Viva la Revolution!! The Iranian People Show How to Stand Against Tyranny!

There's something thrilling going on in Iran.

You wouldn't know it from the coverage on many mainstream media news outlets this weekend (Fox, CNN and ABC, I'm looking in your direction), but there's a revolution going on in Iran!

It's a good kind of revolution; pro-freedom, pro-democracy and mostly peaceful (though many protestors are being beaten by police and Hezbollah thugs). The people of Iran are standing up for truth and justice and they are not being intimidated by theocratic thugs and government lies.

It makes me wonder why our U.S. media isn't really standing with the people of Iran. Maybe it's because I'm getting cynical in my (heh) old age, but I think it has something to do with the loss of their favorite boogey-man. It's getting harder and harder to portray Iranians as fanatical terrorists bent on the destruction of the West:

Perhaps the most moving scene involved a group of young demonstrators, displaying the green colours of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the defeated challenger, breaking into English and chanting: "We want freedom."

In an instant, these television pictures from Tehran delivered a stark reminder that Iran is not a backward country of medieval fanatics, but a modern nation with 70 million people, two thirds of whom are under 30 and have the same interests and aspirations as their Western counterparts.

These are my peers. My fellow-Twitterers. My friends. My brothers and sisters.

This is the real Iran:

No more distortions. No more hate. No more fear-mongering, Fox News! No more! We are the same, the Iranian People and those of us in the United States who still value and cherish freedom.

There is no difference between us beyond geography. Many of the Iranians even speak English and they are young and internet-savvy: they have been using Twitter to organize on the fly and there was a collective moan when Facebook was blocked. This is a youth movement that is cracking the edifice of lies that have served the hardliners on both sides for far too long.

Just don't watch television if you want the real scoop:

Today, as global geopolitics is shaken to its core by events in Iran, I turned on cable news this morning, and saw endless ads for a Larry King Jonas Brothers “interview”, Morning Joe yukking it up discussing Kuwaiti massage therapists, a video of a tomato throwing contest on CNN, talk radio blowhard Bill Bennett…and occasionally a phone call from Christiane Amanpour in Tehran. I can’t even bring myself to turn on the network morning programs, I might vomit.

The mainstream media is rapidly smothering itself into a coma of irrelevance. Do they think we're too stupid to get the news from somewhere else? Heck, I don't even need the media at this point; I can get info directly from the participants in the struggle via Twitter.

Bloggers like Andrew Sullivan are covering the protests virtually nonstop. With the Huffington Post on the case, who needs the MSM?

At this point, Big Media is just playing catch-up. They were asleep at the switch for several days, but now seem to be paying attention again... but they are definitely not leading; they are following.

I should note that I'm taking it for granted that the election was stolen. They apparently did not even do a good job of it. From the numbers I've seen, Ahmadinejad didn't even finish second! He finished 3rd, behind another reform candidate! Mousavi, the challenger and probable winner, was actually told by the Interior Ministry that he had won and to prepare his victory speech (which they insisted must be gracious and not boastful) before turning around and declaring Ahmadinejad the winner by a landslide. The numbers belie this laughable claim. The official results have Mousavi losing his home turf (preposterous) and big urban areas where he has polled higher than Ahmadinejad.

Let's face it: This election was straight-up rigged. The Iranians know it and they're not standing for it, which is more than I can say for Americans (*cough-2000-cough*). Now is our chance to repent for our laziness and apathy and support the democracy-loving Iranians with all our hearts!

I stand with the Iranian People in solidarity. We stand for Democracy, Freedom and Justice! May the winds of change bring peace and prosperity to Iran. Peace be upon you!

A new era? Meet the new boss...

So Obama's president-elect. Whoopee.

A lot of people are saying that either Obama will be way, way better than Bush or that Obama will be significantly worse.

I think it will be neither.

I simply can't imagine anybody being worse than Bush II. I mean, the guy didn't do a single thing in 8 years that I 100% agreed with. And committing treason, launching an illegal war on false premises and doing everything he could to destroy the environment and the middle class will be tough to top.

On the other hand, will Obama be that much better? Well, he will be hard-pressed to even get us back to where we were in 2000, before W took over. Simply put: there is no way Obama will be as good as we hope. For one, he's a moderate when we are in need of a radical. He's good at compromise and bringing people together, but I don't want to be brought together with the neocons who destroyed our country; I want to see them rot in jail for their crimes.

Secondly, he's surrounded by advisors and colleagues who got us into this trouble in the first place. There were economic advisors on both sides of the election (Phil Gramm for McCain and Robert Rubin for Obama) who helped create the current crisis and who continually denied that there even was a crisis. This is extremely bad news for those of us hoping for a quick turnaround (and for "change" in general) and it puts Obama's judgment and independence into question.

Let's say, as a wonderful thought experiment, that Obama does intend to bring big change to Washington, and is largely successful based on his penchant for bipartisanship and his crew of old-hands who know how the game works. Then what? Then he gets shot! Simple as that; the system will not allow massive, systemic change without a fight.

For instance, the only way to solve the current financial crisis is to rid ourselves of the pestilence known as the Federal Reserve. This private bank has impoverished America and robbed her of her economic liberty. But the last president who attempted to get rid of it was shot in broad daylight in Dallas by multiple gunmen and there was never so much as a trial.

Until we get back on the gold standard our economic problems will persist. If you have the time, watch a movie called Zeitgeist: Addendum, which lays out all the problems with our current (fiat and fractional reserve) monetary system in great detail, and how it's basically a pyramid-scheme and a scam to enslave us via money.

Will Obama make the painful changes necessary to rescue our nation from the inhuman greed of the international bankers and their cabal of cronies? Only time will tell, but it certainly doesn't look good. Add to this the fact that he's reinforcing Bush's laughable al-Qaeda myth and encouraging attacks on both Afghanistan and Pakistan and you've got a continuance of the U.S.'s crypto-imperialist policies and the War on Terror scam, which is actually a war on civil liberties. These are the tools the Bush admin used to manipulate people, spread fear and crush dissent. If Obama uses them as the neocons did, we will know that he is a threat to liberty too.

I'm willing to give him some time and a short honeymoon, but we must continue to be critical and relentless in our pursuit of justice, liberty and freedom. I don't care which party he's in, what he professes to believe, what color his skin is, or what he says he's going to do -- it's what he actually does that counts. And that's what I will judge him by.

Look out for falling banks

Holy cow -- lookout! There's banks falling like boulders all around us!

Luckily for them, when big, important institutions such as investment banks fail, they fall right into the loving arms of the Bush administration.

AIG, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch this week alone. Am I forgetting one? Probably. Now regulators are calling other banks looking for buyers in case Washington Mutual fails too.

Wall Street couldn't be in worse shape if it was literally on fire.

But, the GOP is there to bail these irresponsible banks out of trouble with -- you guessed it -- taxpayer money.

That's what the Establishment truly believes in: Socializing losses and privatizing profits.

God bless America, Comrade.

Diebold: Our vote tabulation software doesn't work!

Diebold to America: "Hey, thanks for all the tax dollars. Our vote counting software doesn't work. Have a nice election!"

Bradblog is doing an excellent job, as usual, of covering the insanity that is our election system, especially when it comes to black box electronic voting.

Diebold has admitted that their tabulator software, known as GEMS, and used all across the country, in at least 34 states, does not count votes correctly.

In fact, it actually loses votes, by not counting them at all, yet gives the system administrator no indication that the votes were not counted. Instead, it tells them that all votes have been counted correctly. This bug has been in Diebold's software --- where it remains to this day-- for years. Diebold has only admitted it now that it's been found by someone else (a number of counties in Ohio, of all places) and with the 2008 Presidential election less than 80 days away.

On that note, have a great election, America!

I'll be packing for someplace with a functioning democracy... like Pakistan!!

My open letter to ABC News: Dear treasonous media jackals...

I didn't even watch the damn debate and I could still smell its rancid stink by checking the livebloggers. God, what a wretched display of divisive, gotcha politics.

Here's my open letter to ABC News and the neocon whores who run it:

Dear treasonous media jackals:

ABC News' "debate" was a travesty and embarrassment to decent journalists everywhere. The gotcha debate style is more suitable to a professional wrestling match than an interview for the most important job in the world. Clearly, ABC News wants voters to be angry, uninformed and divided. YOU hate America, not people who don't wear flag pins. Burn in hell, you traitorous corporate whores.

A hint for next time: If you don't want to talk about important issues, don't hold a debate. If you want to ask about stupid, pointless shit, why not get Jerry Springer to hold the debate? I'm sure he'd do a better job than the two ass-clowns you had run it.

.... You may think I'm being impolite. Wrong. You should've seen what I wanted to write.

Sincerely,
an American voter

Click here for a more reasoned and restrained open letter (not that you deserve it, ABC).

The Corporate Plutocracy Speaks!

Well, they finally decided to pipe up, and it was on this dude's TV set during American Idol (go figure).

But before I could turn off the sound, the ad was interrupted by the image of a sixty-something businessmen sitting behind a giant desk in a plush corporate office.

A message ran across the bottom of the screen. It said: "A Message from the American Corporate Plutocracy."

Go read the whole thing.

Super Tuesday in Minnesota

Today's the day, Minnesota.

The Freedom-Train is leaving the station. Hop on board before it's too late.

Go out and vote!!

The media finally covers Ron Paul

Oh wait, it's a total hatchet job:

Paul keeps white supremacist donation

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.

Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."

The mainstream media (MSM) has no intention of covering the presidential race fairly. They plan to turn it into a horserace and throw the issues out the window.

I've written extensively about this before. From their incredible (and intentional) stupidity to their orthodox adherence to inanity the mainstream press apparatus is nothing more than a treasonous corporate whore. Glenn Greenwald has been covering this issue superbly as well.

It's been fascinating to watch the media blackout on Ron Paul. I mean, Pravda couldn't have done a better job at squashing stories about him, but the internet has provided Paul supporters a platform to spread the word. It's interesting to watch the media desperately try to keep a lid on his campaign even while he's breaking fundraising records.

The media still has to cover him, of course. A total blackout would be rather bizarre and would draw more attention than it would divert. However, the "subtle" blackout we've been subject to is obvious and suspicious nonetheless.

I should point out that I'm not a fervent Paulite. I don't like a lot of his conservative positions, but his opposition to the Federal Reserve certainly caught my attention. Apparently it caught the Oligarchy's attention too, which is why Dr. Paul is not getting any mainstream play.

You'll notice that even the mainstream outfits that do cover Paul tend to do it in their "blog section", which is exactly where I found the link above. That same blog post displays the most common way reporters deal with Paul; draw attention to his supporters and make them seem a little unhinged:

His legions of alert supporters scour the Internet for slights to right, frequently crudely, and any opportunities to promote their strict constructionist candidate. They dismiss the polls as slanted and the money-raising as the real indicator of the 72-year-old ob-gyn's growing national support among disaffected Republicans, Democrats and previous non-voters. The Times' James Rainey examined one Southern California meet-up group for Paul here.

We've written about these supporters here and examined hundreds of their comments here. No doubt there'll be some more to read down below here shortly.

Nice of them to examine the man's supports and their internet activities, but (and maybe I'm old fashioned here) what about his position on the issues?

Oh silly me. I forgot the Media has already decided that we'll be choosing between Hillary and Ghouliani.

But what if I want to live in a democracy?

Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law

A shocking KSLA news report has confirmed the story we first broke last year, that Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government to "quell dissent" and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law. Economic Collapse? Another mass-casualty, false-flag attack? [/digg]

This is incredibly disturbing. Here's the news clip for those who doubt:




Am I cynical to believe that something terrible will happen either right before or right after the elections (before inauguration)?

If it does, we've gotta stick together, organize and resist. This can't happen to America. It's like a nightmare you can't wake up from.

Atheism as a religion: A discussion and analysis

Wow, okay, my last post went over like a lead balloon on Reddit. I thought it was fair and coherent, but apparently people disagreed with my conclusions and downmodded it as a result.

However, one guy (it could be a girl. Perhaps I assume too much) was rational, calm and intelligent enough to discuss it with me without a flamewar erupting. He's known as Strontium90 in the comments of that last post. He continued the discussion over on reddit but I want to make sure y'all read this because I think his points are good, even though I've refuted most of them. Here's what he had to say:

I commented on your blog as Strontium90. Unfortunately, you seem to be confused about what a null hypothesis is, the concept of the burden of proof, and the nature of positive/negative claims. You also dismiss the subtle differences between agnosticism and atheism as mere semantics, while insisting that something as innocuous as a water-like substance could be discovered, which we would call god. This is a double standard.

You also seem to be under the impression that atheists do not believe in gods because they do not like them, which is why you brought up several examples of gods that atheists would likely find favorable (such as the love-goddess) as a counter-example. Unfortunately, the repulsiveness of deities is not what causes atheism; their implausibility does.

You also seem to be unable to grasp bobbincygna's analogy. I will attempt to elucidate.

[[[For readers: When I implied atheism is a religion someone responded: "If Atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby." And then bobbincygna attempted to defend the analogy. -Vemrion]]]

On bobbincygna's analogy:

Take the set of all hobbies out there. H = [hobbies]. This includes everything you would call a hobby, from collecting stamps to messing with telemarketers. Now, let us suppose that we take the (rather passive) activity of not collecting stamps. Is it reasonable to place it in that set? No, of course not. Someone who has no hobbies can call called an a [without] hobbyist [person who has a hobby or hobbies].

Now, take the set of all religions, from Buddhism to Scientology, call it R. All items in set R are characterized by various elements: the lionization of faith, the existence of holy books or scripture, the presence of some sort of supernatural elements, etc. Does a belief which simply consists of "I do not believe in the supernatural, I do not believe that books are holy, and I do not take extraordinary claims on faith" belong there? I don't think so. It, like the lack of stamp collecting, is a lack of theistic belief. This is what atheism means - a [without] theism [belief in god].

Atheism, the most oft-displayed example of metaphysical naturalism, can be termed as a philosophy, or perhaps a meta-religious view (view about religion), but it certainly is not a religion. There are no holy texts, only books which effectively sum up the philosophical arguments against theism. There is no dogma among atheists, unless you count a lack of belief in gods. This does not really count though, because it is necessarily true that an atheist lacks belief in gods. And he certainly will not be excommunicated or disowned by his parents if he later professes theism. Faith is not celebrated, instead it is essentially abandoned in favor of reason. Leaders and followers do not exist: Richard Dawkins might be influencial, but I don't consider his words to be gospel, and neither do most atheists. They happen to share a lot of his beliefs, though. There is no formalized ritual such as prayer, sacrifice, etc, which is another thing that sets atheists apart from theists.

Pretty well-reasoned, I thought. But I definitely want to challenge some of his assertions. Here is my response:

My apologies for the confusion over the water-diety. I didn't make it clear, but I was referring to something similar to a water elemental -- basically a spirit that is infused with one of the four elements (water is a compound, of course, but it's also one of the classical elements), Fire, Earth, Air and Water (the Chinese add a 5th: Metal). It's probably not a very good analogy since it's completely hypothetical and imaginary, at least as far as science is concerned.

I grasp the stamp hobby analogy just fine. It's a poor analogy, though, which you seem unable to grasp. Here's why:

Collecting is an activity. Philately is a hobby. However, you could still be a philatelist and not actually collect anything. How? By knowing a heck of a lot about stamps, that's how. Philately is the study of stamps, not the act of collecting them. You could be an expert in stamp lore without actually having a collection or wanting one.

Actually, maybe the analogy is not so poor, since once you learn how faulty it is you might be able to understand how atheism could be considered a religion. Of course, this does depend on semantics to an extent.

An extremely simple definition of religion is this: "A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people." Boom. You hold beliefs in common with other atheists (you refuse to worship "known" gods) and your practices are also similar in that you refuse to attend worship services (I assume. Personally, I make exceptions for weddings and funerals, but I don't "worship"). It may be negative, but that doesn't mean you can't group it under religion.

For example, you've already admitted that atheism is a philosophy. Would you also consider it a theological perception? Just because the content of your theological perception attacks the underlying structure of most other theologies and even theism itself, that does not stop it from being classified as some form of theological outlook. Do they study atheism in theology classes? In many cases, yes (there might be some bias in many of them, of course).

As for dogma, yes I consider the lack of belief in gods to be a dogma among atheists. If someone claimed to be atheist, but continually made shrines to Buddha would you consider him a "real" atheist?

To take it even further, have you ever heard "The first rule is that there are no rules." Is that a rule? Sure seems like it to me, even though its singular act is to bar all other rules. It may be recursive, negative and contradictory... But it's still a rule.

Also, if you knew more about theology you'd know that there are several religions that are nontheist. They generally don't deny the existence of gods, they just aren't concerned with them, and don't take a stance on them either way. Confucianism and other eastern religions are a perfect example. For this reason, many people like to call them philosophies rather than faiths or religions, but this is another semantic argument, one that is caused by the overwhelming prevalence of Christianity in the weltanschauung of westerners.

If you consider ritual a necessary part of the definition of religion, consider the scientific method. It's also a dogma of sorts, and it prescribes a methodology for discovering and verifying knowledge in such a way as it will be acceptable to others in the scientific community. In much the same way that a priest prepares to consecrate bread and wine, a dutiful scientist will prepare for an experiment by controlling for variables and making predictions (hypotheses) before the experiment-ritual itself is performed.

As for proceeding from the assumption of the null hypothesis, that's your business. It's certainly a good idea in science, but in matters of faith things are not so cut and dried.

Also, please note that I am not calling you a religious person by stating atheism could be considered a religion. I'm just pointing out that atheism is quite similar to other religions, and as it grows there is a risk that it could be seized and exploited by charlatans. I believe there was a South Park episode about this. I am also sure you would see through the bullshit and hopefully refrain from any atheistic fundamentalism, but just remember that there are a lot of stupid people out there. In fact, some people are dumb as fuck!

Even as I'm drawing religion and science together, surely you'll concede there is much that separates them. The problem is that the scientific method is not known to work for the business of discovering gods. I believe Scott Adams once compared this folly to using a metal detector to check for unicorns in one's sock drawer. The fact of the matter is, we haven't discovered a "god" (definitively, based on the scientific method) so how can we say we're using the best tools for the job?

Perhaps a new method is called for. Of course, if I knew that method I'd present you with solid proof of the existence of god(s). But you could easily reject it by saying my method does not adhere to the principles of the scientific method. But what if my method was better, at least for discovering and identifying divine beings?

A question to ponder: Have your placed your faith in the scientific method?

The Hypocrisy of DailyKos: How Partisanship Created The Best Enemies Bush Could Hope For

Proving once again that they value partisanship over America, freedom and informed debate, the sellout hacks at DailyKos have "warned" anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan that if she posts more about her independent candidacy she will be banned.

I can't post here anymore because my potential run for Congress is not on the Democratic ticket.

...

If Speaker Pelosi does her constitutionally mandated duty and I don't run, then I can come back and post.

DailyKos is shameful. The site is bathed in hypocrisy and founded on partisanship.

The two-party system has destroyed America and put us in the current mess, and DailyKos and other Yellow Dog Democrats are part of the problem. They care about Democrats first and America second (just as the Republicans look after themselves first and America... well, okay they don't care about America at all).

That said, there is still some hope that Pelosi is just being strategic, but where has trusting the Democrats to hold Republicans accountable got us so far? I can see Cindy's point; what's the purpose of having the Democrats in charge of Congress if they won't impeach? 50% of the nation is pro-impeachment (46% for Bush, 58% for Cheney) and the Democrats aren't even talking about it. Once the real investigations start and we find some dirt the numbers will go higher. But will the Democrats have the balls to do it?

Only if it doesn't harm their precious party, or the two-party system.

Ironically, many DailyKos regulars are the best enemies Bush could hope for: weak, timid, divided and fucking stupid. They proceed with undue caution and fret that attacking Bush could make them look like big meanies. They make excuses rather than try and build a consensus on impeachment, and they are far more concerned about their electoral chances in 2008 than in actually holding the illegal Bush/Cheney administration accountable. In short, they are Bush's enablers.

Sheehan gets points in my book for being against the Federal Reserve, which many Kossacks think is a Republican position (it's not), so, unthinkingly, they reject it like the fucking mindless borg shitheads that they are.

Opposition to the Fed is generally an independent position (Ron Paul is the exception here, but he's so hated by his own party that I think it only strengthens my point), and is generally the province of informed, independent-minded folks who don't follow marching orders of the Washington establishment oligarchy.

The sad truth is the there's nothing progressive about DailyKos; it's about as regressive and unimaginative as you can get. These people are too wrapped up in the sports team mentality ("Gooooo Dems!") to realize that their party is as much a part of the fascist oligarchy as the Republicans.

DailyKos is decidedly mainstream, and worships at the altar of pragmatism, not freedom, liberty, or truth. Their only goal is victory (and they admit as much), although they still like to pretend to be anti-establishment nothing could be further from the truth. When Kos casts himself as a revolutionary, he doesn't mean to change the system. He merely wants to sieze control it and use it for his own selfish aims... Just like everybody else in politics.

The Democrats, for their part, have accomplished exactly nothing in Congress. Not that Bush would sign their reform bills anyway, but isn't that all the more reason to impeach the stonewalling, lying, election-stealing fascist bastards? Apparently not.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There's only one party -- The Business Party, and Democrats and Republicans are merely factions of that monolithic party. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic that is quickly shedding the "constitutional" part for fascism instead. And what are the Democrats doing to stop it? About as much as they're doing to stop the war: Nothing but a few bellicose speeches for the choir.

Still, the Kossacks will continue to support the Dems, no matter what. Blind loyalty is their modus operandi and they show no signs of changing it. So, how are they any different from the Republicans who support Bush no matter how many laws he breaks?

Partisans on both sides are the same. They all think it's okay to break a few rules in order to achieve their party's higher goals. What's best for America doesn't enter into it.

Fascist Amerika: Reporter Arrested on Orders of Giuliani Press Secretary for Asking Tough Questions

Freelance reporter Matt Lepacek, reporting for Infowars.com, was arrested for asking a question to one of Giuliani's staff members in a press conference. The press secretary identified the New York based reporter as having previously asked Giuliani about his prior knowledge of WTC building collapses and ordered his arrest. [/digg]

Here's the video:



Take note, reporters: Apparently asking tough questions is an arrestable offense in New Hampshire.

And people wonder why reporters are so soft on our leaders! Well, when the elite can have you arrested with a snap of their fingers that sort of puts a damper on things, wouldn't you say?

This is a sad day for true Americans who believe in the First Amendment.

Why do we let the Media decide who our candidates will be?

Taking part in a televised debate can be a make-it-or-break-it moment for any presidential candidate. But what if you're not allowed to debate at all?

A diabolical Catch-22
As many of you are aware, not all candidates are allowed to debate in a given broadcast debate. This has been a problem for years. During the last presidential election both the Libertarian and Green party candidates were actually arrested trying to get into a debate they had been explicitly banned from!

Most candidates are excluded from the debate simply because the Media (big M) deems them minor/unknown/unpopular candidates. Well, of course they're unknown; they're not allowed to debate on national TV!! Bit of a Catch-22, wouldn't you say?

A most insidious and foul Catch-22, I would say. Here's why: We supposedly live in a democracy. It's not really a democracy, it's a republic (that's a story for another day), but we like to pretend that the people really have a say. The hidden reality is that the bosses of the major television stations are making decisions that define the course of our nation, and they're doing it from private boardrooms sequestered on the 100th floor of a skyscraper, and there's nothing any of us can do about it because they aren't elected or accountable to anybody but the company's shareholders -- ya know... other rich people.

Why should the CEO of CNN have such power? Why should he (and it's almost certainly a he) determine who will and won't be the next president of the United States before the people ever get a chance to vote in a primary?

Isn't that censorship? Isn't that more like an oligarchy than a democracy? Why do we let them get away with it?

Well, until recently most people didn't even know about the problem. And we didn't have the power to make a difference anyway. But things are changing.

Social Media saves the day
Social Media has finally offered regular people like you and me a voice. Sites like Digg, while not perfect, have enabled users to vote (you know, like a democracy) on what stories they think are worthy.
Two candidates, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, owe most of their young supporters to the users of two social media sites: Digg and Reddit. Without those two sites neither candidate had a hope in hell of cracking the oligarchy and getting significant, objective coverage by the mainstream media (MSM).

Why does the media censor and ostracize certain candidates?
The candidates that find themselves locked out of televised debates tend to have a few things in common: They tend to be unpopular or unknown (but that is not always the case). Their campaigns are usually poorly funded (maybe because it's hard to raise funds if you get no coverage) and sometimes they have views that are contrary to the political mainstream.

But sometimes the political mainstream is very much at odds with the desires of the voting public. A perfect example is the continued prohibition of cannabis (you know: "marijuana"), an issue on which the politicians are most definitely out of step with most of America, which favors medicinal pot by an astonishing 78% margin. Net candidate Mike Gravel recently came out in support of legalizing cannabis, which he says should be for sale in liquor stores. For a mainstream, "media-approved" candidate, such a position would be political suicide. Why?

Perhaps the media has been shaping our political landscape for such a long time nobody can even remember a time when they weren't. Perhaps there are certain forces at work behind the scenes that determine what is considered politically acceptable and what is considered "extremist."

It's hard not to see the media as a controlling, suppressing force when they blatantly censor certain candidates. Ron Paul's performance in the recent Republican debate at the Reagan Library was hailed by many observers, but when it came time to review the field and do some analysis ABC News made a curious omission: Ron Paul.

He wasn't even available as an option for viewers to vote for. He wasn't mentioned anywhere in David Chalain's analysis. If not for a web uprising (involving Digg and Reddit) Ron Paul would probably still be excluded. When ABC finally backed down (after deleting a storm of comments asking, "Where's Ron?") Ron Paul ran away with a landslide victory in the online poll. The numbers are incredible (and no doubt skewed by a reaction to the censorship). Paul clearly has a massive groundswell of public support.... but in the corporate realm he has apparently earned only hand-waving dismissal and contempt.

What are we supposed to think of this? When there are 10 candidates at a debate and viewers are only allowed to vote for 9 of them is that not censorship? Is that not electioneering by a major corporation?
And when they back down and include the suppressed candidate and he wins the poll, how do they respond? They write an article in which they find people to scratch their heads and say, "who knows how this Ron Paul got popular. Must be sumthin' to do with them internets." Then they conclude he has no chance of winning and that this is just an exercise in teenage rebellion (or something) and wave their hands, content that they will never have to talk about him again.

Democratic candidate Mike Gravel has experienced the exact same treatment, but on the other side of the aisle. Gravel and Paul are both painted as "extremists" within their respective parties, so we'd can conclude that Paul is a right-wing extremist and Gravel is a left-wing extremist, right?

Not quite. Both candidates are populists, espousing "common sense" positions that many average Americans hold, but which are not endorsed by many mainstream politicians. Both are opposed to the Iraq War (and always were), both question Prohibition, both are wary of a pre-emptive strike against Iran and both are suspicious of the corporate media that excludes them from debates. In short, they have a lot in common with the public they are trying to represent.

Meanwhile, the Media's favorite Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani, goes around saying fascist shit like this:

We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]

You have free speech so I can be heard.

Is that what most Americans believe? Wasn't America founded by overthrowing the "lawful authority" of the British? And this "Freedom is about authority" stuff sounds like a parody of George Orwell's 1984... but Rudy was being serious! "You have free speech so I can be heard"?!! Saturday Night Live couldn't parody Rudy any better than he does himself.

Which candidate is really an "extremist"? Which candidate is fundamentally out-of-line with the thinking of mainstream America? Well, maybe America really does want fascism instead of freedom, but the noise on the internet would seem to indicate otherwise.

Media Control and Manipulation
It seems like ancient history now, but it was actually the recent past when the mainstream media controlled every avenue of information and expression in this country. Nowadays we can talk about these things and send our message out to a wide audience, but as recently as 12 years ago it simply was not possible for a middle class person to route around the MSM. Suddenly most people can afford machines that are more powerful than a printing press, and allow common people to talk to each other without the Media's filter. That's why the Media is so upset about blogging and social media -- they're so used to having an absolute stranglehold over the conversation in this country.

The Media is used to controlling:

• what information citizens receive
• what information citizens are allowed to share with one another on the national stage
• discussion and framing of issues in mainstream press
• which issues receive national coverage (and which are ignored)
• who gets to talk about the issues in the press (and who doesn't)
• how political actors are portrayed (villain or hero or neutral)

Social Media smashes that control grid and puts power in the hands of the many, rather than the few. This is a recent development so the full ramifications are not yet clear, but one thing we are finding out is that the Media has been using their incredible power to highlight certain candidates and suppress others.

The media has a paternalist streak that is really out of place in this day and age. The Washington Post thinks they know best and they aren't afraid to tell you that they already know Gravel & Paul are not going to be elected, so why don't we just eject them from the debates already?

The Democratic debate in South Carolina featured eight candidates, while 10 crammed into the GOP debate in California last Thursday. Voters trying to sort out their presidential choices aren't helped by debates cluttered with the likes of Mike Gravel (hint: he's a former senator from Alaska) on the Democratic side and Ron Paul (hint: he's a libertarian House member from Texas) among the Republicans.

Thank goodness for our dear corporate masters. If they didn't come in any set things straight we'd have to learn somebody's name and what they stand for. MY GOD! The very idea exhausts me.

Sarcasm aside, this sort of thing has been going on for generations. That's why an editorial like the one above doesn't seem odd to them; this is standard operating procedure! The Media has identified the candidates they don't like (the ones that aren't easily bought/co-opted) and now they've decided to tell you, Dear Voter, than you needn't concern yourself with these troublesome miscreants. Big Media will make things simple for you by excluding them.

...But wait a minute. Isn't this a democracy? Don't the voters decide who is voted off the proverbial island?

Well, now you know better. That is not the way America works. America is run by a ruling class of oligarchs no different than the ones who control Russia. The difference is the American media freely admits that oligarchs run Russia, but they would sooner give their mansions to the poor than admit America is the same. The exact reverse scenario plays out in Russia where the Russian (government/oligarch-controlled) media is free to disparage America and mock its corrupt institutions, while speaking ill of Russia is a good way to get your broadcasting license revoked.

The awful truth is that America has long been controlled by the rich, just like most nations throughout history. They have remade American society and government to suit themselves and they have grown very comfortable on their throne.

What is an Oligarchy?
Stephen Fleischman, himself a former mainstream media man, tackles the reality of the Oligarchy in an article for Counterpunch:

My dictionary says an oligarchy is a form of government where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of the society. As Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, puts it, "Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense to those governed." Does that sound like the administration of George W. Bush?

Why, yes it does! That must be a weird coincidence. ... right?

I wish I could tell you more about the Oligarchy, but it operates in secret and prefers that most citizens do not even know it exists. In fact, by using the mainstream media the Oligarchy is able to program us so that even if we are provided with irrefutable evidence of the existence of said Oligarchy, many will still deny it and disbelieve it.

You're probably wondering "How?!"

Have you ever been called a "conspiracy theorist?" Well, it tends to end any meaningful discussion of the facts and immediately puts the onus on the accused to defend himself from the charge leveled at him. The Media has a few "magic words" like this at their disposal. It's amazing how effective they can be. Nobody wants to be called a conspiracy theorist... but isn't that just an ad hominem attack? It's no different than calling someone a poopy-head.

I suspect there may be more to it than that. In a future post I'll look into how the Oligarchy exploits its control of the media for fun and profit.

What should we do about it?
At a certain point we in the 'net community need to stand up and say, "To hell with you guys. We're hosting our own debate and we'll invite everybody!" We just need to set up a website with a group of people dedicated to hosting the cyber-debate; we'll get some buzz going and then what candidate will say "no" to a chance to get his/her message out to such an elusive audience?

The media can't be trusted to define, design and delineate the ground rules for our national debate. Candidates are having trouble getting their message across because of the media's filter. It's time to cut out the middle man.

If you think voting for Hillary will solve the problems Bush made you're fuckin' dreaming

George W. Bush has been a disaster for this country, there can be no doubt. However, beware of those who want to be his successor -- many of them are just as bad, if not worse.

Case in point: Hillary Clinton has vowed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq if she's elected. Not only is she a war supporter, she is even more blatant about her willingness to spill American blood for Iraqi oil.

As for Iraq’s importance to US “national security,” Clinton could not have been clearer: “It is right in the heart of the oil region.”

Asked how many troops would be left behind under such a plan Clinton demurred, claiming that she would bow to “the advice of military officers.” Undoubtedly, however, these open-ended missions—securing Iraq’s borders, suppressing resistance, training its military and, above all, assuring control of its oil, not to mention protecting and supporting all those engaged in these activities—would require the permanent basing of tens of thousands of US soldiers and marines in an occupation that would last for decades.

Hillary Clinton is an imperial neocon traitor, just like Bush. Do not be fooled. If Hillary is elected we can look forward to more of the same. She's so ambitious she will sell out any principle, sacrifice any amount of American lives, do any amount of damage to our nation to achieve her selfish goals. The only thing that matters to her is getting elected president. Everything else is secondary, including our Constitution, our troops, our nation, our liberty and our standing in the world.

I repeat: Do not be fooled! Many of the Democrats are nothing more than neocons in sheep's clothing. Ironically, the Republican-in-name-only Ron Paul might be our best bet for 2008. He's basically a Liberatian in Republican guise. He was against the war in Iraq from the beginning and he wants to shut down the Federal Reserve -- that pretty much gets my vote right there.

It's worth noting that the Democrats have done little to get us out of Iraq so far -- if this is still the case in 2008 then we might need to re-examine our ideas of partisanship. All partisanship does is divide us. I'm as guilty of this as anyone. Maybe it's time to vote for the person and not the party.

How the Media and the Democrats are Betraying America on Impeachment

Even as the grassroots impeachment movement gathers steam, the mainstream media and the Democrats are doing to their best to mock, derail, ignore and sabotage the efforts of concerned Americans across this great country.

Did anybody choke over the preceding paragraph? Did you think that Democrats would be eager to avenge the impeachment of Clinton? Well, you're wrong. The Democrats are avoiding the issue like it was radioactive. And the media, well, we all know the liberal media is... liberal. Right? Wrong. The media is not left or right, it's corporate. The media does whatever sells, folks. Their only true ideology is profit. As the Propaganda Model states, the media does not sell news -- they sell us, the consumers of news, to the businesses that pay for ads and PR. We are the product.

Who perpetuates the myth of the liberal media anyway? Oh, that's right... The media does! Especially the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world (there seem to be a lot of these folks. How did they manage to find employment in the big, mean liberal media machine?).

Despite their lies, the media is certainly not liberal, but the lie has become self-perpetuating so that people think "if the media does it, it must be liberal!" thereby allowing conservatives and corporatists to define liberals with their own labels and bias. It's a really neat trick. Goebbels would be proud. The left-wing is so weak and pathetic that it mostly just nods its head and cowers in the corner lest Bill O'Reilly raise his voice again (of course, these are just the liberals the media allows us to see). In reality, the media skews conservative on many things, including the war, the economy and the prospect of impeachment.

Let's take a look at this Reuters article on Vermont's grassroots impeachment effort and see how the media distorts things to serve a certain point of view.

More than 30 Vermont towns passed resolutions on Tuesday seeking to impeach President Bush, while at least 16 towns in the tiny New England state called on Washington to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

Known for picturesque autumn foliage, colonial inns, maple sugar and old-fashion dairy farms, Vermont is in the vanguard of a grass-roots protest movement to impeach Bush over his handling of the unpopular Iraq war.

Notice how Vermont is portrayed as pastoral. The subtle message is: "These backwards-ass hicks think they can impeach the president. Isn't that cute?"

Now that we've established that Vermont's voters are bunch of tree-hugging, bean-curd-eating hippies we proceed to "The Big Lie", which Reuters needs to work on a bit since it really sticks out like a sore thumb in this piece. See if you can spot it:

After casting votes on budgets and other routine items, citizens of 32 towns in Vermont backed a measure calling on the U.S. Congress to file articles of impeachment against Bush for misleading the nation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and for engaging in illegal wiretapping, among other charges.

Five Vermont towns passed similar resolutions last year.

The idea of impeaching Bush resides firmly outside the political mainstream.

The new Democratic-controlled Congress has steered clear of the subject, and Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's call last year to censure Bush -- a step short of an impeachment -- found scant support on Capitol Hill, even among fellow Democrats.

Did you find it? It's the mostly-unsupported argument in the middle. "The idea of impeaching Bush resides firmly outside the political mainstream." THIS IS A LIE. A big one, too. If the reporter/propaganda-spewer (Jason Szep) had done any research (and I believe he must have), he would've noticed that Americans overwhelmingly support impeachment. From the Zogby poll:

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new Zogby poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

This is "firmly outside the political mainstream"?!!

Well, in the reporter's defense it must be said that the Democrats and the Mainstream Media (MSM) have done everything in their power to keep it out of the political mainstream. This is done via articles such as the one we're talking about, wherein people supporting accountability are mocked as pastoral peasants, slandered as left-wing nutjobs or talked down to like illiterate boobs. So much for the free and impartial press.

The Democrats are certainly party to this travesty. They have betrayed the very Americans who voted for them.

Not surprisingly, Democrats supported the consideration of impeachment by a broad margin (76 percent) while Republicans opposed (66 percent). However, 29 percent of Republicans told Zogby pollsters that they supported Congress examining impeachment over Iraq.

It should be noted that AfterDowningStreet.org had to commission this poll because the Media certainly wouldn't do it themselves. If we had waited on them for such a poll, we'd still be waiting.

Despites the media's lies of omission and distortion impeachment is gathering steam across the nation, not just in Vermont as the article tried to imply. New Mexico, Washington state and cities across the nation are moving towards, or have already passed, resolutions supporting impeachment. The Media doesn't want you to know this.

As for the Democrats, their spinelessness is appalling, especially considering what happened less than 10 years ago. Funny, I don't remember people taking to the streets to demand Clinton's impeachment. In fact, polls showed most people opposed impeachment for Clinton. I would've liked to see Clinton impeached for other reasons, but the charges he was impeached for were pretty trivial, and it was clearly a political witch-hunt. This time around the polls favor impeachment, but the Media is nowhere to be found whipping up impeachment fervor, and the Democrats, far from leading the charge, are carrying up the rear. They're being dragged into this fight by the common folk, and many of them show no signs of supporting impeachment. It's as if Bush were there best buddy all of a sudden. Suspicious, wouldn't you say?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The Mainstream Media is a corporate-controlled institution that the oligarchy is using to promote and maintain fascism. Bush, as a fascist, is their hero. The MSM and Bush led us into this bloody war in Iraq, hand-in-hand; they're practically attached at the hip. They would sooner spit on their own mothers than encourage the impeachment of their pretty-boy fascist führer. The Democrats are controlled by the same oligarchy and their part is to basically "rollover and play dead" for the fascist Republicans. We must feed the war machine with our babies. The economy depends on it, since so much of it is rooted in the military-industrial complex.

So what can you do about it? Well, start by supporting the organizations out there that are spearheading the impeachment effort. Quite frankly, there are so many that I have a hard time keeping track of them all. Here's a quick list of some of the bigger ones:

AfterDowningStreet
Vote To Impeach
Impeach Bush Coalition
Impeach For Peace
ImpeachPAC
The Four Reasons
The World Can't Wait

Apathy is not a strategy. What are you doing to change the world?

Does Bush regret holding the elections?

It certainly seemed as if he was trying to brag about how "democratic" we are to actually bother holding elections during war time in his radio address:

"We saw that freedom earlier this week, when millions of Americans went to the polls to cast their votes for a new Congress. Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war.”

We won't make that mistake again!

Bush is trying to use his loss to make himself look magnanimous. Secretly, I think, he's wishing he had invented an excuse to suspend elections.

Oh well. Maybe next time.

Instant Runoff Voting and a big "Fuck You" to all of the Democrats whining about spoilers

Jesus Criminey Christ on a fucking pogo-stick. The Democrats just swept to power in both houses of Congress and here they are attacking 3rd party voters in Minnesota for not voting for Mike Hatch and Patty Wetterling:

What makes Peter Hutchinson any less hypocritical than the politicians he thinks he is so different from? If he really cared about the issues that will make this a better state for Minnesotans, he would have thrown his support to Mike Hatch.

As for all those who voted for him, you too are sadly self-centered in your approach to the world. I am sorry for the personal, psychological neediness that always seems to manifest with spoiler candidates. Spoiler candidates impact the course of history -- sometimes as dramatically as the 2000 presidential election. Is this the goal in the end -- to leave your mark no matter how many people you drag down with you?

ELLEN WILCOCK, MINNEAPOLIS

First of all, Fuck you, Wilcock. What gives you the right to tell me how to vote? Why don't you talk to the Republicans who elected Pawlenty rather than bitching about people who dared to vote for a candidate that wasn't Hatch or Pawlenty? What so offends you about my right to choose who I vote for? Perhaps you would feel better in a setting more akin to Iran wherein the candidates are selected by the state ahead of time so nobody even has a chance to vote against the approved candidates. Would you prefer that, you fucking fascist?

Do you wanna know why I didn't vote for Hatch, Mrs. Wilcock? BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU. That's right, YOU are the reason that Hatch lost. You, and people like you who are so fucking sure that people who vote for independent/3rd party candidates would vote for Democrats if there wasn't another option on the ballot. Well, guess what: You're wrong. Don't ever fucking try to tell me how to vote again you ungrateful, self-righteous bitch.

The Democrats are just as much a part of the problem as the Republicans. Democrats are like the abused wives who continually back down and let -- even encourage -- abusive husbands (the Republicans) continally beat the shit out of them. In this horrible, yet oddly appropriate analogy the third parties are like their children. The abused wife likes to take out her frustrations by screaming at the children because she's too weak to take on the abusive father. Get a fucking clue, Wilcock, and move out! Aim your venom at the people who deserve it -- the Republicans! Stay the fuck off my back.

And although you may be too stupid and weak to understand, some of my readers are not so I will explain to you how it works. Point 1: There is only one major political party in America: The Business Party. The Business Party (a.k.a. The Corporate Party) has two factions. These factions are called Republicans and Democrats. They serve the same master -- the corporate interests that utterly control our country and, by extension, the world. The two-party system is a sham. The corporations simply do not allow anti-corporate candidates into their party, either faction. Try to name me an anti-corporate senator or congressman. There aren't any. Questioning corporatism is a legitimate (even populist) position, but you won't find any of those people in the halls of Congress. You will find candidates who are opposed to corporate power, but they are almost all Green Party candidates.

Watch this video clip of Noam Chomsky's explanation of our political system, starting with The Business Party:



Point 2: Democrats and Republicans have a symbiotic relationship, which is to say that they feed off of each other and support one another. One cannot exist without the other (in their present form -- the names of the factions are irrelevant). You notice how the excesses of the Republican Congress/Administration pushed the American people right into the waiting arms of the Democrats? Well, it works both ways, as you'll remember from 1994. When the Democrats go too far the Republicans step in. They seized power because of the corruption and stupidity of the Democrats in 1994 (sound familiar?). Do you see how they trade power back and forth, like a ping-pong ball? So no matter how inept and corrupt a party (faction) gets the Corporate Party still wins! They win every election. They choose every major candidate and they are never disappointed on election day.

As Chomsky pointed out, this is the way the Republic was designed. We are not a democracy any more than North Korea is. Remember, when this nation was founded the only people who could vote were white males, most of whom were rich landowners. Today, the only people who can afford to run for office are the rich, and the only people who can afford substantial campaign contributions are also rich. Thus, the rich are the only ones who matter. The rest of us merely choose between two rich guys with rich backers, both of whom support the business party and the business class.

So, Mrs. Wilcock, are you still determined to disparage my vote against the Business Party? Well, maybe that's because you're a part of the ruling class. Or maybe you're too stupid to know the difference. Either way you contribute to its continued rule. My vote against the ruling elite had no effect -- it's designed to be that way. But at least I voted my conscience and I did it as an educated person rather than a bandwagon-jumping automaton who doesn't realize that she's voting against her own interests -- assuming you're not part of the ruling class. If you are, well then what are you complaining about?

America was never quite what it was advertised as. But over the years it's gotten better as minorities and women (even women like Mrs. Wilcock) were given the right to vote. If we really want to change the system we have to look honestly at what we have; it's not so great. People like me are utterly shut out of political decisions and people like Wilcock are so fucking deluded and confused that they might as well live in a completely different country. So why not make a change?

The solution to our problem is called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). There are many ways to structure the system, but most boil down to this: Rank your preferred candidates in order of preference. Don't rank candidates that you dislike. Then the results are tabulated so that if no candidate gets 50% the lowest vote getter is eliminated and the voter's second-choice candidates are added to the totals of all remaining candidates. See a Flash demonstration here.

Next time, Mrs. Wilcock, rather than writing into the newspaper and screeching at people who exercised their constitutional right to vote for whomever they wish, you should write in and encourage Minnesota to adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Of course, since I called you a fascist bitch you're not likely to do that. But the rest of you should know that Instant Runoff Voting is better than having to listen to this lecture again, which is what you're gonna get if you try and tell me who to vote for. So support IRV!!

CNN is projecting that the Democrats will take the House of Representatives

Story here.

Hmmm.... I don't even remember what checks and balances felt like.

Looks like the Republicans will probably retain a slim majority in the Senate, but not even Diebold was able to overcome the surge of voter anger towards the 435 Representatives in the House, all of whose seats were up for election (unlike the Senate and it's 6-year terms).

Good. I was getting really sick of this one-party-rule stuff.

Election Fraud in America -- "It can't happen here 'cause we're above that sort of thing"

Well, today's the big day. Will things go smoothly, or are we going to experience the kind of election fraud that folks like Greg Palast have been warning us about these past 6 years? I can only hope that things will be fair, although I suspect that is a fool's hope, borne by a man wallowing in apathy and disbelief. What will we do if election fraud is staring us right in the face? Will we have the courage to stand up and refuse to accept bogus results?

God help us.

Pray America finally sees the truth and returns to its former glory.

We need to get rid of The Worst Congress Ever and turn Bush into the lamest of lame ducks. The Democrats are far from ideal from this task. Many of them are sniveling suck-ups, traitors and liars. They are not as corrupt as the Republicans are...but then, who is?

So let me just say, if I'm screaming about election fraud tomorrow it's not because I love the Democrats. In fact, I think they're shit and I'm not voting for any of them. But I do want a fair election. I already know my candidates are not going to win -- they never do. My only desire is an honest election.

That and I want to see Bush impeached. Slowly, over a growing flame.

But first we need fair elections. The polls are unanimous in saying that this will be a good showing by the Democrats. They are almost assured control of the House. The Senate is up for grabs. A change is coming. Keep an eye out for fraud and watch the HBO special: Hacking Democracy.

The Sexy, Sexy Skeletons in Mark Foley's Closet -- Denny Hastert's Nightmare

Holy shit, this Foley business is exploding. It looks really bad for the Republicans. The leadership of the GOP is in shambles. People are breaking ranks and speaking to the press to cover their own asses and the media is lapping it up. The leadership itself has tried to present a united front, but they seem to be taking a "duck and cover" approach to the storm. We'll see if that works.

This is serious business. It is a serious breach of trust and a serious problem for a Republican party that has been trying to shake the "Culture of Corruption" tag that the Democrats have hung around their heads.

The blogs have been going nuts, of course. Glenn Greenwald in particular has had thorough and consistant coverage. He's been all over this thing.

Hastert's first interview since this scandal began is here, with CNN. He really just seems exhausted, beaten, and even resigned. He dismissively shrugs off the reporter's incredulous question as to how he could simply forget reports from Rep. Reynolds that a 53-year-old Congressman was sending inappropriate emails to a 16-year-old page, and speculates that perhaps he forget about it because Reynolds mentioned it in passing along with a half-dozen or dozen other "campaign" items. This story really can't end unless and until Hastert resigns.

The audio is really bad in that link above, and it's not synched with the video. But the point is that Dennis Hastert is toast. He's done. He had knowledge and he did nothing with it. There doesn't seem to be any sort of "intervention" where Hastert might've wisely sat Foley down and told him, "Hey, dumbshit, quit hitting on the fucking pages, already, eh?" That might've happened, but it hasn't come out yet. Denying any knowledge of the crime is a normal fallback for any politician (look at Condi Rice using that exact tactic to deflect culpability for the 9/11 attacks), but this time it might get Hastert burned since there are others close to him on record as saying that he was informed.

Of course, the neocons have wiggled out of tight spots before, a hundred times. But this might be their undoing. And yes, they look incompetent here, but they knew exactly what they were doing. Every powerful person has their favorite perks of the job, and Mark Foley's was that he liked the endless stream of underage boys that he could hit on and do god-knows-what-else to. He could just as easily have been a high school gym teacher. Who knows what Hastert likes. Whisky? Hookers? Cocaine? All 3 at once? It doesn't matter. These guys all look out for each other and they know when they have to look the other way. If Foley likes boys and Hastert likes hookers and Cheney likes skull fucking the corpses from his recent hunting expeditions, that's just fine and dandy within the ruling elite.

But stories like this aren't supposed to leak into the mainstream. And if they do, they are supposed to be buried quickly. So watch out for any attempts to do so (which will actually take the form of a deafening silence), and raise hell if you see it. I have no doubt that Hastert would have liked to cover this thing up way before the media caught wind of it. He should've put the kibosh on it long ago and now it's come around to bite him in the ass. He'll have to pay the piper.

Quite frankly, I suspect we've only scratched the surface of this one. The way that Foley resigned his seat -- not decided to quit his re-election campaign, not said he would work out the remainder of his term -- tells me that there may be more skeletons hidden in his closet. Possibly cute 15 year old skeletons with stories to tell. We shall see (but most likely we won't, whether they exist or not). I don't want to speculate (okay, yes I do), but I'm guessing that this goes waaaay deeper than "overly-friendly" notes to underage pages. I think we have to watch for something much worse. I can only subscribe Foley's quick exit (at the very beginning of the media frenzy) to a guilty conscience.

What horror lurks in Foley's closet?

Rep. Mark Foley (Republican) resigns after emails reveal him hitting on a 16 year old male congressional page

I mean, like, ewwwww!!

This guy is creepy, man. He's 52 years old and he's sending fairly explicit messages to teenaged pages. Pages, as you probably know, work for congresspeople in a sort of intern/gopher role. This particular page did not actually work for Foley, but they struck up a friendship. The page started getting freaked out after he gave his email address to Foley and ended up receiving some pretty sick emails. Raw Story has the emails if you want to check them out.

Foley has long marketed himself as a protector of children from sexual predation. In 2003, he became an outspoken critic of a summer nudist camp for children. An amendment by Foley to change federal sex offender laws became part of the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act of 2006.

Yeah, Foley loves children. He really, really looooooves children.

Like I said: Eww...

Rolling Stone and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. return with another look at election fraud

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has uncovered a bombshell in Chris Hood, former Diebold employee, who claims that he personally patched dozens of Diebold electronic voting machines with an unauthorized patch:

Then, one muggy day in mid-August, Hood was surprised to see the president of Diebold's election unit, Bob Urosevich, arrive in Georgia from his headquarters in Texas. With the primaries looming, Urosevich was personally distributing a "patch," a little piece of software designed to correct glitches in the computer program. "We were told that it was intended to fix the clock in the system, which it didn't do," Hood says. "The curious thing is the very swift, covert way this was done."

Georgia law mandates that any change made in voting machines be certified by the state. But thanks to Cox's agreement with Diebold, the company was essentially allowed to certify itself. "It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me. "We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from Urosevich. It was very unusual that a president of the company would give an order like that and be involved at that level."

According to Hood, Diebold employees altered software in some 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties - the state's largest Democratic strongholds. To avoid detection, Hood and others on his team entered warehouses early in the morning. "We went in at 7:30 a.m. and were out by 11," Hood says. "There was a universal key to unlock the machines, and it's easy to get access. The machines in the warehouses were unlocked. We had control of everything. The state gave us the keys to the castle, so to speak, and they stayed out of our way." Hood personally patched fifty-six machines and witnessed the patch being applied to more than 1,200 others.

Gee, that's not suspicious or anything, is it?

Earlier in the article Hood says that the company was able to operate with unusual freedom since Georgia essentially privatized the election by giving Diebold (the highest bidder) the keys to the kingdom in order to get everything ready in a short timeframe.

Hood says it was "common knowledge" within the company that Diebold also illegally installed uncertified software in machines used in the 2004 presidential primaries - a charge the company denies. Disturbed to see the promise of electronic machines subverted by private companies, Hood left the election consulting business and became a whistle-blower. "What I saw," he says, "was basically a corporate takeover of our voting system."

How do we know we live in a democracy anymore? What proof do any of us have that the system is fair? Certainly, articles like this one don't inspire any faith in me, and I'd bet that that's the case for many folks out there.

So what should we do? Attack the messenger? Cross our fingers? Trust in Big Business?

None of those solutions are acceptable to me. I work with computers; I know what they can do. Hacking an election is trivial for Diebold. There's no receipt or evidence left behind for a manual recount. Once the election is stolen, it's gone for good. No recount is possible.

We need an open source solution, subject to rigid testing and public oversight if we're going to use electionic ballots. Personally, I'm not convinced of the need for an electronic system. But if we do go with e-voting we need to stay away from "blackbox" voting. They call it blackbox because anything could be going on in there. You have no way of knowing if the person you just voted for actually received your vote. It's far too uncertain. I prefer paper ballots for this reason.

The article goes on to deal with the ironically-named Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which actually does more to help Corporate America choose our representatives for us:

The primary author and steward of HAVA was Rep. Bob Ney, the GOP chairman of the powerful U.S. House Administration Committee. Ney had close ties to the now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose firm received at least $275,000 from Diebold to lobby for its touch-screen machines. Ney's former chief of staff, David DiStefano, also worked as a registered lobbyist for Diebold, receiving at least $180,000 from the firm to lobby for HAVA and "other election reform issues." Ney - who accepted campaign contributions from DiStefano and counted Diebold's then-CEO O'Dell among his constituents - made sure that HAVA strongly favored the use of the company's machines.

Ney also made sure that Diebold and other companies would not be required to equip their machines with printers to provide paper records that could be verified by voters. In a clever twist, HAVA effectively pressures every precinct to provide at least one voting device that has no paper trail - supposedly so that vision-impaired citizens can vote in secrecy.

This is dirty, dirty business. It won't be easy for Americans to believe that our (illegitimately elected, as it turns out) representatives and business leaders would be so evil to steal elections again and again, but America has a lot of waking up to do. "It can't happen here" seems to be our mantra.

But it can. And it has.

The World Can't Wait -- Destroy the Bush Regime before it destroys us

I noticed this full-page ad in the paper today:

The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime

They're calling for a work stoppage and massive protests on October 5th, 2006. BE THERE! Don't go into work/school. It's time to resist!

The protests planned include on in downtown Minneapolis. Details below:

Minneapolis, MN

2006-10-05
11:30AM
Federal Building, Minneapolis
Meet at Federal Building. Peaceful migration to Loring Park.
3PM Concert at Loring Park.
minneapolis@worldcantwait.org

Like I said. BE THERE!!!

Kinky Friedman for Governor of Texas: Why the hell not?

I'm not from Texas, but I'm throwing my political weight (think: feather) behind Kinky Friedman. He's running for guv this year if ya didn't know, and he's actually picking up some decent poll numbers (around 20% last I checked) as he campaigns around Texas.

Now Kinky, who is running as an indepedent, has chosen Willie Nelson as his energy czar:

Friedman said the country singer/songwriter and benefactor of biodiesel was a natural choice to lead a state energy department or commission, which he wants to create. He also said Nelson "would never have his hand in Texas' pocket."

"My plan is to appoint the best people I can find, get out of the way and let them work ... people whose only agenda is to do the right thing for the people of Texas," Friedman told the Fort Worth Rotary Club. "... I really believe that musicians can better run this state than politicians."

A Texas biodiesel supplier partnered with Nelson to develop the BioWillie brand of the clean-burning fuel for truckers. It is made from used vegetable oils or soybeans and is blended with diesel, and does not require modification to diesel engines.

Hell yeah! Now this is a campaign I can get behind! Willie Nelson is cool. Kinky is the perfect governor for a state that's been churning out nothing but Bush cronies for decades. It's time to either elect Kinky or get yer ass kicked out of the union, Texas!

Kinky is right. Musicians would be better at running any state than politicans. Look how infested with politicians we are currently -- where has it gotten us? Now, some might say I'm biased as a musician myself, but I'm not running for anything, and I don't live in Texas. I just see Kinky as being the best man for the job.

Kinky's a funny guy, but he has real plans for the state; not just jokes:

Friedman, who unveiled his energy plan Thursday, said he plans to have 35,000 school buses running on biodiesel fuel, as well as his own vehicle. He said as it catches on, some 7 percent or 8 percent of Texans will be trying biodiesel, resulting in lower prices at gas stations because of supply and demand.

"What you're going to see is Texas finally leading the way instead of following behind all the time, being first in something besides executions, toll roads and property taxes," he said.

I think it's a great idea to start using more biodiesel. The oil-lobby has owned Texas for years -- it's time to take Texas back from this entrenched special interest groups!

Here in Minnesota we elected Jesse Ventura back in '98. He actually did a good job -- I just used the light-rail system the other day. That was a plan that had been around awhile, but nobody really pushed it through. Jesse helped make it a reality.

Of course, Jesse got attacked on all sides. All the fucking useless partisan pieces of shit made sure to write in every day about how awful Jesse was -- mostly because he wasn't kowtowing to their preferred special interest. Fuck those partisan shitbags. I HATE partisan politics. I prefer independents. The Democrats and Republicans suddenly become best buddies when facing off against an independent.

There's really only one political party: The Corporate Party. Democrats and Republicans are simply different factions within the One Party. Our only hope for true representation (i.e. candidates who aren't corporate servants) is electing independent and third party candidates. In MN, that means Peter Hutchinson. I'm not sure I'll vote for him; he's not as fun as Kinky, but at least he's not a Corporate-crat.

Kinky for president!

What's goin' on? Softball and macaca

What's going on in your world? There's a lot of news out there, but I don't feel like aggregating it today. I could link to stuff like Sen. George Allen's little "macaca" faux paux, but I think you can find it. What a dumbass. And he's pretty clearly a racist; this isn't the first time he's been accused of this sort of thing.

Oh man. So tired. Got up at 5 am today for a client thing. Didn't go well.

The good news is that my softball team won last night. Although I sucked at the bat I managed to get the final out (barely) to allow us to hold onto a narrow victory: 13 to 12. I was fucking stoked. I thought we played really well -- a great way to start the fall season.

Null & void: An Update on Mexico's contested election

Over at Greg Palast's crib:

Here’s the conundrum: The nation’s tens of thousands of polling stations report to the capital in random order after the polls close. Therefore, statistically, you’d expect the results to remain roughly unchanged as vote totals come in. As expected, AMLO was ahead of the right-wing candidate Calderon all night by an unchanging margin — until after midnight. Suddenly, precincts began reporting wins for Calderon of five to one, the ten to one, then as polling nearly ended, of one-hundred to one.

How odd. I checked my concerns with Professor Victor Romero of Mexico’s National University who concluded that the reported results must have been a “miracle.” As he put it, a “religious event,” but a statistical impossibility. There were two explanations, said the professor: either the Lord was fixing the outcome or operatives of the ruling party were cranking in a massive number of ballots when they realized their man was about to lose.

It's worth checking out this story for the graph alone.

It doesn't look good for Mexico. The TRIFE has only agreed to examine 9% of the ballots cast in the election. This election was stolen right out from under Mexico's nose, and the people know it. But what can they do when the entrenched power structure refuses to relinquish their grip on the government?

Things are not so different here in the U.S. The only problem, as Palast makes clear, is that we don't even have a complete paper ballot record because of electronic voting:

Does this mean US activists should give up on the fight for paper ballots and give in to robo-voting, computerized democracy in a box. [sic] Hell, no! Lopez Obrador has put hundreds of thousands in the street week after week demanding, “voto por voto” — recount every vote. But AMLO’s supporters can only demand a re-count because the paper ballot makes a recount possible. Were Mexico’s elections held on a Diebold special, there would be no way to recount the electrons floating in cyberspace.

When are people going to wake up to the fact that electronic voting cannot be trusted?

Oh well. The elites find a way to win no matter what. They hold all the cards except popular support. I guess there's not much we can do but make it hard for them by bringing out the vote.

As for Mexico, it seems clear to me that this election should be declared "null and void" and a revote scheduled immediately. Will the TRIFE lay it on the line for democracy? We'll have to wait and see.

Kiss him Goodbye: Lieberman Loses Democratic Primary to Ned Lamont in Connecticut

What happened to his "Joe-mentum"?

Lieberman is a sniveling Bush toady and he deserved to lose for that fact alone. His support for the War in Iraq is just more reason to kick him out.

It's actually an extremely rare event to kick a sitting senator out of his seat in a primary -- incumbancy re-election rates approach 98%. Joe must've really pissed some people off.

The AP has apparently called the primary in Lamont's favor, meaning Joe is being forced to make good on his threat to bolt the Democratic party (but I thought he looooved the Democrats so much!! [snort]) and run as an independent.

He could win as an independent, but I suspect that his partisan friends will pressure him to withdraw. I don't really see Lieberman as an independent -- he needs a circle of allies around him. I think he would do much better to join the Republican Party. Not that I would suggest that to anyone I didn't hate, but Joe and the Republicans are perfect together.

As for Lamont and the Democrats -- meh. We'll see if he can get elected to the Senate. I would like to see the Democrats start nailing Bush's balls to the wall, but I have my doubts. The Democrats are infested and corrupted with the same corporate dollar that the Republicans are. You can't truth either of them. And if Joe's an independent, that just proves you can't trust certain independents either.

In fact, an honest man has practically zero chance of ever getting elected.

Is it any wonder I'm cynical and depressed about the state of affairs in this country? We need another revolution.