to defend policies that simply could not work. On intelligent design, global warming, doctoring of scientific results to reflect ideology, corporate tax giveaways, the K Street project, the illegal redistricting of Texas, torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the Terry Schiavo fiasco, and the cronyism that led to the destruction of New Orleans you have failed to speak out with integrity or honesty, preferring power to truth at every turn. Bush does what he wants because you have let him.

5. Tyranny is your creation. What we have today is the natural and inevitable outcome of ideas and policies you have promoted for the last generation. I once knew a guy who was still a Marxist in 1980. Whenever I asked him why Communism had failed in Russia and China, he said "Mistakes were made". He could not believe that Marxism itself was at fault, just as you cannot believe that the ideology of the unregulated free market has created the world we live in today. You are tempted to say: "Mistakes have been made", but in fact, psychologically and sociologically, no mistakes have been made. The unregulated free market has operated to produce a government in its own image. In an unregulated free market, for example, cheating is merely another sort of advantage that, supposedly, market forces might eventually "shake out" of the system. Of course, anyone with common sense understands that cheaters do damage that sometimes cannot be repaired before they are "shaken out", but according to the principles of the unregulated free market, the victims of that sort of damage are just out of luck and the damage that happens to them is just a sort of "culling". It is no accident that our government is full of cheaters--they learned how to profit from cheating when they were working in corporations that were using bribes, perks, and secret connections to cheat their customers of good products, their neighbors of healthy environmental conditions, their workers of workplace safety and decent paychecks. It was only when the corporations began cheating their shareholders that any of you squealed, but you should know from your own experience that the unregulated free market as a "level playing field" was the biggest laugh of the 20th century. No successful company in the history of capitalism has ever favored open competition. When you folks pretended, in the eighties, that you weren't using the ideology of the free market to cover your own manipulations of the playing field to your own advantage, you may have suckered yourselves, and even lots of American workers, but observers of capitalism since Adam Smith could have told you it wasn't going to work.

And then there was the way you used racism and religious intolerance to gain and hold onto power. Nixon was cynical about it--taking the party of Lincoln and reaching out to disaffected southern racists, drumming up a backlash against the Civil Rights movement for the sake of votes, but none of you has been any less vicious. Racism might have died an unlamented death in this country, but you kept it alive with phrases like "welfare queen" and your resistance to affirmative action and taxation for programs to help people in our country with nothing, or very little. You opted not to take the moral high ground and recognize that the whole nation would be better off without racism, but rather to increase class divisions and racial divisions for the sake of your own comfort, pleasure, and profit. You have used religion in exactly the same way. Instead of strongly defending the constitutional separation of church and state, you have encouraged radical fundamentalist sects to believe that they can take power in the US and mold our secular government to their own image, and get rich doing it. The US could have become a moderating force in what seems now to be an inevitable battle among the three monotheistic Abrahamic religions, but you have made that impossible by flattering and empowering our own violent and intolerant Christian right.

You have created an imperium, heedless of the most basic wisdom of the Founding Fathers--that at the very least, no man is competent enough or far-seeing enough to rule imperially. Checks and balances were instituted by Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of them not because of some abstract distrust of power, but because they had witnessed the screw-ups and idiocies of unchecked power. You yourselves have demonstrated the failures of unchecked power--in an effort to achieve it, you have repeatedly contravened the expressed wishes of most Americans, who favor a moderate foreign policy, reasonable domestic programs, a goverrnment that works, environmental preservation, women's rights to contraception, abortion, and a level playing field. Somehow you thought you could mold the imperium to reflect your wishes, but guess what--that's what an imperium is--one man rule. If you fear the madness of King eorge, you have no recourse if you've given up the checks and balances that you nherited and that were meant to protect you.

Your ideas and your policies have promoted selfishness, greed, short-term solutions, bullying, and pain for others. You have looked in the faces of children and denied the existence of a "common good". You have disdained and denied the idea of "altruism". At one time, our bureaucracy was full of people who had gone into government service or scientific research for altruistic reasons--I knew, because I knew some of them. You have driven them out and replaced them with vindictive ignoramuses. You have lied over and over about your motives, for example, making laws that hurt people and calling it "originalist interpretations of the Constitution" (conveniently ignoring the Ninth Amendment). You have increased the powers of corporations at the expense of every other sector in the nation and actively defied any sort of regulation that would require these corporations to treat our world with care and respect. You have made economic growth your deity, and in doing so, you have accelerated the power of the corporations to destroy the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice caps, the rainforests, and the climate. You have produced CEOs in charge of lots of resources and lots of people who have no more sense of reciprocity or connection or responsibility than George W. Bush.

Now you are fleeing him, but it's only because he's got the earmarks of a loser. Your problem is that you don't know why he's losing. You think he's made mistakes. But no. He's losing because the ideas that you taught him and demonstrated for him are bad ideas, self-destructive ideas, and even suicidal ideas. And they are immoral ideas. You should be ashamed of yourselves because not only have your ideas not worked to make the world a better place, they were inhumane and cruel to begin with, and they have served to cultivate and excuse the inhumane and cruel character traits of those who profess them.

APRIL 21, 2006

A few days back, I made a tremendous error, when addressing some of the stupid e-mails I've gotten, in recent days. I erroneously stated that they had been sent by "19-year-olds," and in doing so, pretty much insulted everyone in that age group.

Truth be told, I've gotten a heck of a lot of quality media produced by folks 19 years old, and younger, and a lot of folks in that age group produce good sites and blogs, many of which I link to.

I was wrong- I screwed up, and I shall not make such an error, again. I forget that cluelessness and ignrorance isn't exclusively the provice of the young- After all, "Falafel" Bill O'Reilly is 57, and has less sense than a jar of vegemite.

So, to alla the teens out there- please accept my apologies.


Three days from now, I'll be doing a linkspage update, and after that, I have to focus on CMS conversion of Bushflash. Thankfully, I've found someone who says that they can guide me through what needs to be done- but for now, the impetus is on me, to produce a few new layouts.

Once CMS is implimented, Bushflash can be updated daily instead of bi-weekly, provide more content, and additional hands can be brought on-board to handle the tons of stuff that floods in, every day.

Here's hoping Bushflash can catch up with the times... It's been a personal labor of love, hope, desperation, and anger for well onto three years, and I want it to be the best it can be. After all, we're now dealing with the most unpopular government in our nation's history- it's a far cry from the situation we were in but three years ago, when anyone who questioned these bastards was treated like they were North Korean infiltrators.

APRIL 19, 2006

Because, first of, all, I'm sick of getting emails from immature contrarians who have nothing better to do than spew doctrinarian crap that I got sick of more than a decade ago. I didn't know that speaking from experience and pointing out the obvious would attract such a torrent of rabid cluelessness.

Seriously- I'm getting e-mails from people protesting my comments regarding religion, belaboring me with harangues saying North Korea isn't a "true" atheist state, and that we should excuse the crimes of atheist regimes, because, well- their intentions are somehow "pure."

I can only stand so much idiocy,,,

Anyhoo- to proceed:

Secondly, because, well- the Bush Bowl is poised at the edge of starting World War Three, and I feel there are more important things to comment on- and to that end...


At long last, I know the answer: Because there are some things so damned complex and dangerous going on in our world, that I really can't encapsulate them in a pissy little flash slide show set to a techno tune.

I'm still going to do more flash, in the future, but this ongoing Iranian crisis can't really be put into a quick slideshow.. But, before I get into Iran, I have to make a few blatant plugs- if you wanna avoid them, just click here to skip ahead....


First off, a few weeks back, I received a new CD from Lahavine- "Faith in Evidence". I know they're going to be angry when I say this, but their last album was a bit better, but it's still worth checking out.

I got a few T-shirts from Bushflash affiliate Dissentees- my, but they're fine. I just have to wonder if anyone's gonna stick around to read the rather long statements that the shirts feature.

I was recently informed that the author of "Bush Guide 2004" has a new book, free for internet reading here.

The filmmakers of Winter Soldier have announced that their film is now available on DVD- check it out- as days go on, the film becomes all the more relevant.

And, it's long overdue- a long while back, I received a review copy of Sankara Saranam's book, God Without Religion. To tell the truth, even though I usually power through books in short order, I'm still going through this one, slowly. It's the kind of book that contains more thought in a single paragraph than is in an average book. While some of the concepts put forward in the book strike me as a tad eccentric, it still makes one think. A review of said book, is coming, soon.


Quite frankly, In Iran, the neocons have met their match. Leading up to the war in Iraq, the lunatics over at the Project for the New American Century, along with their pliant shills in the corporate media, had one, simple-minded strategy, when it came to the middle east:

"Kick the door in, and the whole rotten structure will collapse. Once the people of the Islamic world have drunk from the cup of American Democracy, had a few Subway BMTs, and felt the snug fit of Levi's Jeans, they'll all convert to Christianity, buy Hummers, and line up to give free, hour-long sessions of fellatio to our occupying troops."

As you can see from the stunningly clever and ironic link above, things just didn't play out that way back when Hitler had the same attitude, towards the erstwhile Soviet Union, and they didn't, this time around. No big surprise to anyone with two brain cells to rub together- but hey- as I learned at the IPDI conference, It's become clear that multi-celled thinking is just too "reality based" for the folks who call the shots, in this country.

Now that Iraq has turned into a cesspit of sectarian violence and terrorism (thanks, George!) and Afghanistan has reverted to a narco-state in which a cloistered Unocal-sponsored government in Kabul wields as much power as a 2-watt flashlight while the Taliban makes a comeback, one might think that the neocons have seen the writing on the wall, and re-considered a diplomatic and military strategy that features all the finesse and thoughtfulness one would usually expect from a GG Allin concert.

Unfortunately, while a few prominent neocons have realized the basic, fundamental failings of the premise that has led us to this sorry state, and have recanted, publicly, the vast majority have held fast. Foremost among them have been Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bush, Rice, and of course, the pretender in chief himself, George W. Bush.

Their strategy has changed, however- they have given up any hope of actually subjugating the people who have had the ultimate misfortune of being born on land that sits atop the oil that the neocons see as our god-given birthright. Instead, they have realized that their long-term strategy can only have any hope of survival in times to come, if they "reap the whirlwind."

Yeah- we can't conquer the Islamic world, or wipe them all out, for the foreseeable future, but if we manage to create as much chaos as possible in the region, we can justify our presence, for times to come. The neoconservative strategy, for the duration of the republican dominance of our government, is to get us so inexorably tied up in as many messes as possible, to such an extent, that their legacy of chaos will tie up administrations, and our country, for decades to come. Eventually, they presume, a blossom of American-style democracy will sprout in the ruins that they have created.

Again, anyone with a few brain cells to juggle around can see the insanity of this strategy, but, as usual, Bush doesn't. Undeterred by the utter failure of everything that he's done since entering office, he sees in the ashes of his burnt bridges the possibility of writing his name large in the annals of history- not as a man who ushered in a time of prosperity and peace, but as one who brought us down the path towards an an uncertain armageddon that he will leave for others to sort out.

Case in point: As Sy Hersh detailed in his excellent New Yorker article, Bush sees an opportunity- he is free from having to answer to the american public for his actions in an election, and sees an opportunity to tackle the "third rail" of foreign relations- Iran. He believes (with the same messianic, unwavering certainty that led us into war with Iraq) that no president in the future will ever be blessed with the glorious cajones that are required to take on the challenge of Iran.

Now- here's the main problem with Bush's planning and strategic thinking: for the entirety of his life that the United States of America was engaged in the fragile craft of diplomacy that governs such delicate issues as nuclear brinkmanship, Bush was snorting cocaine, and drinking himself into oblivion. He hasn't a single clue as to how this game is played, or what he's going up against- and what's even more frightening- he doesn't care.

Iran's government, on the other hand, is acutely aware of what's going on. Whatever you may say about the Iranian regime, they have a firmer foot in the ground of reality, than our government does, here, geopolitically. They see just how ineffectual the vaunted american military might is, to their eastern and western borders. They know we've bankrupted ourselves in two wars that have yielded squat, in concrete terms. They know we can't spare enough national guard troops to keep people from drowning and dying in the streets of our own cities, much less invade their sovereign territory.

They see us as the blustering, ineffectual paper tiger that we've become under Bush's "leadership", and their president Ahmadinejad is taking a page from the book of Chavez and Castro, and taking advantage of our clear and present weakness, to goof on us, at every turn.

The Iranians know- the only recourse the U.S. has, now, is to use our vaunted RNEP in selective air strikes that will yield little in concrete military results.

After all, Bush, along with the few misguided neocons and conservative diehards that still stand with him, believe the moment that the frist RNEP hits Iranian soil, Guess-jean-wearing, blogging Iranians will overthrow the mullahs that hold sway in Tehran. The capital will be re-named "George Bush City", while vans laden with pork products and alcohol roll into Tehran, as Britney Spears tunes are played from the PA systems formerly used as Muezzin minbars.

The two major problems here are obvious, but I'll point them out, for any of the few remaining Bush/Neocon loyalists that bother to come to this site:

1: The use of nuclear weapons is one of the great taboos of geopolitics. Nuclear weapons, despite their proliferation since their inception, have only been used twice (by the USA- but that's another topic, for another time.) Despite the number of nations that have acquired nukes since they were first built, not a one has been detonated, in anger. You know why? Because any nation, or group, that uses nukes will immediately find the wrath of the world vented upon them in ways that would make the Nuremberg Trials look like a candy-laced carnival. The idea of using nuclear RNEPs to prevent nuclear proliferation is an oxymoron that would be laughable, if it were not so immediate, and so ridiculous.

2: Iran is what I've come to call a "Revolutionary Society." Whether or not one might agree with the precepts of the revolution in question, is immaterial. Iran, and Iranians, have had their fill of having their destiny controlled by outside powers, and despite whatever reservations the Iranian people have about their current governance, they'd rather have a home-grown bastard in power, than have someone else, such as the United States, tell them what to do. You can point a million Iranian dissidents out to me- all well and good- but ask those same dissidents what they would do, should an outside power like the United States rain down nukes on their sovereign territory- I can guarantee that their answer won't be "Screw the Mullahs- I'm going to Disneyland!"

But all of this doesn't matter- We're going to war with Iran, soon. May "Bob" help us all.

APRIL 16, 2006

As was expected, I got a number of e-mails from folks out there who just had to go out of their way to point out:

"Religion is a fundamentally bad thing- it's led to so much destruction and death!"

Folks- I'll make you a deal:

You don't present me with straw-man arguments using, as examples, the actions of extremist religious regimes and movements, and I won't counter with arguments going into lurid details about the horrors perpetrated by atheist regimes, such as Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, the Khmer Rouge, or North Korea.

Do we have a deal? Good.


Straight-up- I love the Green Party. I voted for Nader in 2000, and have been moderately active, in Green Party politics, in times past.

But here's a slight caveat to my previous statement- I also happen to love (to a far lesser degree), the Constitution party, the Libertarian Party, and just about any other third party that crops up, here in the USA. It's insane that in a country that contains almost 300 million shades of gray, we're pretty much relegated to two realistic options, when we vote. The reasons for this current dearth of options in our republic are legion, and far too tedious to go into here, right now, so I'll proceed.

SInce 2000, when Nader brought respect and media attention to the party for the first time nationally, the Green Party has been a refuge for those on the left who are disgusted with both parties, or are facing an election in which the conclusion is foregone (and a few thousand votes thrown to an outsider won't make much of a difference.)

But they've never broken out into any offices, beyond the local level- this is unfortunate, but not without reason- the main one being that the american public just doesn't trust the Green Party. They see the GP as a gaggle of misfits playing in a game far beyond their abilities. And who could blame them?

The american people, despite our claims to a revolutionary heritage, are more willing to go with the devil they do know, than the devil they don't. It's that simple.

I've heard the Green arguments, time and again- "Well- the two major political parties have led us into deficits, wars, and ruin- why don't they give us a chance?"

Bring-bring! Wake up call, people- it's because, despite their failings, the two major political parties have been around for well over a century, and have proven they CAN lead. Yes- lead us into disaster, from time to time, but again- americans prefer a party that will lead whatever the result, rather than one which hasn't held an office higher than Mayor of Santa Cruz.

The Greens can lament this unfortunate fact of the body politic, but there it is- and there it will remain, for the foreseeable future.

That doesn't mean that the Green Party doesn't have a future, and a danged important role to play, in times to come. The Green Party has been quite successful in getting people elected at the local level- and that's where their focus should be. Once people in a few communities have elected greens at their local levels, and learn that green party policies actually work at in their communities, trust will be built with a supremely cynical electorate, and higher offices can be realistically sought.

When I go into the voting booth, I vote Democratic at the state and national level, and ALWAYS third-party, at the local, because that's where third parties have the best chance of winning, and the best chance of creating concrete change.

The Greens and their dedicated adherents, in the coming election, will be spending a lot of money, and a lot of effort, on races in which they don't have a snowball's chance in hell- good for them- because that's what political parties do- field candidates. However, for the progressive/liberal left, there is only one viable choice, when it comes to national/statewide politics- and that's the democratic party. It stinks like rotten meat- but, again, there it is.

Yeah- if the Dem running in your district is a DLC shill- go for it, and vote for the Green party alternative- but measure carefully the risk of your vote of protest allowing an even more repellant republican candidate taking office.

In a few election cycles, when a few greens have been elected to state legislatures, then- and only then, can we realistically talk about the Green Party being viable, as a national force

And one last note- to the Green Party, itself:

I gave up on my local GP, when the party mailing list included complaints from Greens that, horror of horrors, people were bringing Subway sandwiches to eat, during party meetings: "I thought it was known that we don't allow meat to be served, during our party meetings!"

Folks, if one is censured by a political organization because they happen to bring in a ham and cheese sandwich to munch on, during discussions, that organization is whack, and seriously needs to re-consider a few fundamental concepts.

APRIL 12, 2006

(Assuming anyone reads this crap, that is...)

A week back, I was invited to a friend's son's Bar Mitzvah at the Village Temple, In Manhattan. As a lifelong agnostic/latent subgenius, I've always shied away from religious activities, of all sorts. It just made me uncomfortable- being in an alien environment, surrounded by people who subscribe to a worldview that (I thought) was as alien as the dry sand plains of mars.

I figured that, upon crossing the threshold of the sanctuary, I'd burst into flames, while mad mohels would assault my sizzling genitalia, after which, my brain would be extracted from my still-steaming corpse, and plugged into a matrix of the devout. (An exaggeration, but you get the idea.)

I overcame my reservations- I'd known this guy for well onto 15 years, and heck- I'd never met his children- it was the least I could do. Besides which , I figured that I could make it to the fire extinguisher, before the fires of the vengeful God that I had forsaken throughout my life succeeded in rendering me unto ash...

Strangely enough, nothing happened, when I entered the temple, other than a few folks wishing me well as I took my seat. The service, while mostly in hebrew, was free of any fire and brimstone, and overall, was one of the more liberal and progressive in content that I've witnessed (but then again, it WAS "the Village."). After the service, I joined in the shabbat supper, where folks were genuine, open, and went out of their way to make an outsider gentile feel accepted, and welcome.

Riding back home, that night, I thought back to other such experiences- witnessing a catholic service in a gothic cathedral in Salisbury, England, listening to a sublimely exquisite latin chant echoing off 1000-year-old walls, while doves flew through the shafts of light cast through the open porticos, and the faithful knelt, in quiet hopes of absolution. I recalled my grandmother's funeral, presided over by by a baptist minister, whose only concern was that with a few words, he might lessen that pain that all of us felt.

The lesson that I've learned from all of this?

Exposure to religion, or the religious, won't kill you- in fact, you might learn or experience something that might very well teach you something.

Now- to some- this may be a no-brainer- but to a (lamentably) great number of those on the left, merely accepting the existence of religion is anathema. Everytime I've posted here on religious topics, I've gotten scores of e-mails, spouting outdated marxist nonsense, lecturing me in abstractions that really don't matter to a hill of beans:

"We need to work towards a world in which religion is extinct, and people realize the potential of the own work-captial- and then, we can all dance in the drum-circle, while eating tofu-burgers and bathing in each other's urine, as Gaia intended!!!"

The hell you say...

The fact of the matter is, that religion plays a significant role in american society, and it's not going to change in our lifetimes, or our great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren's lifetimes.

You can sit around and whine about John Lennon's lyrics not magically coming to fruition, or you can accept the fact that belief in the ultimate reality is an enduring facet of humanity- one that stretches back to the days in which we were living in caves, and will be with us, for millennia to come (and you had better- because that's the way things are.)

Am I saying that the left has to surrender any claim to secularism (which is essential to the proper functioning of our republic), and "come to God?"

HELLS, NO- what I'm saying is that we on the left have to understand, acknowledge, and give a tad of respect towards those who happen to believe in a higher power than mankind- because, like or not- they are the majority in our country, and they have a LOT to contribute, towards the goals of progressive left.

Think about it: Jesus decried the excesses of the rich and the powerful, lamented the miseries of the poor, railed against war, oppression, greed, and said "Blessed are the Peacemakers."

How in the living word of "Bob" almighty did an ideology such as this become the sole domain of a party and an administration that wages war upon innocents, robs the poor, and rewards the rich?

Because we on the left weren't there. Because, for some dumb-assed reason, we thought that when we accepted people and concepts of organized faith into our cause, we'd be somehow be breaching the wall between church and state.

Idiotic, huh?

In these dark times, we are all called to do the right thing- to oppose an encroaching fascism that promises nothing more than total subjugation, eternal war, and a plutocracy so extreme that it would make Ayn Rand blanch in terror. Are we so shallow, so bereft of our own liberal concept of "inclusiveness", that we'd turn our backs on those who would aid us, in our struggles, simply because they happen to believe in something that doesn't easilly fit into a secular worldview?

Those who are called to stand with us, because of their faith in an image of God or ultimate reality we may not totally agree with, are not to be spurned- they are to be welcomed.

We ignore and dismiss these issues and people, at our own peril.

APRIL 9, 2006

I will be spending less and less time wondering if the Bush Bowl is actually insane enough to launch a war against Iran, early next year. The operations are already underway.

Can I tell all sane folks out there something about Iran? They've seen what american "regime change" has wrought on both sides, and they know (more clearly than any american does) that they're next. And here's something that the neocons behind this current strategy don't seem to understand: The iranians will do anything they can, to prevent this from happening. If it means building nukes to prevent their nation from becoming the third dumping ground for depleted uranium and american military bases, they will build one.

Now- before the neocons roll out their standard "weblog and Levi Jeans" argument- It's gotta be clear- yes- there are people in Iran who don't support their extremely conservative government- but that doesn't mean they'd welcome a few megatons of explosives falling on their cities while a few hundred thousand americans march in...

The Iranian government, despite the well-publicised comments of Ahmadinejad, is far from the loony bin that the corporate media depicts. I make it a habit to listen to Iranian state radio every week, and it's easy to see what's going on (their propaganda is more translucent than the Albanian shortwave I used to listen to, back in the late 80's.)

The Iranian people elected Ahmadinejad as a reaction to the growth of American-inflicted insanity on their eastern and western borders. Think of it this way- If China had invaded Canada and Mexico, you'd be damned sure the folks of the good ol' USA would have voted for the most firebrand anti-chinese candidate on the slate...

The government of Iran is indeed volatile- but not imminently dangerous, if handled properly. Ask any hazmat technician- when they're brought in to handle a volatile situation- do they go in with guns blazing, or with a tad of caution and finesse?

Now, I may be young, but I remember the nuclear brinkmanship of the old cold war- this side or that threatening the use of nukes, testing, first strike- and even during the days of Reagan, such situations were handled with delicacy, with cool heads on both sides. In the initiatives put forth by this administration, I see only the same hotheaded, ham-fisted ineptness in diplomacy that led up to the war in Iraq (which, again, points to this coming war as a foregone conclusion, on the part of the Bush Bowl.)

We can afford the process of diplomacy, in the timeframe that we are faced with.

Even in the most fluid of scenarios, it would take five years for Iran to produce a home-made nuke. This administration is acting as if nuclear weapons could rain down on us, tomorrow, unless we carpet-bomb them, tonight.

This could be solved by a tad of sane thinking- but no- Bush, after all, was elected president by God, and he sees an opportunity to take a huge, worldwide crap on humanity that will mark him for the ages.


In coming days, I will be looking for ways to make this site a tad more pro-active, politically. The midterm elections, despite all the doom and gloom, can still be pivotal.

When I saw Kos on the Steven Colbert, it gave me a bit of cheer. This is a guy that gets it- in order for the democratic party, or politics in general, to be successful, it MUST be divorced from Washington. These early days are the times in which we on the liberal/progressive side MUST get involved in politics, more than at any other time- to support the challengers in primaries, to get involved at the most local of levels.

And I want, somehow, to make this site a resource for that. I mean, I can continue running this site as a place ya'll come to hear the bad news, but quite frankly, I'd rather eat my own flesh, than continue down the road of cynicism, on this site. A few weeks ago- I went to a goth club, down in Newark- QXT's- and while I dug the tunes and overall clientele, after a while, I realized it was a bunch of people exalting in a self-absorbed solipsism that just freaked me out..

Ick- how wonderful are these people's lives, if their HOBBY is dissolute nihilism? Please let Bushflash be a more positive influence than that...

We can moan and groan that people powered politics doesn't work- or we can at least freaking try. Sometimes, I wonder if our country isn't just a collective self-fulfilling prophecy of indifference...

APRIL 5, 2006

There's little I can say, folks- how many impeachable offenses does this guy have to commit, before this worthless idiot is flushed down the toilet of history?

Now- the only defense that anyone's been able to dredge up is the old Nixon defense- "If the president does it, it isn't a crime."

Here's what gets me- in times past, there were a thousand times when Bush went before the cameras, and said "gee- I want to find out who leaked this information- we have an investigation underway, this is an egregious crime, and we'll find out what's at the bottom of this- I welcome this investigation." All of those times, he was looking right into our faces, and KNOWINGLY LYING to the press, and the american people.

How pathetic. How juvenile. Criticizing this administration is starting to feel like bitch-slapping an incontinent, retarded six-year-old (but with far, FAR less guilt.)


This video requires a bit of special mention...

Somehow- one man got through the gauntlet of Bush's "town hall" thought police. I don't know how this happened- this is a guy whose security apparatus could set up a campaign rally with 10,000 pre-screened, sanitized, and cheering sheeple, back during the campaign of '04. This man was able to sail through close to seven years of power, unmolested by anything that resembled an opposing point of view.

Yeah, recently, Baby Bush has had to endure a few pointed questions, but until recently, he has been able to feign an affable feeble-mindedness, when confronted with the facts. This down-home cluelessness has worked for him, until today, when one man stood up, and asked him not only the most blunt, pointed questions Bush has ever had to face, but finished it off with a coup-de-grace that should go down in the annals of history:

"I would hope that you would, from time to time, have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself."

Now that, ladies, and gentleman, is one of the most loaded, nuanced, and glorious things I've heard publicly stated towards this son of a Bush, since the day he stole office.

In asking this question, Mr Taylor was asking this murderous bastard: "At long last, in those quiet moments of the soul, when you look within yourself, have you not one ounce of shame?"

And Bush didn't have an answer- he dodged, as he always does- but go and watch the video again...

Look at Bush's body language- the strut- the jaw thrust forward, the subtle sneer- this is a schoolyard bully, having to take a bit of righteous chin-music, under the watchful eye of the high school principal.

And Taylor, a citizen who just happened to be able to smuggle himself into an audience that, at the moment, would have ripped him limb from limb, never wavered or hesitated. He's speaking to the most powerful man in the world, before a hundred and one cameras, and he just goes for it- look within yourself, and tell me:

If you were in Taylor's shoes, would you have been able to maintain the same cool?

Indeed, it's a strange day in which the simple act of asking a few honest questions in a public forum is such a radical act- but such are the times in which we live.

After the event, Mr Taylor confessed that he wasn't all that interested in Bush's response (IE- he knew it was going to be bullshit.) He just wanted to let Bush know that there were people in america that disagreed with him.

Strange that it would take an extraordinary act, to bring this to Bush's attention, considering that only 33% still want him in office...


If there was any haziness in my mind what Rove's been up to, lately, it's all become clear, in the wake of the recent "immigration controversy."

Here's the deal: Rove knows that the only way to save the Bush administration, is to hold on to congress in '06. In order to do this, Rove has to conjure up a republican campaign based upon running AGAINST George Bush.

This campaign began, with the recent port deal debacle, in which the republicans abandoned the Bush Bowl, en masse, to stake out their posts, leading into the six-month electoral season.

In the wake of the recent froo-furrah about immigration, the republicans facing re-election have entrenched themselves further, casting themselves as "anti-Bush crusaders". (Plus- it's a perfect wedge issue that the republicans can use to pit the poor against the even poorer.)

Rove- ya gotta give him credit. He realizes- the only way to save this administration, is to save the party, on the congressional level, and the best way to do that is to run against the White House that he seeks to preserve.

Can you hear it, right now? Republicans taking to the campaign trail- and telling their cheering audiences:

"When this administration tried to sell our ports to rogue nations, I stood up for the american people, and said "No!" When the White House tried to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, I stood up to them, and vowed to protect our borders, whether they would, or not!"


"And that's why you need to vote for me- the republican candidate- because only our party is looking out for your interests, and not those of the moneyed interests inside the beltway!."

The paradoxical doublethink required to swallow this kinda crap sorta boggles the mind, but they've sold larger sacks of rhetorical guano to the red-staters, before...

And once they've been successful, come 2007, look for alla them "maverick republican outsiders" to fall back into line, like little duckies...

APRIL 5, 2006

Well, DUH...

But there's little I can say about it. I mean- this feeling is unique from the bombastic joy that I felt, back when Reagan took a dirt nap. This is a close, personal joy- like the feeling one gets when one inhales the first, vibrant breath of springtime- the sensation is so transcendant of words, that to talk about it, would diminish it.

Yeah, it doesn't mean much, in the long run- but let's enjoy the moment. To that end, let me offer this, which was a great Mike Malloy rant, from the early days of the DeLay scandal.

Until next time...

APRIL 4, 2006
Neil Who?


In times past, I've spent a few column inches addressing idiotic comments made by the right-wing pundit corps. It's usually fun, as there's no lack of material to work with.

One of the most odious characters in the rhetorical moshpit of the right wing has been "talk show" host Neil Boortz, who takes the time honored practice of disguising naked conservative partisanship as "libertarianism"

to new depths. In recent months, his act has taken on overtly racist overtones, and while a propensity for naked bigotry is obviously a plus among these slimeballs and their mouth-breathing listeners, Boortz has gone over the edge.

Recently, during a tirade in which he likened Representative Cynthia McKinney to a "Ghetto Slut", Boortz amended his comments by saying that he belches out such garbage, simply to get press (particularly on Media Matters.)

In doing this, Boortz has come out of the closet, and exposed himself as the sideshow geek that he really is. He knows he has nothing new or constructive to bring to the debate that he's elbowed his way into, and simply uses his time behind the mike to spew out anything offensive enough to ensure that the media will give him free press.

In light of this, Neil Boortz is officially dead to me. He can paint his saggy cracker ass purple, and rape chickens on Hillary Clinton's doorstep, and it'll get no mention here.


The Zacharias Moussaoui court case is just astounding. I've only followed it peripherally, but what I've seen convinces me that the whole mess is nothing but another smokescreen.

Basically, we're dealing with a guy that was already in prison on 9/11, and was pretty much irrelevant to the whole plot. He had proven too incompetent to pass the flight exam that would have allowed him to become the oft-repeated "20th hijacker," and is apparently a wanna-be martyr who has relished the trial to act the rabid, america-hating terrorist in a manner that any hollywood producer/ casting agent would reject as "laughably cartoonish." His testimony was riddled with so much blatant falsehood and bizarre hyperbole that it astounds me that anyone takes it seriously (except the corporate media- they're paid to lap crapola like this up...)

Take for example his assertion that he, along with Shoe Bomber Richard Reid, were assigned to fly a plane into the White House. This statement is every bit as idiotic as if he had said that he and Mr T were going to fly the Battlestar Galactica into the planet Mars, but it's been repeated ad infinitum on the MSM as if it's the gospel truth.

Do I think there's a great conspiracy, surrounding this case? No- it's just a way to keep us distracted. As long as Moussaoui is cavorting around the courtroom, screaming idiocy, the american people will forget that Bin Laden is still alive, and at large.

APRIL 1, 2006

I dunno if I'll have the space to actually convert all of the animations to IPOD- they're 12 megs in size, and I really have to wonder exactly how viral IPOD stuff is- if there's more than a dozen downloads in the first few weeks, I'll be utterly surprised.