Friday, November 01, 2002

N.J. Democrat Features Sniper Suspect in Political Ad

"Scott Garrett shouldn't be blamed for the sniper,'' says a commercial that Anne Sumers' campaign has begun airing in a district in the northern part of the state. "But Garrett's positions are the problem."

Oh, I see. It's not his fault that John Allen Muhammad shot those people. It's only his fault that Muhammad had the means to do so.

Jeff Garcia, a spokesman for Sumers, defended the ad as an attempt to use a recent event to bring the important issue of gun control to the voters.

The commercial opens with a newspaper photo of Muhammad, who faces charges in the shooting deaths that terrorized the Washington, D.C., area this month. That fades to the image of a barrel of a gun on one side of the screen and a picture of Garrett on the other.


Garrett and Sumers are contesting an open House seat that retiring GOP Rep. Marge Roukema has long held. Republican strategists say that Garrett is on his way to victory. Democrats concede Sumers will need a late surge to win.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, eh, Anne?

Thursday, October 31, 2002

Adams addresses charity dinner in New York

The Sinn Fein President has addressed a dinner in New York. The dinner is aimed at raising money for families of the victims of the 11 September attacks.

The annual event is normally used to raise funds for the party but this year, all the proceeds will go to a fund for relatives of construction workers killed in the atrocities.

UP NEXT: Osama bin Laden holds charity goat-milking event to assist victims of the bombings of Enniskillen and Shankill Road.

UPDATE: As Mr. O'McAnonymous pointed out below, I was sloppy in checking the newspaper dates (and *cough* someone *cough* sent the link along telling me it was current- nonetheless still my fault for not looking closer, Jimmy), and this charity fundraiser actually took place last year. Which means that this year, Gerry was raising money for marxist totalitarianism Sinn Fein. Sorry for the oversight. I'm an idiot.

Tom McClintock, who is on the ballot for the office of State Controller for California, has been running a series of commercials which depict his “Cousin Angus”, dressed in full stereotypical Scottish regalia, complete with bagpipes stashed in the background, endorsing his “cousin” and commending his “frugalness”. If you’re not from California, you can view the advertisements from his website here.

I’m not particularly sensitive about this sort of thing, but you just know that if someone like Cruz Bustamante ran an ad showing a fellow in a poncho and sombrero, boasting about how macho his “cousin” was, the PC Police would be on the ass of that campaign two seconds into the first commercial airing. Why are ads like McClintock’s totally acceptable, while anything of that sort depicting a non-white ethnic minority would be considered "racist"?

The IRA issued this statement today, stating their reasons for refusing cooperation with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I've embellished it a little below, in order to better reflect reality:

Recent events show that the leadership of unionism have set their faces against political change at this time. They have willfully destroyed devolution by refusing to accept the fact that we keep their addresses and the names of their children on file “just in case”.

There is also a real threat to the peace process from the British establishment and its agencies as well as the loyalist murder gangs, but no threat whatsoever from the republican movement.

For our part, the IRA remains committed to the search for a just and lasting peace, as long as it is on our terms.

The complete cessation of military operations announced in July 1997 remains intact. Sort of. I mean, we still hurt people and stuff, but they’re almost exclusively Catholic, so we’ve the right. Just because we arm and administer many IRA dissident organizations under cloak does not mean that we should be held responsible for their actions in any way.

In the past the IRA leadership has acted unilaterally to save and enhance the peace process, which is not an easy thing to do, considering that they are the biggest reason it was necessary to begin with.

We have also outlined how, in our view, the full implementation by the two governments of their commitments could provide a political context with the potential to remove the causes of conflict. It’s quite simple: give us back the North or else.

Despite this, the British government says that the responsibility for this present crisis and its resolution lies with us and there is an effort to impose unacceptable and untenable ultimatums on the IRA. It is simply unjust to ask the IRA to put down their weapons and promise to stop killing people. At the same time the British government, by its own admission, has not kept its commitments. We believe that past injustices suffered by our people entitle us to this double standard.

The IRA, therefore, has suspended contact with the IICD (Independent International Commission on Decommissioning). This is something of a relief, as we can now free up the resources formerly used for hiding weapons from the Commission for more valuable tasks, such as knee-capping police recruits and menacing our neighbors.

The onus is on the British government and others, but in no way on ourselves, to create confidence in this process. They can do this by honouring their obligations.

Signed, P O'Neill, Irish Republican Spin Bureau, Dublin.

Oct 31st

(Thanks to Slugger for the link)

Wednesday, October 30, 2002

The last funeral I attended, I was chatting with a fellow who, at one point during our conversation, flatly says that he only met David once, but that he liked going to funerals because it was “easier to score with distraught chicks” (his exact words). Being that this was a service for an old friend who died after a long battle with AIDS-related illnesses, I was overcome with the urge to punch the jerk square in the face. I didn’t, because I didn’t was to cause an upset (funerals are upsetting enough), and most importantly, I didn’t want to flagrantly defile the memory of my friend. So I guess the moral of the story is that tacky people don’t stop being tacky just because somebody died.

So, the story’s going around that the memorial service for Paul Wellstone and his family and associates was turned into a “Walter Mondale for Senate” orgy. See what I mean? Tacky. However, I’ve felt for a long time that funerals and memorial services that receive a lot of media coverage aren’t really funerals and memorial services. They’re stages. Sure, in the literal sense, somebody has died, a bunch of people show up in black clothes, and pallbearers carry a coffin. Nevertheless, I suspect that a great number of the attendees aren’t really there to pay their respects. They’ve shown up to network and “be seen”. Do you remember Princess Diana’s funeral? Tacky.

This is probably not the first bi-partisan memorial service in history, only the most recent. People booed political foes. They patted allies on the back. A few of them actually got up and walked out mid-service. You'd think they could all bury the hatchet for a few short hours to give a guy and his family a decent farewell. Apparently, this is expecting too much. These are supposed to be our national leaders, those who we might look to as examples of the finest that our country has to offer, and they acted like shine-swilling hillbillies at a tractor pull. I am truly embarrassed.

The question is, why am I not surprised?

Gerry Adams is coming to America. Boo.

The Sinn Fein leader is scheduled to be guest of honour at a $$500-a-plate dinner in New York on Thursday, followed by a similar fundraiser in New Jersey the next night.

I've been told the NY fundraiser is being held at the Sheraton. Any Americans wishing to further the cause of Marxism, intimidation, and talking out of both sides of your mouth should contact the hotel for information.

In other SF news, Martin McGuinness has said "My job is to continue to ensure a political set of circumstances which will never again see British soldiers or members of the IRA lose their lives as a result of political conflict. I feel very passionate about that." Welcome to the land of the living, Mr. McGuinness.

Low-risk prisoners freed from high-security hell

I think that says it all. Thank you, Daily Wanker, for your objective reporting.

Tuesday, October 29, 2002

For all of you wusses out there who were crabbing on and on about the poor mistreated detainees at Gitmo, please read the following carefully:

Looking weary and bewildered, three Afghan prisoners released after nearly one year's detention at U.S. military base in Guantanamo, Cuba, said today they were not mistreated during their long confinement but were exhausted from the long trip home.

(Emphasis added.)

"We were not tortured. ... We were not unhappy," said one of the elderly men, who gave his name as Hajji Faiz Mohammed and claimed to be 105 years old. "The Americans treated me well, but they were not Muslims, so I didn't like them."

This works out well, because we don't care much for you, either, Hajji. Not because you are a Muslim, though, but because you are a creepy religious zealot who thinks women who show their ankles in public should be shot through the head.

The men described their confinement at Guantanamo as boring but not inhumane. They said they were allowed to bathe and change clothes once a week and were given copies of the Koran to read. Faiz Mohammed said the food was good, but he complained that there was no okra or eggplant.

Expect to see the following editorial in the Daily Wanker tomorrow:

Detainees from Guantanamo Bay spoke to the media yesterday for the first time following their release. During the press conference, it was revealed the torturous conditions under which they were forced to live.

Hajji Faiz Mohammed revealed that "the steak was chewy and they made us eat with forks. Once a week, we were forced to bathe." Continuing, Faiz Mohammed stated that entertainment was not provided for prisoners and that they were regularly deprived of life-sustaining vegetables.

The US government - without permission from the United Nations or a collective statement of international approval - imprisoned captured members of the Taliban, a widely misunderstood sect of Islam, for a period of ten months. Shuttled to the ad hoc prison in chains, detainees were held without charge for the duration of this period, giving rise to objections from human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Terrorists Are People Too.

I’ve been fighting the flu for the last few days, which is why I haven’t been posting – just trolling in the comments sections of other blogs. That, and most of the news these last few days has sucked, and I just don’t want to take it on. On the lighter side of things, this event is the reason why I couldn’t get any rest on Sunday. Thanks to all the fat, sweaty bikers that turned my neighborhood into the inside of an exhaust pipe. Even four liters of NyQuil couldn’t put me to sleep over that noise. I know what you’re thinking: “Emily, you’re such a selfish bitch. Don’t you know the event was for charity?” To this, my reply is simply yes, I am indeed a selfish bitch, even if the charity in question was for the American Liver Foundation, an organization whose assistance I will undoubtedly be requiring later in life. Next time, raise awareness in somebody else’s back yard.

On a tour of the blogs, in case you haven’t heard yet, Mr. Quick is sponsoring a “Who is the most hawkish and blood-hungry blogger?” contest. Ms. Kinsley, has nominated yours truly. I would just like to say in my defense that in my spare time I enjoy snuggling with small, furry animals, knitting mittens for the homeless, and reading to the blind, so I have no idea how I’ve managed to garner the description of “warmonger”. Just because I want to maim and kill every terrorist on earth and bomb the shit out of any country that harbors or protects them doesn’t make me “hawkish”. I actually think it makes me a very nice person.

Sunday, October 27, 2002

Vidal, baby...? Sit down. We need to talk.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, and to do in in such an unintimate setting, but you are COMPLETELY OFF OF YOUR HEAD.

America's most controversial novelist calls for an investigation into whether the Bush administration deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks to happen

So it was announced in the Sunday Wanker. Yes, this ludicrous idea is still getting air time.

Vidal's highly controversial 7000 word polemic titled 'The Enemy Within' - published in the print edition of The Observer today - argues that what he calls a 'Bush junta' used the terrorist attacks as a pretext to enact a pre-existing agenda to invade Afghanistan and crack down on civil liberties at home.

You see, when George W. initially had his eye on the presidency, it was because he only wanted to toast a third world shithole and make Americans less free.

Vidal writes: 'We still don't know by whom we were struck that infamous Tuesday....

Here's where you go from just mildly inept to completely retarded, baby. We do, in fact, know by whom we were struck. Nineteen fellows, it was. Not only do we know who they are, but we also know where they were from, who was funding their hateful venture, and how they liked their eggs.

...or for what true purpose.

Hate. A religous perversion. Death. Destruction.

But it is fairly plain to many civil libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had taken a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court did a little dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected President with the oil and gas Bush-Cheney junta.

Okay, I consider myself a civil libertarian. With that said, I would like to issue a challenge to anyone who has this in common with me and is getting the "I'm so oppressed blues" following 9/11: Name one thing that you could do on September 10, 2001 that you cannot do today. One. Okay, so I learned on my first post-9/11 flight that it's probably not a really swift idea to wear steel-toed shoes if you're going to be boarding a plane. That's pretty much the limit. And let's just get this through our heads one more time: GEORGE. W. BUSH. IS. PRESIDENT. Let's help each other understand concepts like "the electoral college". I know it's a massive task, but with proper guidance, we'll all manage to pull through.

Vidal argues that the real motive for the Afghanistan war was to control the gateway to Eurasia and Central Asia's energy riches. He quotes extensively from a 1997 analysis of the region by Zgibniew Brzezinski, formerly national security adviser to President Carter, in support of this theory. But, Vidal argues, US administrations, both Democrat and Republican, were aware that the American public would resist any war in Afghanistan without a truly massive and widely perceived external threat.

Now, here's my big question. Would our pal Vidal or his compatriots be writing any of this twisted, paranoid drivel if Al Gore were president? Would they search every dark alley of conspiracy theories in an attempt to place culpability for that fateful day at the highest levels of our own government? Would they have been satisfied with President Gore's address to the nation or his administration's response?

My fellow Americans - I feel your pain. I apologize for inventing the airplane. But let's not forget what's most important in these dreadful moments - remember the innocence of our Children, our precious Constitution, and the dream of socialized medicine. I can recall from my childhood, plowing fields on the side of a mountain in Tennessee....

And at this point, I would have turned off the television.

Actually, I wouldn't have. I would have listened to every word that the President of the United States said to me following the events of that morning. Truthfully, I know that what I've written above is far from how Mr. Gore would have managed his duties if it were set to him to handle such a crisis. I was really just being a cynical smart ass (no surprises there). I suppose we could speculate to no end on the matter of WWAD ("What Would Al Do?"), but what's the point? I know for a fact, however, that I never would have accused him of orchestrating the attacks himself for political gain. I wouldn't have insinuated that he was aware all along that the planes were headed for the Towers, but calmly sat in a Florida schoolroom reading to children, simply because he doesn't share my ideals. I might have disagreed with the coarse of action that he chose, but would have rallied around him and trusted him to sincerely pursue what he believed was in the best interest of his country. I don't doubt for a second that this is what he would have done, even if he is a socialist poof.

Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the frightening logo for our long-contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan ... [because] the administration is convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable, lone, crazed killer (this time with zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it 'cause he hates us because we're rich 'n free 'n he's not.

We didn't chose Osama, Vidal. He chose us. Really, you're the one who's assuming that we are so simple-minded that we would actually absorb this rubbish and believe it the truth. Onwards, what's with the "lone, crazed killer" bit? Isn't a completely obvious fact that this task involved several people? Osama does evil because he is an asshole. Unless he's dead, Osama is also free. And rich.

Apparently, "conspiracy stuff" is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.

Thus spoke Gore Vidal.

(Link found via Public Interest)