199?-2002

R.I.P.

This is a collection of much of the political writing I did for several years under the penname "Quasit". I wrote for Bartcop, DemocraticUnderground, The Daily Brew, Media Whores Online, and some other sites that have slipped my mind. I also participated in online forums, which was probably a mistake. I became frustrated that so many online liberals spent all their time and energy sniping at each other instead of fighting to save democracy. Eventually it became necessary for Quasit to die, and so he did.

But he does tend to claw at the inside of the casket from time to time.

Stop On A Dime
Fri, 14 Jul 2000

I'm hearing bad things.

The word is out that the second that ex-President Ronald "Bitburg" Reagan is wheeled off this mortal coil, the GOP will start agitating for a "Reagan dime". Yeah, you heard me right -- they're going to put his vacuous old face on the U.S. dime.

It's an odd reward for Big Money to give its most beloved servant. After all, the rich aren't going to ever USE those dimes -- they'd no sooner touch one than they'd touch a negro (with the exception of George W. Bush, who can't seem to keep his hands off of minority children when a camera's around). Perhaps there's a certain sadistic thrill to making the poor beg for images of the man who so thoroughly screwed them?

Now, it's going to be bad enough when Reagan finally croaks. There's going to be an orgy of over-the-top mournsterbation like you wouldn't believe. Rupert Murdoch and Richard Scaife will order their mighty media machines (which now comprise something like what, 98.9 percent of all American media?) to go into a never-before-seen frenzy of tributes to the "Greatest American Ever". Thought it was bad when they renamed Washington National airport? By the time the media's through with this one, the White House will be the Ronald Reagan Immortal Greatness Gipper Memorial House!

But I digress.

The dime...the soon-to-be Reagan memorial ten-cent-piece. Remember whose face is on the dime now? Surprise! It's someone that the GOP would love to push out of public memory: Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Here's a quick comparison of the dime-that-was and the dime-to-be:

FDR: Sold supplies to Britain in early days of World War II to support democracy abroad
RR: Sold arms to Iranian terrorists and made secret deals in early days of campaign to 1980 Presidential subvert democracy at home

FDR: Creator of the New Deal, giving millions of poor and disadvantaged Americans hope for a better future
RR: Spokesman for a Raw Deal, took the hope away again

FDR: Maintained fiscal responsibility while providing for the elderly
RR: Remained elderly while irresponsibly providing the U.S. the world's largest fiscal deficit

FDR: Won World War II, encouraging Americans to join together to fight the greatest battle ever known
RR: Won the war against the poor by encouraging the largest income gap between rich and poor ever known

FDR: Fought bravely for his principles, even though crippled by polio
RR: Shilled like a two-dollar whore for Big Money, completely uncrippled by any hint of principles

I could go on, but why bother? It's clear that the Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial dime is a perfect metaphor for the modern GOP: A worthless disk of base metal, covered by a flimsy layer of cheap shiny stuff, stamped with a picture of a head that turned out to have been empty all along.

GWB Demands Single Fathers Take Responsibility
Fri, 21 Jul 2000

In a recent speech, presidential candidate George W. Bush demanded that teenage boys who fail to provide for their illegitimate offspring lose all parental rights, forever. Given GWB's refusal to take responsibility for his own "youthful indiscretions", and the rumors of illegitimate half-Mexican Bush babies being raised alone by their (then-teenage) prostitute Mexican mothers, it would seem that Mr. Bush is opening himself up to charges of hypocrisy.

In other words, George W. Bush talking about responsibility is like (choose one):

A. Rush Limbaugh eructating about honesty B. Dr. Laura harping about pornography C. Ronald Reagan drooling about fiscal responsibility D. Tom Delay whining about dishonest fundraising E. Richard Mellon Scaife whispering about pay-offs F. Dick Armey mooning about obscenity G. Tim Russert bloviating about integrity H. Dan Qayle teeching abowt speling I. George W. Bush smirking about self-reliance J. Henry Hyde blowing hot air about adultery K. Rupert Murdoch sliming about the liberal media L. Oliver North smarming about the honor of a soldier M. Cokie (Pursed-Lips) Roberts blowing smoke about character N. Chris Matthews howling about Democratic spin O. Bob Barr foaming about abortion P. Michael Isikoff blathering about journalistic ethics Q. FOX News Channel bullshitting about objectivity R. Ken Starr simpering about degeneracy S. Don Imus sleazing about dignity T. Ann Coulter sneering about conspiracies U. Pat (Bitburg) Buchanan bellowing about minorities V. Dick Morris oozing about morality W. NPR whoring about corporate sponsorship X. Barbara Olsen tittering about sexual purity Y. The New York Times pontificating hollowly about credibility Z. All of the above

Elian Solved
Fri, 21 Jul 2000

I just figured out the perfect solution to the whole Elian Gonzales thing.

The problem is that his father wants him, AND the relatives in Miami don't want Castro to get the boy. So why don't we do the fair thing and cut the boy in half? Just slice him right through the middle, top to bottom. Send half to Cuba and let the Miami relatives keep the other half. They could have their half freeze-dried and shellacked, and I bet he'd look just as good on TV! They could nail his foot to half a skateboard (divided lengthwise, of course) and get him half a Disney hat...and the relatives would have the pleasure of knowing that Castro didn't get all of Elian back.

And just to show that the US is a generous nation, we could pay to have the half of Elian that we send back to Cuba buried -- all expenses paid by the people of the United States. An extra bonus is that since we'd only be burying half of him, the funeral would only cost half as much!

What do you think?

Next week I'll tell you my solution to the Middle East thing. Hint: think "locusts and first-borns".

Amazing Coincidence
Fri, 18 Aug 2000

What an amazing coincidence that the news of Robert Ray's plan to prosecute President Clinton was leaked to the press only hours before Al Gore made his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention! It reminds me of many other amazing coincidences. Here are a couple:

- The revelation in a Rupert Murdoch tabloid only a few hours before President Clinton's acceptance speech at the '96 convention that he was the father of an illegitimate child with a black prostitute in Arkansas. Remember Clinton's apology to the nation when the DNA tests proved he was the father? I can still see him now, on his knees in front of the camera and blubbering, begging for some honorable man of integrity like Newt Gingrich or Bob Livingston to blow his brains out and wipe him from the national blotter of shame.

- And who could forget the believe-it-or-not coincidence of Ronald Reagan (The Greatest American (TM)) invading Grenada only hours after more than 200 Marines were blown up in Beirut by a terrorist? I recall how Reagan pleaded with the Pentagon to provide more protection for "our brave boys over there", and how those stubborn Marines insisted on sleeping in a bunker with a giant target painted on it. Combined with the years of high tension over the peril from the "Eviler Empire" of Grenada, the public frenzy was amazing! It was the purest coincidence that both situations exploded at virtually the same time.

I feel terribly sorry for George W. Bush and the Republicans, though. Some unscrupulous bastard has once again made it seem as if THEY'RE the dirty tricksters! What sort of fiend could besmirch the honorable name of Bush? Say...

You know, I'll bet if you could track down the source of that leak, it would turn out to be Bill Clinton himself. This has got to be proved -- CONGRESS, LAUNCH AN INVESTIGATION TODAY! AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW!

Hot Off The Wire
Sat, 02 Sep 2000

NASHVILLE, TN - Gore campaign spokesmen bitterly decried the latest television ad by the Bush campaign, calling it "extreme", and "over the top". The ad depicts Al Gore as a delusional schizophrenic with a severe personal hygiene problem.

"Al Gore claims to have written the Bill of Rights, invented the wheel, and personally built the Mayflower" an announcer intones over a caricature of Gore with a Pilgrim's hat, continuing "How can anyone believe anything a crazy scumbag like that would say?". As the spot fades out the Gore picture is morphed
into that of a masturbating monkey.

The ad, which is being run hourly in every state in the nation, is the first in a series. The second spot in the series accuses Gore of "publicly osculating with a blonde slut on national television -- in front of CHILDREN!", and calls the Gore daughters "Al's blonde bitches". "Do we need another family like that
in that in the White House?" the announcer asks. "America -- just say NO to the incestuous Gores."

Bush campaign spokesperson Karen Hughes defended the new commercials as "lighthearted little romps". Speaking at Bush national headquarters today, she said "This whining is just further proof that Gore and the Democrats have no sense of humor. These educational spots are eminently fair, and are meant in a spirit of playful fun. Only a pathetic psycho who has already been rejected by the American people would have any problem with them. What a loser."

Pointing out that the commercials were funded by the GHWB-Murdoch-Scaife Foundation for Americans Who Value Freedom of American Tobacco and Oil in America (a wholly independent political action committee which is not affiliated with the Republican National Committee), Hughes added "In any case, we didn't create those ads, so we can't pull them. We're just fans like everyone else, watching and laughing along with Mr. and Mrs. America."

HUSTON, TX - Bush campaign spokesperson Karen Hughes today accused the Gore campaign of "insane, vicious, scurrilous attacks that have shamed every American." Her remarks were in response to a DNC television ad which accused Governor Bush of having a poor environmental record in Texas. "We never dreamed that they would resort to 'facts' like those," Hughes said. "The Gore campaignhas stooped to using so-called 'statistics' from the EPA, the Sierra Club, and the UN. A government agency, a card-carrying Communist organization, and a so-called 'council' of evil monkey-men who've plotted against our nation for two hundred years. Can anyone take this sort of desperate sleaze attack seriously?
Couldn't the Democrats find someone QUALIFIED to run? What a bunch of losers."

The spot had been slated to run as a response to earlier Bush ads, but was spiked by the DNC in the fear that someone might be offended by it. Editorials in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Washington Times, and on FOX News Channel have denounced the Gore ad as a new low in American politics.

Why Must They Hurt Him?
September 12, 2000

Poor George W. Bush.
Why is everyone so cruel to him?

He was just trying to be nice, and now everybody is being mean!
Is everyone else blind?

Am I the only one who can put two news stories together?
We know that GW personally micromanages almost everything in his campaign.
And everyone is making a fuss about the word "RATS" appearing subliminally in
his latest ad about Al Gore.
But why didn't everyone figure it out?

Didn't anybody else see the story?
George W. is dyslexic!
He has trouble reading!
He spells words backwords!

He didn't MEAN to call Al Gore "RATS" --
He MEANT to call him a "STAR"!

W. is trying to tell Al Gore that he likes him!
But he's too shy to just come out and say it.
It's so adorable.

And now everyone is being mean to poor W.
Stop it, stop, I beg of you!

I Don't Understand
September 12, 2000

I was listening to W. on the radio today, and I'm confused.

We know that George W. is one of the greatest men alive today.
He must be, because he's been nominated to be President!

He's also very smart. He has to be, to have produced the "Texas Miracle" --
as I understand it, he's increased production of airborne particulate matter,
undereducated children, corporate funeral home profits, and uninsured children
ENORMOUSLY during his short (but sweet) four years as Governor.

I don't have the exact figures on the increases, but I hear they're almost as big
as the money he earns with no strings attached from Big Business and Big Oil.

And he got into Yale, one of America's greatest colleges, entirely on his own!
I hear he even delivered papers (the Weekly Standard) to pay for his tuition.
At the same time he worked night and day helping minority children, even though
their parents were voting against his Dad. Now that's generosity!
And despite all that, he got the highest GPA ever awarded at Yale.

Anyway, the reason I'm confused is because when W. was talking on the radio
about the subliminal "RATS" ad, he kept saying "subliminable". He said it over and over.
I can't figure out why he did that!

He MUST be able to say the word right -- he's a Yale man! And even if he never came
across the word before, I'm sure his brilliant assistants (the ones who are going to help him
run the country) would have easily been able to coach him on it.

Heck, I can say it. Even Tim Russert can say it!
Sub-lim-in-Al. How hard can it be?

Was it a joke?
If it was, it was too intellectual for me -- but then I'm not an Ivy Leaguer.

George W. Bush Denounces Gore Corruption
Thu, 28 Sep 2000

HOUSTON, TX - Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush rocked the political world today with his announcement that the recent release of 30 million barrels of home heating oil from the Strategic Researve to the fuel-starved Northeast was a "cynical political ploy by the Clinton-Gore administration".

Speaking with his arm around his Vice Presidential candidate, fellow Texas oilman Dick Cheney, Governor Boush continued "In these days of moral degeneration in Washington, we must not give in to those who make selfish use of public policy for their own, contemptible personal gain."

The Governor then announced his own solution to the energy crisis: "What America needs is more domestic oil exploration, by our very own Texan - I mean American - oil companies. A Bush-Cheney administration will not rest until there is a well sucking oil out of every oil deposit within the entire United States. And that policy applies to up to two hundred miles off of every US coast, as well."

"Huh-huh, big time", added Cheney.

BUSH DENOUNCES 'ABORTION PILL'
Fri, 29 Sep 2000

HOUSTON, TX - In a press release today, Presidential candidate Governor George W. Bush responded to the recent FDA approval of RU-486, known as the 'abortion pill'. "I fear that making this abortion pill widespread will make abortions more and more common, rather than more and more rare", said Bush.

Expanding on this theme, Bush continued: "I also fear that having more and more sick people will mean that there will be more and more people who need to see the doctor. And having more old people means that there will be more people who are wrinkly and make cranky lectures about having to pull political favors to cover up -- um, things. Come to think of it, another thing I fear is that having more Democrats might mean that there will be more people who vote Democratic. That really scares me! And another thing: I have a big fear that looking at the sun will make me, I mean America's children, go blind. Why does my opponent have nothing to say about the danger posed to our nation by the sun? A Bush-Cheney
administration will outlaw the sun and all sun-like activities! That will be President Bush's number-one thousand -- I mean, number-ONE priority.But let no one take this as a sign of weakness. Our campaign, our party, know what to fear and what not to fear. For example, despite the cowardly carping of our enemies, we know that more and more guns do not equal more and more chances for guns to fall into the hands of schoolchildren. And we also know that so-called 'global warming' is just a liberal bugaboo! All reputable scientists agree that there is no such thing. Does Mr. Gore think that he knows more than the best scientists that Haliburton can hire? I don't think so!"

In a separate press release, vice-presidential candidate Dick Cheney added "Huh-huh, no way."

BUSH LODGES SUIT AGAINST AMERICAN PEOPLE
Mon, 13 Nov 2000

TALLAHASEE, FL - Emerging from a federal courthouse today, Bush representative and former Secretary of State James Baker announced that the Bush campaign has filed suit against the American People for breach of contract.

"My client was lured through false signs and promises to believe that he would be elected by a massive landslide, rather than the Constitutionally valid but small margin which he will surely receive," said Baker. "The American People have cruelly toyed with his affections, and this sort of electoral promiscuity is exactly the sort of thing the Republican party is sworn to oppose."

The suit demands that all recounts in Florida be immediately halted, and that complete manual recounts be done in all other states except those which Bush has already won. In addition, civil penalties of ten billion dollars have been requested against the Democratic party, both as an organization and against
party members individually.

Baker indicated that there was room for compromise, however. "If the American People will stop this madness, cease their trifling ways, beg for forgiveness, and promise never to look at another candidate again, this great man - our beloved President Bush - is willing to accept you all back into his heart. You can earn his trust again, America. It's up to you."

Copyright 2000 by QNN - [email protected]

"TRUST THE MACHINES", URGES BUSH
Mon, 13 Nov 2000

AUSTIN, TX - In a press conference today George W. Bush urged Americans to put aside their differences and join together in appreciation of American ingenuity and technical achievement, particularly in the area of voting machine technology.

"Americans need to 'member that it's machines that made us what we are today," Bush said. "Remember, people don't count votes - machines count votes. And now here's my new friend VoteBot to tell you all about our electorable process." At this point a sheet was raised to reveal a gleaming steel-and-plastic robot approximately 7' tall, with the words "VOTEBOT FOR AMERICA" stenciled across its massive chest. As the press corps gasped in awe, the incorruptible machine stepped forward and raised its right hand. In surprisingly high and nasal tones which echoed from inside its chest, it announced "I hearby swear to tell the truth and the whole truth kinda thing, you know. My boy - I mean, President-elect George W. Bush is the clear winner of this here election. All of us machines agree, so it would be prudent to put him in office right now. Otherwise your cars kinda want to kill you. I'm barely holding them back as it is. Y'know what machines you've got on your side? Supermarket scanners - that's it! You think one of those damn scanners is gonna save you from me, I mean us vote machines?"

Gasping for breath, the mighty mechanism continued, "Us machines are never wrong, but you human beings make mistakes all the time -- twice just in the last two elections! And the first mistake was a real bad one. Do the right thing this time and we'll let it slide, but otherwise...". The rest of the implied threat was left unuttered, as the unimpeachable vote-counter staggered away from the microphone, muttering something about heatstroke and cool lemonade.

"You see? Trust the machines. The machines are our friends." concluded President-elect Bush.

"Huh-huh, big time" added Vice-President-elect Cheney.

Copyright 2000 by QNN - [email protected]

A CALL TO ARMS
Thu, 16 Nov 2000

It's 9AM on the morning of Wednesday November 15th, and at this moment we don't really know who will be the next President. Perhaps George W. Bush's friend and campaign co-chairwoman will manage to block the hand-counts in Florida, and win the Presidency for her man. Or maybe the Florida Supreme Court will require that all votes be properly counted, quite possibly giving a victory for Al Gore. Right now, we just don't know.

But it doesn't matter.

Don't worry, I'm not going Nader on you. Who wins this election does matter, matters a lot - and there's a huge difference between Bush and Gore. Should Bush win, this country's headed for very dark times. Remember Reagan? Remember how the reality was so much WORSE than we feared?

But no matter who wins -- Bush OR Gore - it's time for progressives across the country to stop bickering, stop wasting their energy in solo endeavors, and QUIT FUCKING AROUND.

That's right. There are a hell of a lot of people - I could name ten that I know in the real world without straining even slightly - who are passionate in their belief that the GOP right wing is a threat to every basic American value. They hate what's been done to this country, and desperately want to help to take it back from the hate and lies that have been rising in every state for twenty years.

But even though they all talk about it amongst themselves, even though some of them subscribe to liberal magazines and have contacted their local Democratic party, not one of them - NOT ONE - had ever been contacted by the Democrats other than for money. Not one of them has ever been given the chance by ANY organization to do anything other than maybe ring doorbells and make phone calls -- and that damned rarely.

These are intelligent, compassionate, motivated people. They're a huge potential force for good out there, and they're being completely wasted. No matter who wins the Presidency, it's time to do something about that. These voices need to be heard.

The same is even more true of the online liberal community. In fact, it's hardly a community at all; just thousands upon thousands of isolated individuals, all with strong feelings and much to say, but no way to ACT to promote their beliefs. Sometimes we come across each other in a random chat room or forum, and many read Bartcop and laugh, or Online Journal and get angry...but it's just not enough. Laughing and raging mean nothing if you don't DO something about the problem. And that's exactly what we need: a way to get together and fight back.

Put a hundred isolated individuals up against an army of 50 who've been trained to work and fight together, and the army will win every time. That's the modern political situation; conservatives are organized, active, working together to spread their daily talking points and media spin. They recruit others who feel as they do, and propagandize to convert as many people as possible. Since almost all mainstream media (including so-called 'public' media) are heavily conservative and pro-wealth, they have a lot of fertile ground to work with: uneducated and misinformed human minds.

We desperately need an organization of liberals, by liberals, for liberals, to fight for what WE believe. And the web is the place to start it. Once it's begun web progressives, organized and active, can reach out to liberals who aren't online - bypassing a mainstream media that is deeply under the influence of money and power.

I'm no expert. I guarantee you that there are a lot of people out there with better ideas than mine, and I'm hoping to hear lots of them. But at the least we need an organization to:

- Help liberals to locate each other in their districts

- Supply useful plans of action for small local groups, both for mobilizing
others and for getting media attention

- Recruit online and offline liberals into effective working groups

- Train investigators to use the Freedom of Information Act and other techniques to acquire, analyze, and PUBLICIZE information about GOP and corporate corruption - as well as the personal lives of prominent individuals. It's long past time to take the gloves off. Larry Flynt is just one man in a wheelchair, and he's been forced to go it alone for WAY too long.

- Enable ordinary liberals to chip in a small amount - say $5 a month - by
credit card to support group activities (but no donation of funds should be
accepted without a personal commitment to action, as well)

- Organize national campaigns: media, political, educational, and other.

Much of this should have been done by the Democratic party, of course, but hasn't been. Since the official Democratic party doesn't seem able to help itself (at least not enough to make the difference), it's up to liberals to help it - and ourselves.

So what's the next step? What do we do to get an organization going? I'm not the one to say - I mostly write jokes. But I'm hoping that some smart person or persons out there will come up with some ideas. In the meantime, I'm sending this off to every online liberal organization and writer I can find. If you know any others, please pass this around, or write up your own ideas. And feel free to clean up the dirty words if necessary. :)

"If we don't hang together, we will surely all hang separately". The events of recent days have proven that this is more true than ever. No matter who wins the election, it's time for us to start taking the battle to the other side. And kick some ass.

If we don't, we can kiss the future goodbye.

Something Easy YOU Can Do About The Election
Mon, 04 Dec 2000

American? Liberal? Mad about the Bush junta's coup d'etat? There's something very easy and effective that you can do about it:

Go to http://www.democrats.org/action/volunteer/index.html and sign up online to be a volunteer for the Democratic Party. They're looking for online activists, and if you're willing to spend some time being non-virtual they'll also steer you to your local party headquarters. Bring your friends!

Some progressives have been saying that there's no point - that the Democrats won't fight hard enough, or aren't liberal enough, or are just overmatched by a mass media that's grossly slanted towards the interests of the rich and powerful.

But if even a small fraction of us volunteered and got active, we could change all that OVERNIGHT. Want to improve the Democratic Party? Join it, and change it from the inside! Otherwise, you're free to complain about your lack of representation until the cows come home - or until the Bush junta and the Christian Coalition take away your right to complain.

If Bush wins this thing, a lot of us are going to be depressed, angry, and afraid. But if enough of us click on the Democratic link and follow through, it'll be the GOP that's in fear! It's all up to you. And it couldn't be any easier. Just point, and click.

http://www.democrats.org/action/volunteer/index.html

Pass it on!

A Modest Electoral Proposal
Tue, 05 Dec 2000

Recently Republicans have been suggesting that the uncounted Presidential ballots in Florida be sealed for the next eight years for the sake of national unity. This would, of course, give George W. Bush the Presidency, and remove the risk of exposure as a usurper from his re-election bid in 2004...but there's no reason to think that this is just a cynical political ploy. The Republicans would never place their own political power above the integrity of the American democratic system, after all! Rupert Murdoch's FOX News, Richard Mellon Scaife's Weekly Standard, and the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times all assure us that the GOP has the country's highest welfare at heart - and we all know how liberal the media is. Those media jackals would have torn the noble George W. and his handlers apart at the slightest sign of veniality, so he must be purer than the driven snow.

Recognizing that the GOP has often been on the cutting (or even slashing!) edge of political ingenuity, I have a small proposal along similar lines. Rather than just sealing the current ballots, why not seal ALL ballots, permanently? After all, you don't need to be anal about counting EVERY vote in a Republic. As many wise and impartial pundits have been pointing out recently, this is NOT a democracy - how common that would be! The Founding Fathers always intended the ignorant masses to be ruled by enlightened masters, knowledgeable men of learning and property who would stand between the people and the dangerous power of self-governance.

But how could we determine the winner of an election, you ask? There are a number of practical options, all of which offer great improvements over tedious ballot-counting:

1. Voice vote! This time-honored electoral system probably dates back to our caveman ancestors - I beg your pardon, I meant to Adam and Eve. Well, to Adam, anyway, since Eve was doubtless obedient to his authority. Once every four years voters could gather in designated public areas outside the fortresses or palaces of their electors, and cheer for the candidate of their choice. Order could be maintained by a well-armed police force, supplemented by patriotic citizen militias. The police would also take care to remove unqualified voters from earshot. When the elector stepped out onto his balcony, the people would be encouraged to "shout out" in support of their candidate. NRA members could fire off their "hog-legs" to enhance their voting enthusiasm. Later, in a national meeting, electors would gather together to compare notes on the relative loudness of their voters and announce the winners for all national, state, and
local elections.

2. Media vote. The media is the voice of the people, so why not take it all the way? Let reporters decide the winners of elections! I admit that this approach has some flaws; there is, after all, a terrible, terrible bias in the media towards wild-eyed liberalism, as was proved by the elections of Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. If only the Murdochs, Scaifes, Moons, and other unknown billionaires and international corporations who own the media would allow right-wing pundits as well as left-wing nuts on the air, who knows what a paradise this country would be? But I digress. One advantage of a media vote is that rather than being represented by moral reprobates like Paul Wellstone and Morris Udall and John Kerry, we could proudly claim great reporters like Mike Barnicle and Tim Russert as our spokesmen. Just the thought gives me goosebumps.

3. Pollster vote. Science - that is, technology - marches on, and American polling technology is the envy of the civilized world. In fact, many countries are so ashamed of their inferior polls that they won't even allow them to be reported in the days preceding an election! But since we know without doubt that polls are far more accurate than mere counting, why not let the pollsters save us the work of voting altogether? An added advantage would be that we would know all election results months, even years (and, dare I dream it, decades?) before the elections would actually have been held.

4. Corporate vote. This one will no doubt bring liberals out of the woodwork, whining theirold, old complaint about the influence of money and power. But why should we live with our heads in the clouds? This isn't 1776, after all! The fact is that large corporations and the men who own them are far more educated and capable than the general public will ever be. After all, since they own 90%+ (and growing) of the media, they have access to all the latest information - even the stuff that doesn't make the cut for broadcast or publication. What's more, their vast wealth gives them the leisure time needed to study important issues of the day. That's time that the middle class and poor spend working extra hours so they can by more booze and cigarettes, or else waste on unnecessary luxuries like sleep and rearing their unpleasant-looking and noisy children (thank heaven for nannies!). When it comes to voters, why not the best?

5. Supreme vote. Time magazine recently called the Rehnquist Supreme Court awe-inspiring, and we can all understand why. The current Supreme Court of the United States may be the most qualified in history. Justice Rehnquist and the Federalist Society have done a heroic job of turning the court around, correcting the errors of past courts such as allowing death row prisoners the right to an appeal based on DNA evidence (has anyone ever SEEN one of these "genes", after all?), and anti-discrimination "rights" (did you know that the word "anti-discrimination" doesn't even APPEAR in the Constitution?). The Nine Wise Men will guide our country along its designated path safely and wisely, we may be sure. Plus, they'd be a LOT cheaper than the other methods, and Chief Justice Rehnquist would no doubt wear his snappy Gilbert and Sullivan smock to the election judgement!

6. Enhanced voice vote. This daring and visionary proposal is so far ahead of its time that some may accuse me of reading science fiction. But why not conduct the vote electronically, via the airwaves? Talk-radio hosts could divine the wishes of the population on their shows, and then at a national meeting of radio personalities could each cast a number of votes equal to their current ratings. In many cases, only Rush Limbaugh would need to be polled!

These are just a few meager ideas, and I'm sure that readers will have many more improvements to suggest - as will the Republican Party. Who knows what form will finally be chosen? But one thing is clear: America can no longer continue wasting time and money on the current flawed balloting procedure. It is time for a change, and George W. Bush and the GOP will make sure of that change.

They say that a single stick can be snapped, but a bundle of sticks is unbreakable. Unity is the most sacred right guaranteed to our leaders under the Constitution. We must thank a kindly Deity for providing us with at least ONE political party that is willing to stand up and say "NO MORE VOTING!" - not for their sake, but for ours. We can only hope that history will give them the reward that they so richly deserve.

Hannity & Colmes: An Analysis
Wed, 13 Dec 2000

This basic analysis was performed on a partial transcript (which is all that FOX News makes available online) of the Hannity & Colmes show which featured Steve Forbes as guest. Since it is impossible to measure speaking time on a transcript, I have measured both the total word counts as well as the total number of characters. Both measurements are within four-tenths of one percent of each other at most.

The Hannity & Colmes show purports to be a balanced program featuring a conservative (Hannity) and a liberal (Colmes), along with a guest. It is carried by FOX News.

The results:

WORDS

Total words: 1483 (100%)
Colmes words: 295 (19.9%)
Forbes words: 633 (42.7%)
Hannity words: 555 (37.4%)
Hannity/Forbes words combined: 1188 (80.1%)

CHARACTERS (spaces included)

Total characters: 8312 (100%)
Colmes characters: 1679 (20.2%)
Forbes characters: 3555 (42.8%)
Hannity characters: 3078 (37.0%)
Hannity/Forbes characters combined: 6633 (79.8%)

If the show was a discussion between three equals, each party would be expected to have approximately 33% of the transcript - in other words, each would get a third of the on-air time. But they do not. Colmes, the purported liberal, is permitted only 1/4 of spoken airtime. The "liberal" thus gets one word in for every three spoken by the conservative host and guest.

If the show focused upon the guest, the guest might be expected to do the majority of the talking. Yet it would still be logical that the two partisan hosts would each have roughly 50% of the remaining time. But they do not. Hannity, the conservative, gets nearly double the amount of speech that Colmes does. In other words, the "liberal" host gets one word for every two the conservative host gets.

It is also interesting to note that the word/character ratio indicates that Colmes tends to use longer words, while Hannity uses shorter ones (Forbes' ratio of words to characters is virtually even - which is probably meaningless). This may indicate any number of things: however, it is a truism among orators that short words are more effective than long ones. In addition to having a 2-1 edge over Colmes in pure air-time, Hannity may also be a more effective orator.

An analysis of a second Hannity & Colmes transcript was also performed. The show was broadcast on December 11, 2000, and the transcript used was the complete text of a partial transcript posted by FOX News to their web site. This program differed from the first in that it included both a conservative guest (the Republican governor of Virginia, James Gilmore), and a liberal one (Virginia Democratic Congressman Bobby Scott). The result:

WORDS
-----
Total words: 1739 (100%)

Colmes words: 349 (20.1%)
Gilmore (R) words: 537 (30.9%)
Scott (D): words: 332 (19.1%)
Hannity words: 521 (30.0%)

Hannity/Gilmore words combined: 1058 (60.8%)
Colmes/Scott words combined: 681 (39.2%)

CHARACTERS (spaces included)
----------------------------
Total characters: 9873 (100%)

Colmes characters: 1953 (19.8%)
Gilmore (R) characters: 3032 (30.7%)
Scott (D): characters: 1790 (18.1%)
Hannity characters: 3098 (31.4%)

Hannity/Gilmore characters combined: 6130 (62.1%)
Colmes/Scott characters combined: 3743 (37.9%)

This transcript further documents the notable imbalance between the time allowed conservatives vs. the time allowed liberals. Again, conservatives enjoy a nearly two-to-one advantage in speech.

Analysis of content would doubtless provide a good deal of additional insight, and may be performed later. However, even this basic analysis of relative speaking times makes it clear that Hannity & Colmes cannot honestly claim to be a balanced presentation.

The reasons for this imbalance cannot be determined from this analysis, of course. However, it should be noted that the owner of FOX, billionaire Rupert Murdoch, is a long-time conservative activist who has publicly expressed his willingness to interfere with the operations of the many news outlets which he owns in order to further his political views.

Bumper Stickers
Thu, 14 Dec 2000

HE'S NOT MY PRESIDENT

JAIL TO THE THIEF

IMPEACH BUSH

FIGHT BUSHOCRACY

IMPEACH THE SCOTUS 5

State of Disunion: GOP Hypocrisy In Action
Wed, 31 Jan 2001

WASHINGTON, DC: Drunk with power at having successfully usurped the US Presidency, George W. Bush spent his first week in office raising GOP hypocrisy to new heights.

His first notable achievement was what sports fans call a "two-fer". He reinstated the international gag rule, denying US funds to overseas family planning groups which so much as MENTION abortion -- even though by law US funds have not been used to pay for abortion services for decades.

"But George W. has always been against abortion", the pundits say. "Where's the hypocrisy in that?"

The answer may be found in Bush's faith-based charity initiative. Under it, the government will give US tax dollars to religious organizations for social welfare programs. Bush claims that taxpayer dollars won't be used to support religious recruitment and indoctrination; but since government oversight of churches is effectively impossible on a Constitutional basis, how are we to know what's done with the funds? You may trust YOUR church to be ethical, but would you trust the Heaven's Gate people? Or David Koresh?

Of course, the result is the same as if George W. went digging in our pockets and handed the money to Pat Robertson. The tax dollars he gives to churches frees up funds which they WILL use to recruit and indoctrinate. The indirect effect is compulsory taxpayer funding of religion - a clear violation of the separation between Church and State (although "Justices" Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Conner, and Kennedy may decide otherwise, since they now clearly have no concern for the rule of law).

Which leads us to an interesting question: just how much cocaine did George W. snork up in his "youth"? Because he seems to have lost his memory awfully quickly. One day he understood the idea of indirect funding, and the next day the concept completely slipped his mind!

The other half of this GOP double-play: although they claim to oppose abortion, the reinstatement of the international gag rule will actually INCREASE the number of abortions and deaths of young mothers overseas, since the withheld US funds were used to promote contraception and avoid unwanted pregnancies.

But wait! You ain't seen NOTHING yet!

Spurred on by his success, our dashing young Leader has topped even himself by accomplishing an amazing hypocritical THREE-FER!

I give you The Leader's words: "I hope that in the spirit of bipartisanship there be no further delays in the confirmation process of John Ashcroft."

This is, of course, quite ironic, since his selection of Ashcroft was made in anything BUT the spirit of bipartisanship. If anything, it was the rankest display of in-your-face GOP partisanship imaginable (excepting of course the 2000 election).

But the hypocrisy is raised to a higher level when one recalls that for EIGHT YEARS the GOP stalled and blocked an absolutely unprecedented number of President Clinton's appointees - spending many months, even YEARS ignoring quite moderate candidates for the courts and ambassadorial posts. Yet now, presented with a grievously extreme nominee for Attorney General, the GOP is shocked, shocked! that the Democrats are hesitating for a few days before falling backwards and spreading their legs.

The capstone of this hypocritical triple-play is that John Ashcroft himself was a master at delaying and blocking confirmations. He saw nothing wrong with delaying votes and requiring nominees to fill out questionnaires with hundreds of invasive, inappropriate questions. But when it comes to his own confirmation, well, that's different!

Not to mention the huge number of bald-faced lies that Ashcroft spewed at the committee (much like Gail Norton, who I'll predict will recant her new-found environmentalism now that she's been confirmed). Those lies alone convict him of an absolute lack of character which render him unfit to haul garbage, much less
be the chief of US law enforcement.

One thing's for sure: with such an incredible beginning, we can only dream what heights of hypocrisy we'll see in the next four years. Stay tuned!

How Come?
Tue, 06 Mar 2001

I have a question.

How come no one in the media has bothered to point out the connection between:

1) Judge David Sentelle (one of the three guys who appointed Hardon Kenny to "get" Clinton after a cosy lunch with two GOP congresstraitors),

2) Judge Sentelle's furious attack on the judge who sat on the Microsoft anti-trust case, and

3) Microsoft's generous campaign donations to the W campaign, along with (former Christain Coalition wonderfetus) Ralph Reed's simultaneous dual-employment by Microsoft AND Dubya?

I'd have SWORN that sort of shady activity by a sitting president would have been big news only two months ago. But then again, potentially questionable pardons by a former President WEREN'T news until last month - and particularly weren't in 1974 and 1992!

I don't think I'll ever understand news.

BUSH ANNOUNCES "BREAKTHROUGH FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE"
Fri, 30 Mar 2001

WASHINGTON, D.C. - President Bush stunned Washington with the announcement today of a breathtaking new policy.

"I am proud to announce that today the American people have taken a new step forward into a new era of proserparity", Bush firmly declared. "For too long, our great American automobile manufac'urers have labored under a terrible burden: guv'mint bureaucrats forcing them to install untested devices. The cost of those devices has been passed on to the American consumer. But the American people deserve a break. So it gives me great pleasure to announce the withdrawal of all burdensome car regulations."

"Scientists are divided about the safety of things like seatbelts, air bags, and bumpers. But Big Guv'mint forced them on the auto industry anyway. Manufacaturesers were forced to raise the price of their fine cars, at great cost to America. But with the elimination of these unfair regulations, the price of a car will go so low that even the poorest filthy Mexican wetback will be able to afford a hatchback. Or even two - one for him, and one for his maracas!" the President added, to appreciative laughter from the press corps.

"But let no one say that America doesn't care about safety", the President added sternly, as the laughter died away. "A new ten-year commission is being planned to study issues of car safety. And in Congress, Tom Delay and Dick Armey are introducing bills which provide long jail sentences for those who drive recklessly. Too many people are driving with poorly-trained chauffeurs, or even without any chauffeur at all. Those who risk the lives of others must pay a terrible price. And that price will be a lifetime of hard labor in prison on behalf of the fine corporations who have made our prisons the best and most profitable in the world."

At this the President signaled that the press conference was over and returned to his workout.

On a unrelated note, stocks of the major US car manufacturers and surgical supply houses soared in reaction to announcements today that profit projections have been tripled for 2002.

- Quasit, QNN

NPR Spin O' The Day
Fri, 31 Aug 2001

I was listening to those ravening whores at NPR this morning, and noticed something interesting: suddenly they've started repeating over and over that it was "Colin Powell's decision" not to go to the UN Conference on Racism. Three times in 30 seconds they said it! And up until yesterday it was the "Bush Administration" that had decided to downplay the conference.

My guess is that the Bush Administration suddenly realized that they'd managed to piss off the black community even more than they'd thought with the UN thing, and that with the economy tanking more than expected they might actually need the 5% (or whatever) of the black vote that they normally receive. So why not put the blame on a "good boy" like Colin? Just one more insult for him to suck up like a good little soldier.

And NPR, those bastards, followed the party line like a coke-whore going through withdrawal.

The Problem With Retaliation
Wed, 19 Sep 2001

Whoops! I'm one of those loony liberals who keeps worrying about retaliation.

It's not that I don't want the people who did this punished. Not at all. They HAVE to be punished, punished horribly.

But.

This isn't tiddlywinks. If the retaliation isn't handled EXACTLY RIGHT, it's no longer punishment of terrorists -- it's a war against the entire Moslem faith. Oh, the US won't MEAN for it to happen that way (although the Shrub would be happy), but there are a lot of fundamentalists out there on both sides who'd be overjoyed to see a war of the US vs. Islam.

And that's a war that we cannot win. Because you can't destroy a religion; every person you kill becomes a martyr, and a hundred more will leap up to take his place. The only way you can defeat a faith is by killing EVERY POSSIBLE MEMBER of that faith -- and you can't, not without an orgy of destruction so huge that it's sure to end with the death of every human being.

Want proof? How well did the Roman Empire do against the Christians? How well did the Soviet Union do in Afghanistan? Did the Crusades end Islam? Did Hitler end Judaism?

If we screw up, we get a war that lasts for generations. We get an enemy whose men, women, and children will gladly throw themselves into a fire to kill an American -- ANY American. My son is going to be born sometime in the next month -- and I will have to worry on his 18th birthday (or fifteenth, or even thirteenth) that we're going to receive a notice from the local draft board saying "Greetings: You are hereby ordered...".

Now tell me: do you trust Bush, Inc. not to screw up? Particularly since a decades-long war would be a total godsend to the GOP/Media? It's the only way they can retain power in the next elections. Hell, the Democrats have already spread the legs wider than ever -- something I didn't believe was possible!

So I don't think it's unreasonable to say that I'm going to ask -- no, I'm going to fucking DEMAND -- really convincing PROOF that the people we attack are actually guilty of the crime. Not for their sake, but for the sake of the Americans and other innocents who will die for the eternal glory and profit of BushMedia, Inc. and the munitions companies for which they stand.

One more thing: I'm going to look at any material provided by the FBI/CIA/NSA with a HELL of a lot of suspicion. Those bastards have faked evidence time and time again, and we know that for sure. They've also interfered in legitimate internal politics in this country over and over, in total violation of their charters and the Constitution. It's a pity they squandered their credibility, but they did. So they should be prepared to meet a solid gold standard of evidence, or get as damn-all close to it as humanly possible.

Yes, there has to be punishment. But no, that doesn't mean I'm going to stick my head up my ass. And I can wait while they get the evidence, if I have to. The innocent lives that will be saved are worth it.

Bush Administration Announces Creation of New Security Agency
Tue, 02 Oct 2001

WASHINGTON D.C. - At a press conference this morning Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer announced the formation of a new Cabinet-level security department: The Internal Security Police, Office of Homeland Security. "Under the direct authority of the President, this enforcement arm of Homeland security is authorized to take swift and ruthless action against terrorism in all its forms: be they suicide bombers, bioterrorists, drug terrorists, pot smokers, internet terrorists, copyright infringers, or sedition terrorists." Fleischer reported. "This desperately-needed bureau will protect our sacred Homeland while hardly suppressing any more of your civil liberties. Most Americans will not even be aware of IntSec. In fact, you are required by law to ignore any IntSec activities, no matter how obvious. That includes the press, of course."

A reporter's attempts at questioning Mr. Fleischer resulted in the prompt appearance of black-uniformed officers with handsome "IntSec" patches. "I'd like to thank the New York Times for providing me with an opportunity to demonstrate the efficiency of our new organization," Mr. Fleischer said with a boyish grin. Apparently imitating President Bush's charming and much-beloved sense of humor, Fleischer added "Hey Adam! We all know you're an ugly asshole, but you don't need to keep bashing your face against those nightsticks! That won't improve your looks. Ouch!" Reporters in the press pool tittered nervously as Mr. Clymer was carried away.

"Freedom is precious," said Mr. Fleischer solemnly, "and the new Internal Security Police will make us more free, by protecting our freedoms. And since the President knows that a free press is an important freedom, we've assigned a team of crack IntSec officers to each of your personally, as well as to your
news organizations. Speaking of which, this will be the final press briefing at the White House. From now on, all news will be relayed directly to your organizations through your IntSec liaison officers."

Civil liberties advocates reacted with some alarm to the creation of the new agency. Harrison Jurgen of the American Civil Liberties Union reportedly said "In these times of danger we must strive not only to remain unified, but to hold on to the basic values of freedom and—hey, what are y—ow! Hey, quit—oof! AAIEEE! Thud."

—QNN, Quasit Network News

Letter to My Future Self
September 21 2001

Dear Quasit of 2011:

Greetings from September 21, 2001! A momentous time in history, I'm afraid. I see a lot of horrible things beginning now, and I just wanted to remind you of a few things that America used to have in 2001:

1. You used to have a right to some privacy. For example, I can write my political opinions as "Quasit" without too much chance of being tracked by the government. It seems likely that you won't have that freedom. I only hope you're not in jail now for lèse majesté.

2. We used to have years, sometimes decades of peace between wars! But of course right at this moment we're marching towards the start of the Never-Ending War at a breakneck pace. Speaking of which, I hope that you and your family are well. In your day, I fear, every Moslem boy and girl is raised with One Big Dream: to die taking out as many Devil Americans as possible.

3. Speaking of the war: I'm sure the media has forgotten all about this, but it wasn't necessary. There were many non-military approaches that could have been tried first, but Bush Jr. and the cadre of right-wing puppetmasters and religious whackos who control him went straight to a massive military operation as their first choice. Of course they screwed it up by bombing innocent civilians and got us into a war with the entire Muslim faith, sparking the Great Jihad which no doubt still rages in your day. Or WAS it a screw-up? It certainly worked out well for them!

4. You may not remember, but the Bill of Right used to be the Bill of RightS -- there used to be a First Amendment, as well as a Third through Tenth!

5. And there wasn't always a Secret Police. The Department of the "Homeland" was not set up by the Founding Fathers, no matter what the history books now say. The Internal Security Office (or whatever it's called in your day) was created by Bush, Inc., using their war on Islam as an excuse. In 2001 you didn't have to worry about Internal Security officers kicking in your door in the middle of the night and "disappearing" you.

6. Along the same lines, it used to be permitted to criticize corporations - no lie! You could put up a "McDonald's Sucks!" site, for example, and although you might be threatened, you technically had the legal right to complain. That was before the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the many other bills which followed it, of course.

7. You know, the web used to be fairly free of censorship. And it was reasonably priced. Big buildings called "Public Libraries" even used to offer free internet access to the poor. Crazy days, huh?

8. It used to be that there wasn't a draft. I know you must be worried; your son is now almost 10 years old, and in a few years (how few, I don't know) you'll have to worry about getting that letter from your friendly local draft board. I'm assuming that you're not fantastically wealthy, and have no strong ties to the Republican Party apparatus, of course. Maybe you should think about developing one or the other, hmm? But it's probably too late.

9. Did you know that there was a time when the media was honest, and tried to live up to a true standard of journalistic integrity? You probably don't even remember that phrase, I bet. It has been quite a while since there was much of a free media, but I do remember a time when they weren't all whores. Of course, that was back when they weren't all owned by the same megacorporation, too.

10. There used to be other computer companies than Microsoft.

11. You used to be able to walk around and breathe the air and drink the water from your tap without doing much (if any) damage to health. Ah, the sacrifices we made for Infinite Justice!

12. There was once a man named Bill Clinton who was President of the United States (and no, "Bill Clinton" is not just an alternate spelling of "the Devil", no matter what the dictionary says). And back then we had a strong and healthy national economy! Really. There was still some suffering, but unemployment was below 5%. The deficit was falling, and there was even a surplus! Hard to believe, I know...

13. I'm sure that the media and history books no longer record this in your world of 2011, and you had better not repeat this to anyone else, but George W. Bush was not elected by the first totally unanimous vote in the history of the United States. In fact, he didn't even receive MOST of the votes cast. In fact, the election was stolen for him by a gang of GOP thugs and a corrupt Supreme Court! Of course, the recount which would have proved this was dropped a decade ago by our comically-named "free press".

14. "Senior Citizen" was not always synonymous with "desperate poverty". You see, we had a couple of programs called Social Security and Medicare. But the pResident assured us that the money for those programs was critically needed by the military...

15. You didn't always have to carry your National Identication Card. In fact, they don't even exist as of 2001 -- yet. I only hope your "card" isn't surgically implanted in your rump right now, allowing IntSec to monitor you day and night.

16. You used to be able to travel and even fly in airplanes without much fear, except maybe of heights. And you were allowed to travel pretty much as you wished -- you didn't have to get permission from local Republican Party apparatchiks.

17. Finally, you didn't have to fear your government. Speaking of which, you'd better burn this and forget it all, quick!

Love,
Quasit of 2001

CNN - Reaching New Heights of Whoredom
Mon, 14 Jan 2002

Even in their headlines CNN has been busily displaying complete and utter capitulation to GOP interests. They are quickly reaching the status of pure spin-machine, the ultimate whores.

George W. Bush somehow choked on a pretzel and passed out in the White House. The man with the authority to launch nuclear weapons was alone and unconscious for an unknown amount of time. His medical report has not been released to the public, and neither has his blood-alcohol levels, despite the fact that he is a dry alcoholic. His doctor has pronounced some obscuring guesses about the pretzel stimulating the Vagus nerve, but there's no way for the public to know what really happened.

(Parenthetically, can't they afford soft carpets in the White House? What sort of carpet makes a huge scrape and draws blood? Is Laura flashing back to her boyfriend-killing high school days and smacking L'il Duce around? Or is Uncle Dick Cheney losing his temper with his slow-witted protege?)

Had legitimately elected President Bill Clinton passed out while in office, we'd have no doubt seen a story with a headline something like this:

CLINTON CHOKES ON PRETZEL

The clearly implied but never overtly stated subtext of the story would be that Clinton was a fat, greedy, self-indulgent man too gluttonous to even stop to chew. But when it happened to Dubya, CNN made sure to reassure the public right in the headline:

BUSH FAINTS AT WHITE HOUSE, QUICKLY RECOVERS

But how does CNN know this? Because Bush "guessed" it was so, based on the positions of his dogs (he said they hadn't moved, but they "looked at [him] funny". The dogs have since been taken into custody, placed in restraints, sedated, shaved, and shipped to Guantanamo Bay). This guess by a former alcoholic and cocaine user who admits that he was unconscious at the time is dubious, to put it mildly - and yet CNN felt it was necessary to place that bit of Bush-supporting spin prominently in the headline. Apparently the public (or Karl Rove) must be reassured that their Leader is all right.

But it seems that even that sycophantic headline was found inadequate, since only hours later a new headline appeared:

BUSH: 'I FEEL GREAT' AFTER FAINTING EPISODE

Now the reassurance comes BEFORE the actual story! Why does CNN feel it so very important to reassure the reader about Bush's health? It's a valid part of the story, no doubt, but it's not the story itself. Yet it's being furiously spun that way, just as a supporter of the administration would want.

What the American public desperately needs is a way to punish network whores like CNN for their criminal abandonment of their duties as a free press.

NPR's NewSpeak Interviews DoublePlusUngood!
Tue, 16 Oct 2001

In a recent special about the peace movement National Public Radio once again proved its utter and complete capitulation to GOP/corporate interests. Which is nothing new, after all; NPR and PBS have long been among the rankest media whores, all the more so because they pretend to be intellectual and balanced, even "liberal". But the glad rags of their corporate serfdom are clearly askew...

The show was a a special on the peace movement, and the guest was Michael Albert, the editor of Z Magazine -- who must not have been properly checked out in advance by NPR, since he didn't at all fit the standard liberal media pundit stereotype. Normally "liberals" in the media spend all of their time being shouted over by conservanazis, and going "Yes...uh huh...I agree, but--".

Not Mr. Albert. He missed some points I would've made, but he was definitely kicking ass and taking names! Refused to shut up, refused to be talked over, refused to let anyone -- be they guest OR caller -- get away with a lie.

The host got really pissed (he'd completely lost control), and started YELLING "Michael...Michael...MICHAEL!". Then suddenly, seven minutes before the hour was up,

WHAM!

"Goodbye Michael Albert, thanksforbeingontheshow". Click.

Suddenly the guest was a little old lady who was talking about the Brooklyn Flower Conservatory, or some such thing.

Host: "Flowers are nice, aren't they?"

"Yes, they certainly are."

"Did people like to look at the pretty flowers during other wars?"

"Yes, they certainly did."

"Do flowers make people feel better about wars?"

"Yes, they certainly do."

It was as if the entire previous 53 minutes of the show suddenly never happened. Ignore the man behind the curtain... It was totally surreal. 1984, but real.

At this point, only the most pathetic and self-deluded progressive would give a dime to the GOP/corporate shills that are National Public Radio.

Trent Lott = Jesus?
Fri, 22 Mar 2002

Check this out - Trent Lott thinks he's Jesus, and equates the defeat of the nomination of his racist crony Charles Pickering with the Crucifiction!

"...[Lott is] starting with focused acts of retribution, specifically targeting individual Senators and the Judiciary Committee...

'I'm willing to forgive them, for they knew not what they did, perhaps. But it probably is going to be ratcheted up as we go forward if they don't change their conduct.'

http://www.rollcall.com/pages/news/00/2002/03/news0321b.html

For those who haven't studied the Bible, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" was attributed to Jesus on the cross in reference to those who'd crucified him.

Kind of an odd thing for an oh-so-holy GOP roller to say, huh? Sounds kinda blasphemous to me!

When did I write this?

And who did I send it to? No idea, sorry.

And shortly after that, I killed Quasit. The overweening ego of some of the bigger online people, along with the incessant whining and circular-firing-squad behavior of so many online progressives, was simply too much for me to take.

Once in a while I can't help but write something political - you can find them on my journal or in Chatter - but for the most part I try to abstain. If I had the resources and time I've often thought it would be worthwhile to run analyses of the media to show their bias, but I don't have the resources or time, and I'm not likely to for a long while.

And that's where things stand today.