Tuesday, April 25, 2006


Normally, I don't like to just link to someone else's post, but I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING!

OK, some background: I've never heard of Helena Keeffe, but according to her Web site she "creates art projects that serve as catalysts for social engagement." In this case it means she held a little contest asking people to go to Imagination Island and pretend President Bush has had a change of heart. A HUGE change of heart, basically realizing things aren't going so great for a lot of people, and he knows some of that is his fault so he's going to do something about it.

What would that speech sound like?

Some elementary school students had some ideas, and they are by turns bittersweet, peeved and downright hi-larious. Keeffe got a Bush impersonator to read the speeches, and it's a little scary how easy it is to see these words coming from the president.

My personal favorite is the one by Zoe Baker - surreal and pissy in one short clip, you can imagine Bush having a breakdown right at the podium. I've already listened to it five times.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Future shock

During a completely uninteresting conversation with someone, I realized it's 2006, FIVE YEARS after 2001.

Wait, you don't get it - five years after "2001."

Where's my monolith? Where's my automated tooth-brusher? Where the hell's my flying car?!?

At least give me a murderous computer - I mean, C'MON!

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Geek check

How geeky can one guy get? How's this grab ya?

That's right - this is a handmade d20 necklace. I picked the die and a friend of mine (who works at the comic shop I used to work at) made it for me. I'm pretty sure that makes her geekier than me, but it might be a toss-up.

And, God help me, I plan to wear the hell out of that thing.

Lisa's also making neato, non-nerdy earrings and who-knows-what-else, so if you're in the market for this kind of stuff, pay her a visit.

I'd sell you my shame, but apparently I don't have any left.

Monday, April 10, 2006

Pack your bags, Part II

I said Mexico won't be safe unless Lopez Obrador wins the presidency in the July elections. Otherwise you'll have a bunch of yes-men agreeing to everything Bush decides, including WWIII.

At this point I'm thinking Argentina.

P.S. For more on Mr. Hersh, check out this link.

Pack your bags

When news of President Bush's so-called plans for Iran broke this weekend (which can be summed up as "hit it until it works"), the first thing Lopez! told me was, "That's it. If that happens, we have to move. I mean, out of the country. And we can't go to Mexico anymore, because I don't think even Mexico will be safe."

I'm not as sure as Lopez! that Mexico will become a new part of the growing battleground, but I am sure of this: If you, like the president, believe that attacking Iran, that using nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is a viable option, you're as insulated and out of touch as Bush.

I'm not an alarmist. But if this were to happen and Bush was to begin any kind of pre-emptive strike against Iran, it would be World War III. Iran isn't Afghanistan; it's not even Iraq. And remember, we haven't "won" in either one of those places. So instead of using every diplomatic option at his disposal, instead of working himself to exhaustion to find a peaceful resolution, the president wants to hit a strong and organized nation which, quite frankly, just needs the excuse to tear into the United States. But never mind that. Never mind that U.S. forces are already stretched incredibly thin. And never mind the fact that more and more U.S. citizens have shown a growing distaste for war.

No, let's wave our flags and satisfy the righteous bloodlust of a single, apparently increasingly deranged, man. The will of the people was hijacked six years ago, and this is the reward for a disinterested citzenry.

To paraphrase an old hippie catchphrase; if you're not scared out of your mind, you're not paying attention.

Bush critics alarmed over reports of possible strike on Iran

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Critics of the George W. Bush administration expressed alarm about explosive new reports that the president is mulling military options to knock out Iran's nuclear program.

Retired General Anthony Zinni, the former head of US Central Command, told US television Sunday that he had no detailed knowledge of the alleged military plans, but he suggested a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program would be extremely risky.

"Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over," said Zinni.

"The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism," he said.

Zinni made his remarks after the publication of a pair of reports this weekend saying that the administration is seriously considering military action against Iran, amid a stalemate in diplomatic efforts.

The New Yorker magazine reported in its April 17 issue that the administration is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key suspected Iranian nuclear weapons facility.


(The New Yorker’s Seymour) Hersh told CNN's "Late Edition" show that a "messianic" president feels driven to try to contain Iran and that the White House is determined to keep open a nuclear option against strong objections from some top Pentagon officials.


Hersh told CNN however, that the White House has spurned Tehran's overtures for dialogue.

"This president is not talking to the Iranians. They are trying very hard to make contact, I can assure you of that, in many different forms," he said.

"He's not talking. And there's no public pressure on the White House to start bilateral talks. And that's what amazes everybody," he said.

Go read the full story. Then, if you don't want the president to make the same mistake a third time while once again saying he's doing it on your behalf, tell somebody about it. Get mad, and be noisy about it. Because in this case, silence is the same as approval. And that's what this administration is counting on.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Thursday, April 06, 2006


Please, please! Check out this link!
Oh, and if his phone was not bugged ... it is now.

=[ ] grr

But can we keep Guantanamo?

Acknowledging the fact that its human rights reputation has taken a beating lately - you know, secret prisons, rumors of torture, spying on its citizens - the United States has taken steps toward regaining the world's trust by opposing the United Nations' new Human Rights Council.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to me, either.

U.S. Will Pass on Rights Council, for Now

By Nick Wadhams, Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS - The United States has decided not to seek a seat on the new U.N. Human Rights Council for now, preferring instead to see how it takes shape, a U.S. official said Thursday.

"We're going to take a wait and see attitude," the U.S. official said, speaking from Washington on condition of anonymity because the announcement was not expected to be made public until later in the day.

The United States was virtually alone in voting against the council when the U.N. General Assembly approved its creation last month. U.S. officials claimed not enough was done to prevent abusive countries from becoming members.

I can't really argue with that; after all, they invited us to join.