Maine jumps on the Furdell bandwagon

Apparently equal rights organizers in New England really know what they're doing, because those activist legislators are at it again. Next stop: New Hampshire?

This is a major milestone, because 5 states is the exact number where I can't remember the names of the individual states without looking them up on Wikipedia. The next major milestone is 7 states, the number it takes before I look at the Wikipedia list and think, "wait, Iowa's on there?"

When it rains, it pours...equality

Vermont -- formerly known as the first state to recognize civil unions among gay couples -- is now the first state to legalize gay marriage without the help of those pesky activist judges. It went a little something...like this...

Ohhh yesss!

Actually, in this case the bill was, first of all, much more gay; and secondly, it was actually vetoed by Republican governor / equality-hater Jim Douglas. (Booooo! Hisssss!) But the House of Representatives squeaked out a two-thirds majority with a 100-49 vote for the ninth inning veto override. That's like if Rocky III was about equal rights and the legislative process, and not about the dangers of consumerism.

So which state is next? I have no idea! So I'm going to guess...Texas. That's the next one.

Iowa Supreme Court confirms gay marriage ruling

Iowa becomes the third state, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage. According to the Des Moines Register, if the state were to vote in a constitutional amendment reversing the decision (like Prop 8 in California), it wouldn't take effect until 2012, which, as we know, is when the reptilian Annukai from the solar system's invisible twelfth planet will return to Earth and life as we know it will cease to exist.

Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the unanimous decision, acknowledges the religious aspect of the dispute:

The ruling also addressed what it called the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate,” and said judges must remain outside the fray.

Some Iowa religions are strongly opposed to same-sex marriages, the justices noted, while some support the notion.

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” the opinion says.

The ruling explicitly does not affect “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriage it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman,” the justices stressed.

The state of equal rights, 2009

It's a new year, and I'm still hung up on my same old boring political issue: equal rights for everybody. Well, it's on my mind, and I have a blog, so I guess I may as well write it down.

I've been thinking back to the Vice Presidential Debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin last year, and the weird vibes I got from both candidates on the subject of gay marriage. Specifically there was Palin, who, with a confused tone, said: "...no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties."

As I see it, this statement showed that Palin -- and, perhaps by extension, some portion of the GOP's voter base -- doesn't really understand what marriage legally entails. If a dying spouse's family objects to their unholy gay union in the first place, you can bet that spouse won't get to say goodbye, which is pretty heartbreaking; and even in the best circumstances, gay partners sometimes have to depend on empathetic hospital employees who are willing to break the rules at their own risk.

Meanwhile Biden said: "[neither] Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it."

Note that Biden did not say that this is a decision best left to the individual states; he said it's best left to the churches! Isn't there something a bit off about that? I mean, sure, I've been spouting off that marriage is an intrinsically religious institution for years, but I'm a fringe whackjob with a website. Joe Biden essentially said to all my married atheist friends, "you're affiliated with a church."

The problem with both of these views is that they fail to boil the debate down to its practical application. Palin, Biden, Republicans in general and Democrats in general get all hung up on semantics, as if it's more important how we define a word than how we apply the law. This is America, dammit, we're all supposed to be treated equally by our government -- at least in theory, if never in practice.

The jig is up, the news is out

Barack Obama has received his Secret Service codename, "Renegade," after his favorite Lorenzo Lamas TV series. Michelle is "Renaissance" (because she's so classy) and the kids are "Radiance" and "Rosebud".

Those names might not actually mean anything, but sometimes they do; Sarah Palin's was "Denali" (the native name for Mt. McKinley in Alaska) and Todd's was "Driller." (Note that family members' codenames always alliterate.) John Kerry's was "Minuteman" -- ouch.

Some previous presidential codenames:
George W. Bush was "Tumbler" or "Trailblazer";
Bill Clinton was "Eagle" or "Elvis";
George H.W. Bush was "Timberwolf";
Ronald Reagan was "Rawhide";
Jimmy Carter was "Lock Master" or "Deacon";
Gerald Ford was "Pass Key";
Richard Nixon was "Searchlight";
Lyndon Johnson was "Volunteer";
John F. Kennedy was "Lancer" or "Dazzle";
Dwight Eisenhower was "Scorecard" or "Providence."

Prop 8 in a nutshell

AVClub's Friday Buzzkills echoes my thoughts:

...“separation of church and state” is still just a phrase we make little kids learn so that when they grow up they have a fundamental understanding of how hypocrisy works.

Poor, poor earners of over a quarter million dollars

CNN.com blows the lid open on "HENRYs" -- "High earners, not rich yet." Hilarious. The story highlights Bill Kwon, "a wealth advisor earning $375,000 at Morgan Stanley, with a five-bedroom brick home, a minivan, a son in private school, and three younger kids to follow." I know what you're thinking: where's the part about him not being rich yet?

One thing that every rich person I've ever met has had in common: none of them believed they were rich. Even people who this article would call rich ("hedge fund managers, investment bankers, or CEOs", "net worth in the multimillions") have said to me something along the lines of, "Oh, I'm not rich. I know some guys who are worth ten times what I'm worth -- they're rich." Knowing this is a big part of the reason why I decided early on not to pursue money as a primary goal...it's a race you just can't win.

What really irks me about Bill Kwon, though, is his notion that your income is directly proportional to how hard you work.

""Raising taxes for people at my income level is like being punished for success, for working hard." ...Kwon fears that America risks killing the incentive for people like him by shrinking the rewards for logging extra hours or starting a business, diminishing the dream that brought his father from Korea.

Believe me, Bill, those of us who make one-tenth of what you rake in are also putting in extra hours.

Aspiring HENRYs played by the rules and did everything right: They won the best grades in high school, got accepted at good colleges and grad schools, and worked daunting schedules as medical interns or associates in law firms.

Screw you, article! We blogging Furdells all have degrees from a top twenty university! So we didn't decide to go to law school or med school -- does that mean we didn't work hard enough, because we wanted to do something else with our lives, something that maybe doesn't pay quite as well? I guess we're just lazy?

Mr. Kwon's sense of entitlement reminds me of the words of American poet S. Tyler:

'Cause I'm sick of your complainin'/ About how many bills/ And I'm sick of all your bitchin'/ 'Bout your poodles and your pills/ And I just can't see no humor/ About your way of life/ And I think I can do more for you/ With this here fork and knife.

Eat the rich.

It's official: he's now President Elect Obama

As of about a half hour ago, the AP and all the major networks have called the election for Barack Obama; come January, I'll never have super his name again. (We don't super the president, the pope, or the governor.)

I'm at work, on standby in case they need me (they probably won't), and just trying to stay out of everyone's way. The newsroom's Tension Machine is clearly cranked up to 11, with everyone running around and screaming at each other. Very exciting.

Unlike the rest of Earth, I'm keeping my eye on local ballot measures, and for the most part the results are quite depressing. In Florida, the presidential vote is still too close to call with what appears to be a slight Obama lead, but the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is way ahead.

Colorado, though not yet called, looks like a very likely Obama win; but they're also poised to end affirmative action and define life as beginning at conception. Who are these people?

Massachusetts went overwhelmingly blue in the national election -- but they even more overwhelmingly repealed the state income tax. Seriously, who are these people, and what do they think they're voting for?

Give Arizona and Arkansas credit: they're banning gay marriage and forbidding gay couples from adoption children, respectively, but at least they have the decency to vote Republican.

In other words, like I said four long, long years ago, people just don't base their vote on policy. In fact, maybe it goes beyond that: I don't think the electorate even understands the policies they're voting for.

To sum up: We won, and American democracy continues to be a total and abject failure.

Atheists are the new Muslims!

In North Carolina, Senate challenger Kay Hagan is vehemently denying Elizabeth Dole's charges that Hagan is a dirty, dirty God-hating atheist.

"The overwhelming reaction to this ad has been disgust — directed at Sen. Dole — for stooping to this low and attacking a fellow Christian," said Colleen Flanagan, a spokeswoman for Hagan's campaign.

"Sen. Dole knows Kay is a strong Christian, a former Sunday school teacher and a member of Greensboro's First Presbyterian Church, and she knows that her advertisements are lies."

Well thank goodness for that! The last thing we need is those godless heathens having any hope of representation in government. If there's a litmus test for politicians, it should be whether they believe in Santy-Claus.

Logical conclusion

For a while now McCain's last leg seems to be the "close connection" between Obama and Bill Ayers, which McCain finds "troubling." He won't say exactly why it's troubling. Think about it: Obama had an "association" with a man who once bombed the Pentagon, one about which McCain says we don't know the whole truth. I think I've figured it out...

...McCain thinks that as president, Obama plans to bomb the Pentagon.

And with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, we'd be powerless to stop him. Oh. My. God.

POLITICS SIDE NOTE
Q: Who's the most liberal senator?
A: Whichever one just secured the Democrat nomination for president, of course.

Google "most liberal senator" and you'll find that the top 9 out of 10 results include "Obama" in the title. No surprise there; it's a talking point you've heard at least a few times if you're remotely interested in the election. (Note: if you're not remotely interested in the election, I will be reviewing Zapped! for Furdell Classic Cinema Theatre Vol. II. Keep hitting the "refresh" button.)

But if you add the name "kerry" to that search string...well, anyone who can remember back four years will tell you the results are predictable.

As goes North Dakota, so goes the nation. Wait, what?

Things are looking worse and worse for McCain. Even North Dakota is slowly turning blue. It seems likely that he'll suffer an impossible defeat: not just against a Democrat, but against a black guy. In America. Oh my god.

Nobody's been saying it so I will: I don't think McCain can win with Palin. I think it's a longshot but his only chance is to dump her now, explain that he chose her based on bad advice and that he recognizes the error and is making an adjustment.

This week we learned that she's not just dangerously incompetent; she's dangerously incompetent at best. She's even turned off Christopher Freaking Hitchens, a man who refers to Obama's anti-war supporters as "the surrender faction" and who, as one of maybe three atheists who are more annoying than me, I find it very confusing to always disagree with.

Palin's multitude of truly bizarre interview gaffes, disturbing scandals, and hilarious soundbytes have added up to the point where conservative pundits can't even plausibly complain about sexism anymore, and liberal pundits (well, Bill Maher anyway) have become comfortable referring to Palin as a "bimbo" or a "stewardess" without repudiation. Or maybe it's not that the conservatives aren't able to defend Palin -- maybe they're unwilling.

So that's my advice, McCain: one last Hail Mary pass. Dump Palin, pick up Huckabee even though you can't stand him, and you might get the conservative base back. You don't have much hope with independents either way at this point, but an audible couldn't hurt. Yes, you'll look even more "erratic," but then as a losing campaign you can't really help but scramble.

Well that came out of nowhere

So it seems the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned that state's gay marriage ban. Wow. Maybe all these states putting an unconstitutional discriminatory law on the books is actually speeding up the process rather than slowing it down?

On that note, in November, in between sessions of furious nail-biting while I watch the presidential election results come in, I'll be keeping one eye on California.

Gays have been marrying in California for about four months now, and the state doesn't seem to have crumbled into the sea, and the rivers still run with what appears to be water. Hopefully this will convince California voters to vote no on Proposition 8, which would ammend the state's constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage. (Supposedly, this would not work retroactively -- which means George Takai is safe. But still.)

Polling shows a tight race on Prop 8, so don't forget to pester all your California friends and relatives to vote "no". As we see it, California tends to lead the way in American equal rights progress; if they're not ready for gay marriage, we can't imagine the rest of the country is. But if California votes down Prop 8, that could be a very good sign for the future of equal rights in this country.

Biden and Palin agree: No to gay marriage!

First of all I would just like to say that I am definitely not "live-blogging" the VP debate. I'm far too busy playing Palin Bingo.

We're about 45 minutes into the debate and the candidates agree on one thing: they're both against gay marriage. (This should come as no surprise to anyone who's followed their positions, but it's never fun to hear it.) Biden's position at least appears to be colored by the idea that "marriage" is intrinsically religious, as he suggests that it's the religious groups who need to make that specific decision.

Biden also explicitly states that Obama's White House will protect the full equal civil rights of homosexual couples. He lists two or three -- hospital visitation, property rights -- and notably leaves out parents' rights. Palin, in her response, doesn't seem to understand that rights like hospital visitation aren't currently easily available to unmarried couples.

Those of you who agree with me that the government should keep religion out of its policies might be interested in Bill Maher's movie Religulous, which comes out tomorrow and might be terrible, or maybe not.

Oh, Biden just called McCain out for saying he wouldn't talk to Spain. And I'm totally not liveblogging.

Another foreign policy goof from the McCain ticket?

Talking Points Memo has been focusing on a bizarre McCain interview gaffe for the past couple of days. In an interview with Radio Caracol Miami, after a series of questions about Latin American leaders, the interviewer tried to switch gears and talk about Spain's PM, but McCain seemed to think they were still talking about Latin America. Unlike the so-called Bush Doctrine Gotcha Moment, McCain's interviewer is pretty forthcoming with the facts...

Interviewer: "But what about Europe? I'm talking about the President of Spain."

McCain: "What about me, what?

Interviewer: "Are you willing to meet with him if you're elected president?"

McCain: "I am wiling to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for humans rights, democracy and freedom. And I will stand up to those who do not."

Current interpretations in the Spanish-language press is some combination of:
1.) McCain is not aware that Spain is, in fact, in Europe
2.) McCain doesn't know who Prime Minister Zapatero is
3.) McCain knows exactly who Prime Minister Zapatero is, and that he has weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped at all costs, in Latin America if possible.

Why Palin's Bush Doctrine gaffe has legs

I've seen a lot of defenses of Sarah Palin's botched response to Charles Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine. (Her response in a nutshell: "Doctorin'?! Is he sick?! Yeeeeeee-haw!!!!")

The defense of choice seems to be: there really is no one definition for "Bush Doctrine," but in fact many, so it's no wonder she was confused. Ehhrrrm, not quite. Palin's response appeared to indicate that she's never even heard the term. Basically anything you could think of would have been a better response:

1.) She could have said "which Doctrine" for the win.
2.) Based on what I've been reading, she could have guessed almost any aspect of Bush's foreign policy and been correct -- "Oh, you mean Bush's belief that democracy will spread in the MIddle East? Well I think..."
3.) How about a general statement that doesn't pull punches (and thus throws Gibson off): "I'd like to say I agree with the Bush Doctrine, Charlie, but look where it's gotten us."

Instead, she looked like a deer in the headlights of a helicopter full of hunters who are totally allowed to shoot her in the abdomen.

John McCain: Pedophile?

DID YOU KNOW: When John McCain was 30 years old, his current wife was only twelve. Can we afford to elect a pedophile?

Makes you think, right?

Eyebrowgate

Full disclosure: I did not listen to the entire McCain speech last night. But I did see just enough to reaffirm my long-held belief that John McCain is among the worst public speakers in politics.

Why? Because right after he delivers this line -- "we will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles" -- he involuntarily raises his eyebrows for a half-second as if to say "yeah, we'll do that."

See the subtle tic yourself by skipping ahead on this video to 33:25 or so.

Apparently this was all just a beautiful dream

Okay, you can shut off the Matrix now. I am hereby fully aware that my sensory experiences are mere illusions.

How did I find out that my mind was being controlled by super-technology in the distant future? Well, it's quite simple, Possibly-Extra-Terrestrial Overmind: your misunderstanding of our human politics has led to a situation so hopelessly impossible that it has shaken me to the point of full awareness.

My first clue, of course, was the appointment of creationist, pro-life Alaska governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's vice-presidential running-mate, some kind of twisted through-the-looking-glass Hillary Clinton surrogate. Palin, who has less experience in politics than I do in blogging, is of course woefully unprepared for the likely scenario of four-time cancer-surviving older-than-dirt famously-tortured McCain's sudden death.

I confess, Mad Hatter, that even such an obviously false twist went right over my head. The idea that McCain would make such an obvious mistake seemed almost reasonable, even as you kept revealing strange scandals that would have disqualified any VP candidate during the vetting process.

So what specifically tipped me off, finally? It was a flaw in your extra-dimensional logic. Faced with the rumor that Sarah Palin's four-month-old baby actually belonged to her own 17-year-old daughter, McCain's people released a stunning rebuttal: "that CAN'T be her four-month-old daughter, because she's FIVE-MONTH'S PREGNANT! HAH!"

Robot abductors, let it be known: that makes no sense whatsoever. I was hoping that my sudden realization of my own mental imprisonment would short-circuit your brain-control machine and allow me to return to consciousness. But certainly whatever scientific understanding and/or perverse thrills you enjoyed during my extended delusion must be shattered by my knowledge. It's time to unplug me from your dark machine, spacemen.

This week in politics that make us laugh

Two notes from this week:

First off, I was thrilled to see our side actually play one right, for once. McCain, asked how many houses he owns, muttered that he'd have to consult his assistants; they came back with "at least four", which is of course technically true. Obama smelled blood in the water and struck; McCain's people came back with a weak-ass -- dare I say it, Democrat Party Style response: "...sure, Obama only has one house, but it was financed by money from a guy who blah BLAH BLAH BORING BORING ZZZZZZZZZ." So for the first time in recorded history, the Democrats have the interesting, concise storyline and the Republicans have the long-winded counter that nobody understands. Let's see how we screw this one up.

In other news this week, Obama selected Joe Biden as his VP, presumably because Biden helpfully pointed out that Obama is "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" who doesn't shout "motherfucker, I want more iced tea!" (Oh wait, that last one was someone else.)

The Andrew rage-a-thon continues...FOREVER

So I've had a lack of output lately, partly due to creative laziness and mostly due to being beyond swamped at work this month. Argh.

But how could I not share with you, dear reader, my vitriol for our "presumptive" presidential nominees as they attend an all-important Pandering Forum -- no, I'm sorry, I meant Faith Forum -- no, that's not right either, I meant the "Let's Pretend We Believe in Invisible Ghosts Who Love Us Forever" Forum, held in some church somewhere.

Both candidates exceeded my usually high expectations for mind-numbing stupidity. On the one hand you've got John McCain, who seems to be absolutely sure beyond any shadow of a doubt that the microscopic clump of cells you conceived a few seconds ago has an immortal soul. Specifically he said that every American's rights begin at conception. Sure, it doesn't have any organs, or like thoughts or feelings or anything...but preventing its growth is murder. Murder most foul!

Of course both candidates agreed that equal marriage rights is an insult to the good American people. McCain went so far as to say that the California Supreme Court made a mistake. No big shocks there, but this is the topic where Obama let me down. When asked why he opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Obama gave a milquetoast response about how the constitution has never weighed in on marriage before. Sorry Senator, the correct response was "because the constitution is about granting rights, not limiting them, moron." (A lot of political pundits will tell you that it's bad form to call a debate moderator "moron," but those pundits are douchebags.)

I will give him this, though: Obama is at least thoughtful enough to realize that religion is the reason he supports social discrimination.

.Mr Obama called marriage "a sacred union", drawing applause when he added: "God is in the mix."

There you have it: the senator from Illinois totally agrees with me that marriage is an intrinsically religious institution. He just doesn't take my side that this can and should be reformed in our government, because, you know, he's in love with a 2000-year-old Arab who might not have existed.

And that's the guy I'm excited to vote for.

Bask in the vitriol, dear reader. Bask I tell you!!!

He died as he lived

Leave it to former Bush administration spokesman Tony Snow to die exactly at the end of the news cycle.

Jesse Helms: White worms only, please

Jesse Helms, who believed blacks should use separate and intrinsically inferior facilities and who was a U.S. Senator for 30 years until his voluntary retirement in two thousand fucking two, died yesterday, presumably of the creeping dread that a Negro might soon be president. (There goes the neighborhood!)

Here's a question for the political junkies among you: are there any ("former") segregationists still holding elected positions?

Celebrate America's independence...with waterboarding

Angry British atheist/steadfast-Iraq-War-supporter Christopher Hitchens (that about covers it, right?) is known for his propensity for being just a little bit absolutely and completely certain that he's right at all times. (Evidence: he's still 100% sure that invading Iraq was a good idea.)

So when Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter challenged him to give waterboarding a go -- that's the "aggressive interrogation method" that Hitchens insisted wasn't torture -- how could he refuse?

Turns out -- yep -- it's torture. My favorite passage:

The interrogators would hardly have had time to ask me any questions, and I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer. I still feel ashamed when I think about it. Also, in case it’s of interest, I have since woken up trying to push the bedcovers off my face, and if I do anything that makes me short of breath I find myself clawing at the air with a horrible sensation of smothering and claustrophobia. No doubt this will pass. As if detecting my misery and shame, one of my interrogators comfortingly said, “Any time is a long time when you’re breathing water.” I could have hugged him for saying so, and just then I was hit with a ghastly sense of the sadomasochistic dimension that underlies the relationship between the torturer and the tortured. I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

(Don't forget to watch the video of Hitchens totally being tortured.)

And let's not forget that John McCain, who already is fully aware that waterboarding is torture and totally reprehensible, voted against a ban on its use. Have a happy 4th of July!

Well, I could have told them that

According to some armchair political strategists, Obama will probably try to piss McCain off during debates to remind everyone that he's a ticking time bomb of rage. ABC News found the trigger:

"McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency."

As Furdell.com has taught its longtime friends and allies, the very best way to piss people off is to mock their greatest strengths, because that's what they generally have the worst sense of humor about. McCain can laugh off remarks about his age, for example; but mock his military service and all he can do is seethe in frustration.

That said, Furdell.com would like to suggest the following talking points for Obama during debates:

"My distinguished opponent claims that he was tortured in Vietnam. But he seldom mentions that he was, in fact, staying at the Hilton!"

I was going to write a list of three or so talking points, but I actually don't think I can top that one.

Church and state, blah blah blah

Big Pinzur, in full Instigator mode, writes:

"I had dinner with Chan over the weekend and we predicted that your answer would involve the home state's lack of acknowledgment. We figure you'll eventually clarify your position to this: as soon as it's legal in all 50 states and recognized by the Catholic church and blessed by the Pope..."

Oh yeah, that's fair.

First off, you're the one who suggested that, since California allows anyone in the country to wed, I might be appeased. How could you not expect me to care that those out-of-state weddings wouldn't count in most cases? That is ridiculous.

As to the part about the 50 states: if you want a line drawn, well, I don't think I can do that. I'm not sure how much progress it'll take for me to feel comfortable that marriage isn't a prejudiced and intrinsically religious institution. The repeal of anti-miscegenation laws was a twenty year process that started with California's State Supreme Court and ended with Loving v Virginia, so clearly these things can take time -- although I like to think we're a more progressive and accepting culture than we were in the 50s and 60s.

(I find it shocking, by the way, that just over 40 years ago -- and just over 13 years before I was born -- it was illegal in sixteen states for whites to marry blacks. That is truly, truly amazing.)

Just like in 1967, I'm aware that there's a certain pathetic backwater region of our country, henceforth referred to as the Shame of our Nation, that will have to be dragged into the 21st century kicking and screaming. I don't necessarily need to wait for that day, but I would like to be a little more confident that it will ever come. It would also help if, at the very least, the state I was living in allowed equal rights. These are just a couple of basics.

On to the last bit: I know you were joking about the Catholic Church and the Pope, but dude. Dude. My whole statement of purpose here is that I, [supposedly] like our government, want nothing to do with religion. As far as I'm concerned, the Catholics can continue to practice homosexuality only in secret and only with the illegally young, and the Pope can continue to pretend that the Bible allows for life on Mars. But I think one of the biggest roadblocks in the struggle for equal rights is the fear that we intend to change the way the church does its business. I just want the church out of our law, like it's supposed to be.

In other news: Today I overheard a woman talking with disgust about "the gays." (We just had the Fremont Fair, sort of a celebration of freakiness and rampant nudity, and apparently it ruffled this woman's feathers.) I then overheard her mention (almost proudly) that the father of her two children is a "pervert" and that it would be illegal for him to come near their children. That's God's America.

Last and also least, here's a joke I came up with a couple of weeks ago. You can use this at snooty cocktail parties. Here goes:

"Did you hear that Gov. Bobby Jindal, possible Republican VP candidate, was once an exorcist? Well, it is the party of Regan!"

If you can figure out how to tell that joke without hyperlinks, I swear it'll have people shooting martinis out their noses.

Gay marriage in CA: will it stick?

The gay marriage train started today in California. That gives gay couples about five months before their unions are potentially annulled in November by a vote to change the state constitution.

That sounds grim, since gays can only marry in California because of those lousy willful activist judges. Last month Slate had a good article with an optimistic spin: over the coming months, as homosexual marriage becomes mainstream, voters won't remember what all the fuss was about and it'll stay on the books. (Apparently that's basically what happened in Massachusetts.)

Also in same-sex marriage's corner, as we've discussed on this blog: the economy. Marriage is an expensive business, after all, with all those inedible cakes and whatnot.

Place your bets now. My money's on the gays. Too bad for them.

Darn those willful judges and their love of rights

Yesterday those stinking activist judges -- or as McCain calls them, "willful judges" (presumably to be replaced one day by impartial robot tribunals) -- asserted the rights of Gitmo prisoners to a fair trial, like, you know, where you can actually challenge the charges against you and not be tried for the same crime twice and whatnot.

And only six years after the fact! What's the rush, Supreme Court? Did deciding the 2000 election take too much out of you? Did you need a nap after that or something?

FOX: Fair and racist

Well, I've been patiently waiting for McCain and/or his supporters to throw their first racist stone. No luck as yet, but FOX news is not disappointing us. Earlier this week, they introduced the phrase "terrorist fist jab" into the lexicon, but yesterday they one-upped themselves by referring to Michelle Obama -- that's Senator Obama's wife of almost 16 years -- as the Senator's "baby mama." Please note that the following exchange is entirely fabricated, but eerily plausible.

FIRST FOX PRODUCER
I need a graphic about how mad liberals get when we smear Michelle Obama.

SECOND FOX PRODUCER
How about "Outraged Liberals: Stop Picking on Obama's Baby Mama!"

FIRST FOX PRODUCER
"Baby Mama"? What does that mean?

SECOND FOX PRODUCER
You know...it means...his wife, but black.

FIRST FOX PRODUCER
Ohhhhh.

From the desk of Furdell & Furdell, up-and-coming marketing firm

Dear Barack Obama,

We at Furdell.com have worked tirelessly to bring you the greatest campaign slogan ever. Feel free to use it, as long as you credit us appropriately, and give us some kind of kickback when it makes you the most powerful man on Earth. Like give us Guam or something. (It's just an itty-bitty place, Mr. Luthor.)

Ahem. Your new slogan:

Get ready to ride the changercoaster!

Eh? Ehh? Yeah? Whaddaya think? Sleep on it maybe? You sleep on it, and get back to me.

Love,
Furdell.com
Entity

In other news, here's a message from Hillary Clinton to you, her supporters:

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

(emphasis mine)

From Clinton to McCain? Really?

Apparently a significant chunk of Clinton supporters have decided that if they can't have the first female president, they'd rather have John McCain.

That's really smart. It proves that Clinton's supporters weren't just interested in advancing the station of women in American life. After all, they're switching over to the pro-life candidate, a man who recently described Roe v Wade as "tragic". From the horse's mouth:

I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it...As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.

Real smart, former Clinton supporters. That's what they call throwing out the right to not have babies, with the bathwater you otherwise wouldn't have had to use on the baby you didn't want to have.

Let the vote suppression begin!

I wish the Democratic Primary would end already. I mean, if Bill Clinton can put his foot in his mouth with borderline-racist comments, just imagine the inventive and hilarious racism we'll get from John McCain's supporters! This is like Racist Christmas Eve, with all that great racism right around the corner!

Well, here's an early gift: a nonprofit called Women's Voices Women Vote^* surreptitiously robo-called black neighborhoods in North Carolina to inform them that their mail-in voter registrations were on the way -- even though the deadline for mail-in registration in NC has passed.

To put this another way, a women's voting organization (not associated with Hillary Clinton) is responsible for "accidentally" confusing black voters (not associated with Barack Obama), using an automated message from someone who identifies himself as Lamont Williams, a person who definitely doesn't work for WVWV and who possibly doesn't exist. "Oops!"

When is the last time we used vote suppression in a primary? This truly is a golden age.

^*What a totally stupid name. It's not even a backronym.

I continue to have told you so: Barack Obama

Hey, do you realize I haven't told you so in almost two and a half years? We're way past due.

Let's rewind back to the 2004 primary. I was disappointed that the Dem. nominee I was pulling for, Howard Dean, got passed over in favor of John Kerry. At the nominating convention, Barack Obama -- attractive, great voice, actually sounds sincere -- gave a rousing, almost angry speech that garnered an unforced standing ovation from the crowd, and I said -- and I quote -- "[n]ow that's the guy who should be running for president."

I continued to push this idea for the next several weeks, but you just kept shrugging me off with the ol' "he's too inexperienced." Remember? I know it was a while ago. But it still stings. And I whined in reply, "Bush doesn't have any experience, and he's been president for four years!" I'm clever that way.

Fast forward to now, and lo and behold, I was right again, and I totally told you so, jerk. (Local news note: both Clinton and Obama are in Seattle now that our vote is unexpectedly worth something.)

As one-fourth of Furdell.com, I hereby endorse Obama. And not just because I'm sexist.

First of all, I've come to the conclusion that whereas (now-almost-certain Republican nominee and pudgy old white man) McCain can't possibly beat Obama, against Clinton he has a fighting chance. I know, it's been our proud tradition since 2000 to nominate the most gratingly-unlikeable charmless smarty-pants we can find, but I think this year we should consider a different tactic. Hillary gains points when she gets weepy, but then the next day she lets out one of her demonic cackles and wipes away the goodwill.

There's more to it than that, as well. This isn't some run-of-the-mill unmarketable candidate, this is Hillary Flippin' Clinton. Those of you who didn't grow up in the South might not be aware of the illogical, unreasoned hatred that a certain type of conservative has for her. I grew up with people who, I swear, could not possibly have been able to articulate either the magnitude of nor the reason for their hatred of Hillary Clinton. I mostly blame Rush Limbaugh, who was less universally-despised at the time. Meanwhile, those same conservatives aren't particularly thrilled about a McCain candidacy -- if there's anything to unify the Republican base and send them to the polls to support McCain, it's Hillary Clinton. That may not be fair, but them's the brakes.

If I absolutely must make decisions based on policies: I've heard a lot of people compare Clinton's policies favorably to Obama's, but I don't see it. Her universal health care plan, like Obama's, isn't universal at all. (Just socialize medicine already, America. Our infant mortality rate is higher than any industrialized nation other than Latvia. What does it take? Geez.) She voted in favor of invading Iraq (which, hmm, if memory serves, yes, I seem to remember telling you so), which is bad (I should demand at least as much prescience from my presidential candidates as I have myself, right?); now she promises to pull all our troops out of Iraq within 60 days, presumably leaving behind a card that says "Please excuse our mess." Yes, the Iraq war was stupid, as so I told you, but you didn't listen, and now you've made a bed for us all to lie in, and there you have it.¹

But hey, screw it! I totally don't have to make decisions based on policies. Nobody else does! A Hillary candidacy may be the only way for the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of the total failure that was our government for the last eight years.

So, there you have it. James and Kimberly, I don't know where you guys lie on this debate, but you can nullify my caucus vote at the Q Café, tomorrow at 1pm.

¹ Run-on sentences are the new alliteration.

Gay Old Party

Add him to the list: Republican (obviously) Washington state representative Richard Curtis secretly enjoys hot, sweaty man sex. Allegedly, of course. Once again, what we thought was among the last refuges of the fabled "straight man's moustache," last seen circa 1984's Cannonball Run II, turns out to be its dying gasp.

If my theory is correct -- that Reverand Gary Aldridge actually killed himself earlier this month with multiple rubber suits and strategically-placed dildos in a selfless attempt to deflect media interest in Idaho Republican Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, a man who obviously merely suffers from extreme and comical constipation -- then Curtis's late-breaking scandal must just be an attempt to steal the limelight. Come on, Richard Curtis. Are you so starved for attention?

(I mean, these guys wouldn't legislate against their own sexual leanings, right? That wouldn't make any sense. Like how segregation-candidate Strom Thurmond probably had no idea his maid was black.)

Civil rights news from Oregon

There's a sexual orientation anti-discrimination bill and a civil unions bill circulating in Salem at the moment. They're getting the usual flak from religious groups, of course, who would hate to have to share valuable rights with lesser people. And God forbid a church might have to hire a filthy homosexual to do clerical work or something. (Or, at least, one that isn't keeping it in the closet.)

I know I've gone on and on about this before, but -- why are so many gays willing to settle for civil unions? There's no reason for the state to legislate differences between people of different sexual orientation. They don't need their own set of special laws. There's not a special almost-marriage for the handicapped or something. If it all boils down to religious concerns, then why is it okay for the government to be involved in marriage in the first place?

A story we ran in the 11

Gay couples in Woodland, California were issued a "Certificate of Inequality" today by a disgruntled clerk.

To Future Spa, or Not to Future Spa?

In the interest of the Furdell brothers becoming the next big thing in advice columns, James and I will now respond to commenter Tanya, who writes...

So, this is unrelated but seeing as you are interested in pinball machines and appear liberal, I'm after your opinion. I am on the board of a local planned parenthood. We have a fundraiser coming up and a friend of planned parenthood said he would refurbish and donate a pinball game for us to raffle off. Great! Right? However, it is Bally's "Future Spa" which features nipples, naked women and women with spread legs. I find it hilarious but I'm in my thirties. I am concerned about the first wave of feminists of the 50s, 60s and 70s who will be there and take offense (objectification of women; bordering on pornography, etc)

Any thoughts? My instinct is to have it at the event and still raffle it off but to come up with some kind of funny sign to put on it that ties in with Planned Parenthood. Anything clever come to mind??
Thanks

Tanya chose us for advice because of our past history of excellent internet advice-giving¹, and not because we're relevant Google hit #5.

First off, Tanya, let me say that if you do choose to raffle off Future Spa, I will personally pledge to buy as many raffle tickets as I can afford on a local TV news director salary².

Secondly, as a hip young liberal who thinks that hot leftist chicks should have full rights over their bodies, I think it would be awesome if you raffled off Future Spa.

On the other hand, as I understand from my nonprofit-organization-managing lady love, you're probably not interested in courting broke twentysomethings.

In any case, it seems that your main fear is that you'll offend the older-school feminist in the hizz-ouse. Remind them that by reappropriating the sexist images and words of the past, we point out their inherent silliness and take away their power. (You know...like Womanhouse.³)

So we gotta come up with a funny sign. First rule of thumb: the pinball machine itself is the punchline, so the sign needs to be deadpan. (And that pinball machine is one hell of a punchline.) Tying it into Planned Parenthood adds a difficulty level. Here's my bid:

"Note that this startlingly accurate 1979 vision of today's spa makes liberal use of latex. Even then, pinball designer Jebediah Bally recognized the importance of safe sex in the spas of the future."

Maybe that's too wordy. Coming soon: James's response.

¹ Link not available.
² Expressed in mathematical terms, "five."
³ Judy Chicago? The C-U-N-T Cheerleaders? Anyone?

(Click the "read more" link to see photos James took of the art on Future Spa.)

NYT article on marriage equality

Liaps, Pinz, and James all sent me this article about heterosexual couples deciding not to marry until gays can as well (normal heteros, not just Charlize and Stuart and Brad and Angelina).

Ms. McKay of Marriage Equality U.S.A. said heterosexuals can be instrumental in the push for gay marriage. ?It?s a very powerful decision to stand up against discrimination in a system where you benefit,? she said. ?There?s no more powerful way of saying, ?I object.? ?

Pretty People Agree With Me

Brad Pitt joins the ranks of Charlize Theron and me by declaring he won't get married until everyone else can, darnit.

Seriously, people: Brad Pitt. I rest my case.

I told you so: An ongoing investigation

Every now and then, the citizenry of Earth changes its mind and realizes I was right all along. In fact this happens so often, that every single time, I have to remind you of all the other times it happened, so that maybe, just maybe, next time you'll cut out the middle man and just listen to me in the first place. Yes, that day may never come. But I have to try.

What did you do this time? Well, it seems President Doofus's approval ratings just keep sinking, and suddenly everyone's starting to get the idea that the Iraq war was not such a great idea. Huh. Go figure. I mean, if you're all figuring this out now, then it must take some kind of genius to have realized it before the war even started.

Just to review, everything I said about the futility of the war more than a year ago still stands today. I, unlike you non-geniuses, do not have to change my mind at all, which is a very comfortable position for me. It's still entirely true that:

• Saddam didn't have weapons at all;
• Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11;
• we'll never frikkin catch Osama at this point, and he totally got away with it;
• we've made the world a slightly less populated, slightly less safe place for Americans.

Of course, if you'd just listened to me in the first place, we could have averted this whole disaster. Maybe saved thousands of lives. After all, you knew you'd eventually be admitting I was right all along (that's how it always happens, after all -- you must have noticed the pattern by now).

Perhaps next time. Just remember: Andrew's always right, and having your own opinion is an act of futility that won't last anyway. Next time, start out on the winning team -- Andrew's team.

The True(r) Story of Casey Nethercott

A couple of months ago, on a drive from Atlanta to Eugene, I did what I always do on long drives: I listened to conservative talk radio. It keeps me awake with rage. Dr. Laura is best -- she amazes me with the consistently wrong advice she gives out, even about things that aren't politically charged.

Anyway. one of the more hilarious commentators is Michael Savage, author of Liberalism is a Mental Disorder and professional loud, obnoxious racist.

(Aside: I swear to god I heard this on his show one time -- "In fact, it is the people who call me a racist that are the racists. All I'm doing is trying to save our country from stupid spics who don't even speak English!")

Anyway, it was then that I first heard the oft-repeated-by-conservatives sob story of Casey Nethercott. Casey, defenseless puppy-loving Arizona rancher, who bleeds apple pie and picnics, "caught two illegal aliens sneaking onto his ranch," where he apparently held them for an hour.

Though the pair admitted Nethercott's ranch hands provided them with cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour, the illegal invaders enlisted the legal help of Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center to represent them in a suit charging they were abused by Nethercott.

Long story short, Nethercott's ranch is awarded to the illegals. That above quote is from an online account; on the radio, they don't even tell you about the allegation of abuse. Basically they don't give you any details. So I knew something was up. I figured it was something creepy and sexual.

It turns out the whole story is, well, an entirely different story.

First if all, the El Salvadorans did not, in fact, trespass on Nethercott's ranch. In fact they trespassed on some other guy's ranch; Nethercott was involved because he's part of an organization called Ranch Rescue, a group of nutty vigilantes akin to the Minutemen. Ranch Rescue was hired by the ranch owner to do, ahem, rescue his ranch from the overwhelming threat of illegal aliens.

Nethercott, who has prior convictions for assault and false imprisonment, and who is apparently a neo-Nazi -- Savage totally glossed over that -- evidently pistol-whipped one of the El Salvadorans in between plying him with cookies and blankets.

Crazy version: "And since he was in jail and unable to defend himself against Dees' civil lawsuit, Nethercott's ranch was seized and handed over to the illegal aliens."

Sane version: "Sutton, who'd invited the border watch group to his land because he was fed up with drug-traffickers and immigrants passing through on their way north, settled for $100,000. But Nethercott and Foote didn't respond to the suit, resulting in a combined $1.35 million default judgment against them. Nethercott's ranch, which he bought in cash for $120,000, was signed over to the immigrants Aug. 11. "

So there you have it, Nethercott-googlers. Furdell.com -- doing the web-research so you don't have to.

Michael Brown's resum

Apparently, Michael Brown wasn't assistant city manager, but was in fact assistant to the city manager.

Terri Schiavo's Ultimate Irony

Politics? What politics?

I agree with Liaps: this is not the end of the world. However, it may be the end of my interest in politics. Politics, for me, has been an excercise in impotence all along.

Though I failed to vote in the 2000 election, as a Florida voter it does not escape me that my vote would never have counted anyway -- I'm not on the Supreme Court. It was these events, which I perceived as an affront to America's very self-governing system, that made me interested in politics.

When thousands of Americans died in September 2001, I struggled to understand the sudden outpouring of goodwill for Now-Actually-President Bush, who didn't seem to be doing all that much to me, and who I at least partly blamed for our nation's greatest defense failure.

When Bush geared up for war in Iraq, it was clear to me that he did so maliciously. I became convinced that the administration's evidence for WMD was at best mistaken, and at worst forged. I took part in all these different demonstrations and marches and sit-ins and pow-wows. I tried to convince anyone that would listen that war was not the answer, that weapons might not exist, that Iraq posed no threat. Nobody listened to me and my liberal rantings. On invasion day, it was all for nothing.

And now, this. Anyone who bothered to educate themselves on the subject would have known that Bush does not belong in the White House. He's made mistake after mistake, made our lives and our lifestyles less and less secure, and turned us further against each other. Voting for Kerry should have been a no-brainer. But instead, the majority of Americans voted for "more of the same."

It's obvious to me that this election had nothing to do with policies or track records or moral strength. It was all spin, and Republicans have Democrats powerfully outspun. I'm disappointed that so many are so easily fooled. I shouldn't be surprised, but I expected more. What an idiot I've been.

I think I was happier four years ago. Today I feel demoralized and defeated, and I think all the thought and interest that I put into this election was a total waste. But why should I have ever cared? So the courts decided the 2000 election -- it was just Coke vs. Pepsi anyway. So some buildings fell in New York -- hell, I've never even been to New York. So some brown people and some white kids died in the desert thousands of miles away. That has nothing to do with me.

So there it is. I'm not interested in politics anymore, and it's a load off my back. Keep turning, world. Keep burning, bed. Nuke the polar ice caps and exile the homosexuals. I'm totally okay with that.

Well, you know...

Looks like I won't be rubbing anything in anyone's face any time soon. I'm going to hold onto hope, but there's not much left to hold onto.

How did this happen? Kerry won all the debates. Bush has been doing a terrible job on pretty much all fronts. I can't even comprehend a Bush vote, let alone a Bush victory, and yet...

Well, I guess the people have spoken.

My prediction? Pain.

Well, it's just about Zero Hour, and I'm in heavily-Republican Jacksonville, Florida, waiting to cast my vote tomorrow. I plan to get up super-early, vote, and drive like hell. Then I'll watch the whole debacle on my honkin'-sized television with a good bottle of wine (or three) at my side.

I like to make predictions that later come true, so that I can hold it over everyone afterwards. That said, I predict that John Kerry will win tomorrow, and that it won't be as close as people think it will (either popular-vote-wise OR electoral-college-wise). I think the minor glitches in polling -- each of which seems to indicate an undue Bush-ward slant in the polls -- add up to a more decisive Kerry lead than anyone realizes.

Maybe I'm just saying that because most pollsters would consider me an unlikely voter, and because they wouldn't reach me anyway since I have no landline phone -- but you heard it here first. Kerry will win tomorrow, and I will rub it in all of your faces. And if you don't think I'm that kind of guy, well -- you just don't know me well enough.

Cheat the Vote! Part VI: City Under Siege

Any good sixth part in a series should revisit the themes of its first and perhaps third installments. That being the case...let's go back to Jacksonville. (Oh, dear.) Be sure to read the following excerpts with your best British accent...

A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.

Two e-mails, prepared for the executive director of the Bush campaign in Florida and the campaign's national research director in Washington DC, contain a 15-page so-called "caging list".

It lists 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida.

An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day."

Wow. Just...wow. Remember, this is the same county that disproportionately rejected new black voter registrations. Now it appears they intend to reject black voters as well.

When asked by Newsnight for an explanation of the list, Republican spokespersons claim the list merely records returned mail from either fundraising solicitations or returned letters sent to newly registered voters to verify their addresses for purposes of mailing campaign literature...

There was no explanation as to why such clerical matters would be sent to top officials of the Bush campaign in Florida and Washington.

I'm no expert on fundraising, but I'm sure it's a bad idea to focus your efforts on areas concentrated with people who are traditionally hostile to your beliefs and don't have any money.

Oh, and be sure to check out that bit on the end about the private investigator hired to film early (black) voters. I read about this a few days ago, and it reminds me of the intimidation tactics used on black voters back when they first got the vote. That's Jacksonville for ya -- steeped in tradition!

Cheat the Vote! Part V: You Only Vote Twice

Okay, that title doesn't really apply to what I'm going to write about, but it's hard to find good fifth-in-a-series titles. It was between this and Assignment: Miami Beach.

Right, anyway. Somewhere in Ohio...

The caller interrupting a North Side couple?s dinner earlier this week said he was from the Franklin County Board of Elections.

He told the elderly woman that her voting site had changed and that on Nov. 2 she and her husband should cast their ballots at a South Side precinct.

Not bad, not bad. A good, subtle cheat.

At no time, Elections Director Matthew Damschroder said, does the board call voters...His office has received about a dozen calls since last week from voters checking on similar calls.

Damschroder said there are two scams: The caller tells voters their precincts have changed or the caller offers to pick up an absentee-ballot application, deliver the ballot to the voter and return the completed ballot to the elections office.

Well, this leaves me with some questions. How do the callers know which voters to call? Or is the person behind the calls just some vote-hating bastard who wants everyone to be equally disenfranchised? That would be hilarious. According to Talking Points Memo, the "recipients of the calls seem to be disproportionately elderly." Does that mean anything? I just...don't...know. In any case, the whole scam reminds me of something...

Lest I be accused of missing any stories from my home town that involve turning away black voters, here's a Cheat the Vote! bonus. Free!

Herd Immunity

Way back in the third presidential debate, I thought "President" Bush made a big mistake when he said...

My call to our fellow Americans is if you're healthy, if you're younger, don't get a flu shot this year...I haven't gotten a flu shot, and I don't intend to because I want to make sure those who are most vulnerable get treated.

That statement reminded me of an article from almost a year ago about flu vaccinations and why even healthy young people should get them.

"I'm young and healthy," you might say, "why do I need the shot?"

Whoa, this article is more apt than I remembered.

Even if spending a week violently sick and bedridden doesn't worry you, by immunizing yourself you vastly lessen the chances you will spread the virus to some child or older person (family member, friend, or stranger) who might die from it.

In medicine, this concept is called "herd immunity"?that is, if enough members of a group of animals (including humans) are immunized against a disease, the entire group is more likely to escape infection.

Watching the debate, it occured to me that people running for elected office shake a lot of old peoples' hands and kiss a lot of babies. Isn't Bush putting others at risk by not immunizing himself?

I didn't bring it up at the time because, well, it's a quibble. But now I have context!

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), a heart surgeon, sent letters urging his 99 colleagues to get the shots because they mingle and shake hands with so many people, his spokeswoman, Amy Call, said.

In conclusion, don't let George W. Bush kiss your baby.

Cheat the Vote! Part IV: Endgame

Time's running out for Karl Rove, and Kerry seems to be pulling ahead in the polls. It's time to kick this fraud up a notch!

In Palm Beach, where nobody ever learns their lesson, Theresa LePore -- who you might remember for designing "butterfly ballots" that confuse old Jews into voting for anti-Semites -- has announced that electronic voting machines there have not yet been tested. Because of a server crash. Yeah, that's not ominous.

This should not be a partisan issue, but for some reason it is. Computer voting machines are illegal under Florida's state constitution, which stipulates that a manual recount must be done in certain circumstances. (Manual recounts can be done when these machines are used, ya see.) Even though the machines are clearly faulty, illegal, and very easily manipulated, Florida's Republican officials have practically insisted on it. Look for all of this to blow up in everyone's face on Wonder Tuesday*.

Ah, but that's not all! Somehow, a pile of Xeroxed fliers found their way into the trashcan of a Tennessee Democrat whose office shares space with the Kerry/Edwards campaign. From there, they mysteriously found their way into the hands of Republicans, who are clearly totally innocent in this whole thing.

The fliers, by the way, are not only crass, but totally unoriginal -- someone just took that image that says "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics," changed the first part to "Voting for President Bush," and pasted Bush's head onto the retarded kid. I mean, come on. That image has been around for at least three years now. You'd think we could come up with something a little more original.

Beyond the point. It turns out Karl Rove is actually reusing an old trick that worked pretty well for him the last time. Step one: put out a flier that maligns your candidate in an unfair or disgusting way. Step two: ? Step three: profit. After all, who's going to think you actually tried to start a smear campaign against your own candidate?

Yep, there's a lot of evil in the world. With less than three weeks of vote cheating left, expect the dial to be turned up to "11" shortly.

* Originally, this text incorrectly used the term Super Tuesday.

Cheat the Vote! Part III: Dream Warriors

Since my attempt at non-politics blogging was by varying accounts whiny and boring, it's back to The Usual, and it's time for the long overdue 3rd segment of Cheat the Vote!^tm

Remember how, in Episode One, we visited James & Andrew's home town of Jacksonville, Florida? Let's check back in on the old boys and see if things have improved down there.

In Duval County, 31,155 black voters had been added to the rolls by the end of last week. [...] But hundreds more could show up at the polls only to find they cannot vote. The office has flagged 1,448 registrations as incomplete, and as of last week had yet to process 11,500 more.

A Washington Post analysis found nearly three times the number of flagged Democratic registrations as Republican. Broken down by race, no group had more flagged registrations than blacks.

This, in a heavily GOP county where records show that the number of blacks added to the rolls since 2000 approximately equals the number of non-Hispanic whites.

Sweet Christmas! How could such a thing happen? Who could possibly be to blame? I think the culprit is pretty obvious. It's the Democrats.

[The Jeb Bush-appointed Republican Secretary of State's office] said the real blame belongs with the Democratic-leaning groups that targeted minority voters and then turned in sloppy and incomplete registrations. The disproportionate number of black Democratic registrations flagged...is a function of "who those groups are targeting."

According to the article, a lot of the registrations are being flagged because of a new directive -- ignored by many counties, but diligently enforced in Duval -- that new voters must both sign an oath and check a box attesting to their citizenship. Failure to do either one is like crossing your fingers behind your back. Thanks, Duval County, for so diligently protecting our rights!

Oh, but the fun doesn't stop there! Let's take a plane to the city named "City We Most Often Fly To" by furdell.com three years running! That's right, it's...Las Vega$!!!

If the stuff in Jacksonville irked you, you're gonna love this...

[An out-of-state firm called Voters Outreach of America, aka America Votes] has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.

"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assistant to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.

Employees "allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands" of registrations got trashed.

As Talking Points Memo has discovered, Voters Outreach of America is "Paid for by the Republican National Committee."

Why does it not surprise me that, when faced with a clear choice between Good and Evil, half of America chooses evil? Don't get me wrong, I think only about 5% of that group realizes what it's doing. But I'm pretty sure Darth Vader could get half the popular vote. And that's even if he was running for reelection after having just exploded a peaceful planet.

***UPDATE!***
That GOP-funded group that was shredding Dem. registrations in Nevada? Yeah, they did it in Oregon too. Oh, and stay tuned -- other states couldn't be far behind.

Sinclair Broadcast Group: Flip-Floppers?

Back in late April, the Sinclair Broadcast Group ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast an episode of Nightline that honored America's then-under-600 killed troops in Iraq.

In a statement online, the Sinclair group said the "Nightline" program "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

So, showing pictures and saying the names of dead soldiers is a political statement. Fair enough.

Fast forward to nowish. The Sinclair Broadcast Group is ordering its network affiliates -- including "all six of the major broadcast networks in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Pennsylvania" -- to pre-empt primetime broadcasting in favor of an anti-Kerry documentary, Stolen Honor. They will be running the documentary commercial-free and categorizing it as a news item (and not, for example, free political advertising).

Sounds like an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. This one's going to be hard to defend -- or is it?

Sinclair Group's Vice President for Corporate Relations on CNN:

However, the accusations coming from Terry McAuliffe and others, is it because they are some elements of this that may reflect poorly on John Kerry? That it's somehow an in-kind contribution of George Bush?

If you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be an in-kind contribution to John Kerry[...]And that's just nonsense.

This is news. I can't change the fact that these people decided to come forward today.

So it seems that reporting on dead people in Iraq either is, or isn't, an in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign, depending on what action the Sinclair Group is defending that month.

Need some wood?

That was the best line in last night's debate. According to Kerry, Bush's claim that Kerry's tax plan would raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses was a distortion, because that claim loosely defines "small business owner" -- so loosely that, for claiming $84 income from a timber company he co-owns on his 2001 tax form, even Bush himself counts as a small business owner. Bush's response:

BUSH: I own a timber company?

(LAUGHTER)

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

Need some wood?

(LAUGHTER)

I gotta say, it was pretty funny. Unfortunately, the Dems won't be able to get much mileage out of this one. What Kerry said was fundamentally correct: by the standards of the Bush claim, Bush himself counts as a small business owner for claiming $84 from a business he co-owns.

Unfortunately, Kerry's likely (and ironic) source, factcheck.whatever, made a mistake when it described the company, Lone Star Trust, as a timber-growing enterprise. It is in fact an oil-and-gas concern. So, the Dems can't use the "Need some wood?" soundbite, alas.

Open Letter to an Undecided Florida Swing Voter

Dear friend,

As I promised you, I will not reveal your name to people who would otherwise have your head on a pike, because I am the soul of charity. However, I didn't say anything about posting open letters on the internet. So that's just what I'm going to do.

I was shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that you are undecided. As you know, I'm a Florida voter too. In the interest of making my vote count twice, I shall endeavor to help you make up your mind in a way that totally agrees with me. Join me, won't you?

Now then, first things first. In our conversation yesterday, you implied that you were thinking about not voting at all. Well, we can't have that.

Take a look at Electoral Vote. The guy who runs the site takes all the most recent polls by state, averages them together, and comes up with some idea of what the election might look like if it was held today. It's fun to follow, but the reason I want you to look at it is to take a peek at Georgia. Georgia, as you may or may not know, is a "red state" -- we knew months ago that its 15 electoral votes are going to Bush, and there's not much anyone can do about it. Even the 350,000 new registered voters probably won't make more than a dent.

People here take it for granted that their vote -- be it for Bush, Kerry, or anyone else -- doesn't count. You get the sense that they feel like they don't get to participate in the national election, and it's kind of true. An extra Bush vote is wasted here where it could make a difference in another state; a Kerry vote here is simply worthless.

Florida, meanwhile, is the fourth-biggest state in terms of electoral votes, and the very biggest swing state. It's the swingiest state of them all. [Assuming your vote is fairly counted,] Florida votes count more than other votes. In short, you'd be a fool to throw away that kind of power. Americans in 28 states -- including the 3 biggest by population -- only get to watch the election on television, and you get to actually participate.

As if that wasn't enough impetus, voting happens to be your civic duty. A lot of people think of voting as a right, but it isn't -- it's considered a civic responsibility, like paying taxes or showing up when they draft you or serving in jury boxes or what have you. It's part of the price you're expected to pay for living in the most powerful, wealthy country in all the land.

In sum: vote, dammit. If you absolutely insist on voting for neither candidate, you can always go with a 3rd-party candidate who reflects your views, or even cast a blank ballot if you think that will make a statement, but vote.

Next imperative: you must keep yourself informed in order to make the right decisions. It seems to me that you're using the wrong news filter (friends? family?), because you weren't sure whether Bush or Kerry won the first presidential debate. In fact, there's virtually no question on the subject -- blues and reds alike agree that it was a particularly bad day for Bush. You mentioned that your family taped the debate -- off the Fox News Channel of all places! -- so I encourage you to watch the tape and make up your own mind.

I certainly thought Kerry was the clear debate winner, but in last night's VP debate I was a lot less certain. Both candidates were confident and prepared, and neither of them said anything particularly stupid. I called it "too close to call," but I'm seeing evidence that people saw this debate as a major Dem. victory as well. Keep that in mind when you hear talking points that say the exact opposite.

That's all for now. You have some homework to do in the form of presidential-debate-watching, and there will be a quiz. I'll be badgering you some more in this forum, and don't even think about not reading it, or I will release your identity to people who are a million billion times more obnoxious then me, and you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Ever yours,
Andrew

Republicans, don't let your daughters grow up to be lesbians

Apparently you can add Alan Keyes -- who called homosexuals in general and Mary Cheney specifically selfish hedonists -- can now be added to the list of Republican officials whose daughters are lesbians. Young Maya Keyes evidently had her own website in which she was quite open about being, well...pro-Bush. (I hate that joke.) And yes, I am aware that I am the last person with internet access to find out about all this.

The list Alan Keyes joins includes Dick Cheney of course, but also probably George W. Bush, if you get a few drinks in the twins. Heck, you could probably get them to make out...

Jimmy Carter, professional mineshaft canary

In his grand tradition of travelling to third world hellholes and helping them run a democracy, Jimmy Carter has travelled to Florida -- poor bastard -- and found that "basic international requirements" are not being met by the state's voting apparatus.

Carter touches on stuff we all knew about, like the effort to get Nader on the ballot; a "fumbling attempt" to disenfranchise 22,000 black voters; and the obvious biases of everyone who works for the President's brother. But it does sort of put things in perspective. I mean, don't we usually send him to other places where democracy doesn't work?

Drunken Thoughts that Should Not Be Shared, Part II: Don't Even Ask

So I was reading this article from Slate -- oh, by the way, I'm sure you've figured this out from my last couple of entry titles, but I've had a few too many tonight. As you can see, drinking improves my grammar and spelling, as well as my dart scores oddly enough.

So anyway, the article is about statements Kerry has made leading up to the first debates...statements that suggest the president is -- gasp! -- functionally retarded. Yeah, that's not exactly going to make the front page.

This got me thinking about just how much the current presidential election -- like all things in life -- can be compared to that greatest of Rocky movies, Rocky III. Yes, I know I've written about Rocky more than once, but hear me out...this time it's relevant, I swear!

See, in one corner you have Bush -- who represents Rocky in this analogy, by the way. In the previous film, he pulled off an unlikely defeat against reigning champion Al Gore, and now Bush is the title defender. But Bush is starting to go soft. Suddenly this John Kerry guy -- played in the movie by Mr. T -- shows up and starts talking smack.

REPORTER
What do you think of the President's chances in the upcoming debate?

KERRY
Actually, I pity the fool.

REPORTER
What's your prediction?

KERRY
My prediction? Pain.

Seeing as how my analogy is perfect and flawless and absolutely insurmountably correct in all ways, I offer the following Election Prophecy.

1. In November, Kerry will defeat Bush.

2. Al Gore will approach Bush and offer to train him for the 2008 rematch -- in exchange for an unnamed favor. Bush will accept.

3. Gore will help Bush regain his Eye of the Tiger.

4. Bush, wearing Gore's underwear, will regain the presidency in 2008.

5. As payback for the training and the Tiger Eye stuff, Bush will be forced to sit down with Gore and perform a manual recount of Florida votes from the 2000 election.

GORE
Now, when you beat me, you beat me by five hundred thirty-seven... FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN... votes. Now do you know what something like that does to a man of my intelligence?

BUSH
I thought you said you got over it.

GORE
I lied.

Your vote still doesn't count

Today, Electoral Vote details a nightmare scenario in which Kerry wins the popular vote and the electoral vote and still manages to lose the election.

According to the Votemaster, if Colorado passes a popular referendum to split up its electoral college votes proportionally...

If Bush is 1% ahead in Colorado, he would get 5 votes in the electoral college and Kerry would get 4, changing the score to Kerry 269, Bush 269. If West Virginia Bush elector Richie Robb votes for a Republican other than Bush, as he has threatened, then the score becomes Kerry 269, Bush 268. [Because 270 votes are required to win the election, i]n both cases the election is decided by the new House with each state getting one vote. In all scenarios, the Republicans will control the majority of delegations in the new House, so the House will elect Bush.

D'oh!

Depending on who controls the Senate, Cheney or Edwards becomes vice president. Could go either way.

Hey, that sounds like a sitcom waiting to happen. In each episode, Bush whips up some cockamamie scheme to maim Edwards, but then at the last minute Bush is won over by Edwards's charm and decides not to spring his trap. But then he forgets about the trap and gets caught in it himself! And then he tries again next week. Laughs for the whole family. Oh, but wait...

If the Democrats hang onto the Louisiana Senate seat, as they have for over 100 years. there is a good chance the Senate will be split 50-50. In that case, Cheney gets to cast the deciding vote.

The system works!

Television not rotting your brain enough? Try radio

I've yammered before about how political discourse is stone cold dead in this country. I'm starting to think it was slowly choked to death in the iron grip of Local Morning Talk Radio, through a steady process of misinformation and polarization.

This morning during my commute I was subjected to some Morning Zoo!!!!!, during which two political commentators -- one of whom was, of course, completely racist (he suggested, for example, that Muslim men sometimes castrate themselves to avoid having sex with their sisters) -- debated how America should treat people who donate funds to "terrorist organizations." The slightly-less-racist commentator argued that we don't treat the Body Shop -- smelly mall store of girl soaps -- any differently, even though it gives money to, and I quote, "Arab organizations." When Slightly-More-Racist guy asked if these Arab organizations were also "terrorist organizations," Slightly-Less-Racist guy kinda mumbled something in a high-pitched voice: "Well, you know, yeah."

Now, anyone listening to that program would come away with the distinct impression that the Body Shop has been donating funds to organizations that hope to explode our buildings. Anyone listening to that program and still possessing half a brain would realize how completely ludicrous that is. But only an information addict like myself could tell you that "donations" means "a humanitarian award in 2002" and "Arab organization" means "Palestinian right-of-return group."

The Body Shop does not have a position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The four winners of the 2002 Human Rights Award, including the National Committee for the Defence of the Rights of the Internally Displaced, were chosen by an independent jury, including international human rights experts, for being the best examples of peaceful grassroots activism on the issue of housing within a human rights framework, regardless of their religion, ethnicity or nationality.

Sounds like terrorists to me!

Rassa-frassum. Okay, I just had to get that off my chest. Go about your daily business.

Voting: Unpatriotic

From Zell Miller's speech last night at the RNC:

[1940 Republican presidential candidate you've never heard of Wendell Wilkie] made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

How dare the Democrats nominate a candidate for president! This election is weakening Democracy, I tell you!!!

Also, lack of bipartisanship? Totally the Democrats fault. They started it. Or...something?

Furdell Highlights...for Kids!

Hey, kids! Help the President find the Republican National Convention schedule in a Google search! But watch out -- only one of the ten results is the real schedule! The others are spoofs, and if you give George the wrong one, it could be a distaster to his campaign!

Can you guess the correct link in just two clicks? (For the correct link, flip your computer monitor over.)

Who killed political discourse?

For weeks I've been stewing over the fact that political discourse, like rock 'n' roll, is entirely dead. (Don't argue with me about rock 'n' roll, either. Every new rock song sounds exactly like every rock song from fifteen years ago, and if they all sounded like the same good song it wouldn't be so bad. Rock fans just aren't willing to admit that their genre was replaced by disco, then pop, and now rap. It's over.)

Wow, that was some tangent. Anyway, it seems to me that nobody is capable of having an intelligent conversation about politics, because it's turned into a kind of sporting event. Just as you can't successfully argue the benefits of the Red Sox over the Yankees, you can no longer sway anyone in a poltical debate.

I'm not just talking about conservatives, either. From what I've seen, both sides of the fence are completely pig-headed and ignorant. Kerry-worshippers are unwilling to even hear that he has no political agenda or plan to speak of; Bush-worshippers refuse to admit that he is, well, completely awful in every way. And it's no use trying to get through to anyone.

The other day I overheard a guy boasting about his new t-shirt that says "Kerry Sucks." 'Great,' sarcastically thought I, 'that'll start constructive political conversations with strangers.' I imagine him in front of his television on Election Night, big foam-rubber #1 hand at the ready, keg chilled, just waiting for those numbers to come in. Go team!

When Kerry spoke at the Democratic National Convention, I was disappointed by his speech, which mostly consisted of criticizing Bush. "I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws." Well, duh. I'd kind of hope that goes without saying. Here I was waiting for him to say what he would do as president, and all I'm getting is "I won't screw up in the wide variety of ways that the last guy did" -- certainly an important message, but one that I had already assumed.

But when I brought up these complaints with my (liberal, obviously) friends, they seemed almost offended. "Did you even listen to the speech?" Well, yeah. He didn't say much of anything. I think he doesn't want jobs shipped overseas or something, but that's really not a concern of mine. I'd like to know what he plans to do in Iraq, and with the economy and such. (My friends exasperatingly shake their heads and ignore me.)

So that's what it's all come to. I am left returning to my original postulate: "No matter who we elect president, we're all completely and unredeemingly doomed." America: Land of the Ignorant. We the People are no longer intelligent enough to elect our own leaders.

I Told You So: The French

As someone who actively demonstrated against a pre-emptive Iraq invasion, and also as someone who publicly questioned the veracity of Colin Powell's United Nations presentation on weapons of mass destruction, I am in the unique position of being able to say "I told you so!" to almost anyone and everyone I know. It's a good feeling.

(Of course, it would have been nicer if all that work could have actually done anything to prevent the war, but I'll take what I can get.)

Now, thanks to the crystal clear vision that is hindsight, lots of people all over the world can join me in my "I Told You So" chorus. Today we examine...the French. Read on for a stroll down Recent History Lane.

No doubt you remember the whimsical decision by Neal Rowland, owner of a restaurant called Cubbies in North Carolina, to serve his customers freedom fries rather than french fries. Rowland was riffing off the idea that foods with German names were renamed during World War II. I consider his idea enterprising, especially since, according to the CNN article, "his business has a lot of local military troops as customers."

Fair enough. But this story became stupid when it seeped out of the "Offbeat News" section: Reps. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) saw to it that the three House office buildings would evermore serve freedom fries and freedom toast, rather than their unpatriotic counterparts.

In case you don't remember, this was of course all because France thought we should maybe give weapons inspections more time in Iraq. Wow, what a crazy idea.

[Jones said in a statement,] "Watching France's self -serving politics of passive aggression in this effort has discouraged me more than I can say."

...

France has pressed the United Nations to give weapons inspectors more time in Iraq, saying the U.S. and British-led move to war is premature.

Its stance has angered some U.S. lawmakers.

Rep. Jim Saxton, R-New Jersey, has introduced legislation in the House that would block any French company from receiving U.S. government aid or financing in any reconstruction of Iraq. Another measure discourages American tourists, businesses and the government from participating in the 2003 Paris Air show.

But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he didn't think Congress needed to take any formal steps to signal its disapproval of France.

"I don't think we have to retaliate against France," he said. "They have isolated themselves. They have resigned from any responsibility for the war on terror."

House of Representatives, and particularly Reps. Ney and Jones: France told you so.

In more current news also related to greasy food
Do you love ketchup, but also America? Well, now you don't have to choose between one or the other, thanks to W Ketchup. "You don't support Democrats. Why should your ketchup?"

Of course, Heinz -- a company in which John Kerry's wife holds 4% ownership -- is entirely non-partisan. And W Ketchup is similarly unrelated to George W. Bush. But don't let that stop you from buying a more expensive, inferior product. Just remember that I told you so.

Hold your political bloggers accountable!

I can't help but notice that Kausfiles has been uncharacteristically silent on the subject of Swift Boat Veterans for Smearing Kerry. Very interesting.

P.S. What I mean is that Kaus should probably post something about the ads. Like he should either defend them in some slimy way, or admit the wrongness of the whole thing. But conservative bloggers seem to prefer ignoring the problem.

P.P.S. Kausfiles is dumb.

Let's all have a good laugh at Ann Coulter's expense

USA Today hired celebrity nutjob Ann Coulter to write a daily opinion column from the Democratic National Convention. Sadly, it was so incomprehensible and unfunny that they decided not to run it.

Brian Gallagher, editor of USA TODAY's editorial page...said the column had "basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable."

HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAA!!!!! Ahem. Coulter, in a statement yesterday, countered:

"USA Today doesn't like my 'tone,' humor, sarcasm, etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them."

Did she just make an argument, and then shoot it down? Anyway, in USA Today's defense, Coulter's article really does make absolutely no sense. She talks a lot about the "free speech zone," aka "razor-wire lined protest pen," but doesn't seem to understand who it's for, nor the fact that nobody intends to use it.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall.

Ummm, no, Ann, they're putting the people who protest the DNC in the cage -- and even that wasn't mandatory. More confusing is Coulter's narcissistic insistence that Republican women are more attractive than Democrats.

Say what?

Listen, Ann -- and yes, I know you're reading this -- you're way off base. I mean, it's not like I was protesting the war because I don't want to see people die or something. You describe she-Democrats as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons." I don't know what "pie wagon" means, but it sounds great, and I love every single other thing you mentioned. I even looked up "hirsute" just to make sure I like that too. And if "pie wagon" means she's going to bake me a delicious pie, then sign me up! No Republican has ever baked me a pie!!! How do you explain that, Ann Coulter? HMM??

Cheat the Vote! Part 1 in what we can only assume will be a series

Welcome to the Furdell.com countdown to the election! We'll be counting down the vast number of ways the administration intends to disenfranchise voters. And so it begins!

And where else should we start, but James & Andrew's begrudging hometown of Jacksonville, FL? Ooh, the swing state of swing states! What are those rascally Republicans up to this time?

Apparently, after a ceremony in which about 200 immigrants became naturalized citizens of Our Great and Free Country, the new citizens were asked to fill out voter registration cards. Oh, how nice! They're new citizens, so now they get to vote! All is right in the world!

Oh, wait two seconds: the party affiliation is already filled in. That's right, immigrants -- whose best interests are of course represented by the Bush administration -- were tricked into registering Republican. Brilliant.

Remember, there's still two or three months until general elections, and about 400 different ways the Bush administration can disenfranchise the nation! Join us on a journey that can only end in postponing the vote indefinitely for security reasons! America, the beautiful, with ample waves of grain! Or something! I'm feeling so patriotic right now that I'm going to beat up a foreigner.

I feel so much safer!

"Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we're helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer."
--Your Doofus President, Yesterday morning

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. There are reasons why it's a good thing that he no longer leads his own country. But why in the world is Bush trying to convince us we're safer, of all things?

Let's see: we dismantled a government that, as it turns out, had no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever, nor the means to produce same; and that, as it turns out, had no connection to our actual enemies. So in other words, they posed no threat to us. And in the process, we've lost any international credibility we may have once had; we've stretched our armed forces to the limit; and best of all, we've further pissed off the already-problematic terrorist contingent. In fact, our government is now telling us that terrorists plan to kill us for voting. Great. I feel so safe now. Good thing Saddam isn't in power anymore, because that was really keeping me up at night.

Is it even remotely possible for Bush to be re-elected at this point? And if so, does that mean everybody has lost their minds?

Andrew Furdell Presents: Valerie Plame Adventures

Looks like Prez is consulting an attourney about the Plame investigation. Hopefully we'll eventually know who outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, but more importantly, how will we ever find out exactly what kinds of awesome missions she was sent on?

Perhaps our only hope is to read this week's installment of VALERIE PLAME ADVENTURES!!!

Gadzooks! Can our heroine disarm the dictator and save her husband -- all without revealing her secret identity? What will happen next?!?! Be here next week for an exciting new installment of -- VALERIE PLAME ADVENTURES!

That's a Fight You Don't Wanna Pick, Mr. President

So I'm told that the Bush Administration wants you to remember John Kerry's infamous quote that "I
actually did vote for the $87 billion...before I voted against it."

Now, we already know that the Bush administration reads Furdell.com and incorporates our ideas as policy. That being the case, I have a message for George: do you really want this election to be decided based on quotes taken out of context? Or even in context, for that matter?

And another thing, while I have your ear, Mr President: a war for oil was all well and good, but how about a war for gasoline? Cause oh man, that stuff is expensive.

Later, fools.

I'm going on vacation this week, which means not a single Furdell will be in the country. (Or at least none of the important ones.) If everyone gets anthrax while we're gone, I swear it's a coincidence.

Speaking of terror, I'll take this opportunity to rebuke some more comments from commenter Chris.

They may have showed them at the time, but I haven't seen a World Trade Center video, based on why we are fighting this war on terrorism, in about 2 years. Bush used one image in a commercial and all the liberal activists went crazy. Why? Because it reminds Americans why we are fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did you know that every time you remember something, the memory gets rewritten in your brain with a whole new set of perceptions and links? Often the new memory barely resembles reality. An interesting, totally unrelated fact.

Back on the subject at hand, it'll interest you to know that those liberal activists were in fact firefighters and victims' families; and that they were upset because they believed Bush was exploiting the tragedy for political gain.

If I had seen the video, I probably would have responded by putting my hand through the TV screen. It enrages me that human beings would do this to someone else. It further pushes me to believe what we are doing is the right thing and the ultimate defeat of the Islam-o-fascists is something all countries should strive for.

You don't seem nearly so upset by what white human beings were doing to Arab human beings at Abu Ghraib. Innocent people died there too -- do we American fascists therefore deserve to be ultimately defeated as well? (Correct answer: "No, but now I understand why those guys are so pissed at us. Hmm.")

In conclusion, your jingoism disturbs me. It disturbs me so much that I'm going to leave the country! Goodbye, you obese bunch of losers!

Blame the Press

I had assumed that the conservative response to the Iraq prison torture mess was going to boil down to something like: "Torture isn't so bad! In fact it's expected, nay, required in a war of this magnitude!"

I was totally wrong; the token response is instead to blame the press for releasing the photos of the abuse. HAH! Forget about the abuse, it's revealing the abuse that's really causing problems!

But wait a second -- isn't it the responsibility of the press to publicize exactly this kind of thing -- namely, governmental abuses? If the press had failed to publish those photos, it would have been just that -- a failure. Sure, non-photo coverage is powerful too, but the term "photojournalism" exists for a reason, and those pictures were news.

So if you're thinking the press is to blame for people getting their heads cut off, consider this: our government does what it does knowing that, if the press finds out, so will we. It is not the responsibility of our newspapers to censor themselves in the hopes of saving lives; it is the responsibility of our leaders to do the right thing or be held accountable.