There’s nothing like a big-ass earthquake to wake you up from a post-vacation lull…

For the past month and a half, my good friend Tom Neely and I have been working on this top secret project. Now that MoveOn.org’s contest has launched, we’re proud to present our short, “Brother, Can You Spare A Job?”. Here’s the description that will be appearing on the contest’s site :

“Following in the footsteps of Max Fleischer, Tex Avery, and Chuck Jones, ‘Brother, Can You Spare A Job?’ is an original, fully-animated look at the underbelly of Bush’s economy which juxtaposes a depression-era style with modern-day quotes from Presidential radio addresses.”

You can view (and vote for!) the commercial by clicking on the picture below :

If you’d like to help spread the word about our commercial, please click on the “Continue reading…” link below.
(more…)

This is good news :

A U.S. advisory panel on Tuesday voted to recommend allowing the Plan B “morning after” contraceptive pill to be sold without a prescription.

The Food and Drug Administration will make the final decision, but the agency usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
. . .
The panel’s 23-4 vote came after testimony from the product maker, FDA staffers and members of the public for and against making Plan B easier to obtain.
. . .
Others spoke against Plan B because they view emergency contraceptives as equivalent to abortion. Some research suggests the pills prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, although Barr said Plan B simply prevented ovulation.

Supporters said the pills should be made available over the counter to give women a second chance to prevent an unwanted pregnancy after unprotected sex, when a condom breaks for following a rape.

“If we are truly dedicated to lowering the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country, let’s prove it by making Plan B emergency contraception available over the counter,” said Dr. Vivian Dickerson, president-elect of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Okay, for all you “pro-lifers” out there, here’s a brief explanation of how Plan B works : It’s essentially an overdose of the same kinds of birth-control pills that have been available for a few decades now. The result is a disruption of the woman’s hormones that will either stop the egg from fertilizing, delay ovulation, or prevent the egg from becoming implanted in the uterus, depending on when the pill is taken in relation to the woman’s menstrual period and when the woman had sex. In short, the morning after pill doesn’t terminate a pregnancy, it prevents a pregnancy.

So if abortion protesters are going to extend the definition of “abortion” to include anything that can prevent pregnancies, then what’s next? Are they going to organize protests against dry humping based on the reasoning that underwear is blocking sperm from reaching an egg??

And speaking of pro-lifers lying so they can win arguments, abortion foes were recently caught in Minnesota peddling another bit of misinformation.

Abortion politics led the state Health Department to publish unreliable information about a link between abortions and breast cancer, state health workers wrote in e-mails obtained by the Star Tribune of Minneapolis.

Government e-mails obtained under the state’s open records laws reveal that a division director and others questioned an assertion on the department’s Web site and in a pamphlet that having an abortion may increase the risk of breast cancer.

The statement, posted in late September, was viewed inside the Health Department as a disservice to citizens and damaging to the department’s credibility, according to e-mails circulated in the department in October.

Critics of the department’s position on abortion and breast cancer say the statement is designed to frighten women considering abortion.
. . .
The e-mail cited findings of the National Cancer Institute. A panel of 100 breast cancer experts reviewed all the research and concluded last spring that some small, flawed studies published before the mid-1990s had found a link to breast cancer, but larger, more reliable studies showed no connection.
. . .
Dr. Steven Miles, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics, said of the abortion-cancer link: “Every medical association that has looked at this says the matter is closed. There is no relationship here.”

Now, I know that abortion is a very tricky issue. Even though I strongly disagree with it, I understand the “abortion is murder” argument. That said, it’s completely unethical for abortion opponents to blatantly lie in order to get people to take their side. Oh yeah, well two can play this game :

“According to a recent scientific study, there has been a significant link shown between being a Pro-Lifer and impotence, sterility, & being a total asshole.”

Al Sharpton, as usual, has one of the best quotes yet about the capture of Saddam Hussein (via Cursor) :

SHARPTON: Oh, I don’t think the capture of Saddam Hussein in any way justifies the war. I congratulate the military. I think it is good that he has been captured, but I don’t think that it in any way justifies the fact that we were told there were weapons of mass destruction and that we were in eminent danger and we had to go into a military operation.

We also see that this may not end the bloodshed. I think that in the spirit of this moment that the president ought to immediately try and appeal to a world body to take over, particularly the U.N. and appeal to Secretary General Kofi Annan and begin withdrawal of troops.

We have Hussein now. I think that we need to use this moment to withdraw and end occupation. I think the debate now will shift to occupation and the need of such occupation. And so I don’t think any of us that were opposed to the war were pro-Hussein, but I don’t think the capture of Hussein nine months later in any way justifies the American public and the general international public being told we were going in because of weapons that clearly were not there at that time.

LIN: But there is the opportunity now to interview Saddam Hussein to find out about weapons of mass destruction, if in fact they exist and where they are. Clearly, this is going to be useful to the United States and the war on terror.

SHARPTON: Well, if we went to war to get an interview, I don’t think that’s what we were told. We went to war because we said we knew there were weapons. Not that we wanted to capture and interview him to see if there was weapons.

We all know Sharpton can’t (and shouldn’t) win the nomination, but I hope whoever wins puts him in the cabinet as Secretary of One-Liners or something.

This headline from the New York Times is the best headline I’ve read since the infamous “Shatner’s ex-wife sues over horse semen”. The content of the article is pretty damn good too :

In August, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board at NASA released Volume 1 of its report on why the space shuttle crashed. As expected, the ship’s foam insulation was the main cause of the disaster. But the board also fingered another unusual culprit: PowerPoint, Microsoft’s well-known ”slideware” program.

NASA, the board argued, had become too reliant on presenting complex information via PowerPoint, instead of by means of traditional ink-and-paper technical reports. When NASA engineers assessed possible wing damage during the mission, they presented the findings in a confusing PowerPoint slide — so crammed with nested bullet points and irregular short forms that it was nearly impossible to untangle. ”It is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this PowerPoint slide and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening situation,” the board sternly noted.

PowerPoint is the world’s most popular tool for presenting information. There are 400 million copies in circulation, and almost no corporate decision takes place without it. But what if PowerPoint is actually making us stupider?

This year, Edward Tufte — the famous theorist of information presentation — made precisely that argument in a blistering screed called The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. In his slim 28-page pamphlet, Tufte claimed that Microsoft’s ubiquitous software forces people to mutilate data beyond comprehension. For example, the low resolution of a PowerPoint slide means that it usually contains only about 40 words, or barely eight seconds of reading. PowerPoint also encourages users to rely on bulleted lists, a ”faux analytical” technique, Tufte wrote, that dodges the speaker’s responsibility to tie his information together. And perhaps worst of all is how PowerPoint renders charts. Charts in newspapers like The Wall Street Journal contain up to 120 elements on average, allowing readers to compare large groupings of data. But, as Tufte found, PowerPoint users typically produce charts with only 12 elements. Ultimately, Tufte concluded, PowerPoint is infused with ”an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.”

I couldn’t agree more. Using PowerPoint makes sense when it’s being used for generic business interests, but it’s being used by NASA?? PowerPoint is a great tool for dumbing down information, but it’s too often used as a template for presenting any information.

Having worked for a big-ass corporation for a few years now, I’ve even encountered people who seem incapable to relay information without it. I was once in a small meeting with a vendor in which a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation was prepared for me and two other people. Information that could easily be presented in a five-minute conversation was instead turned into a sales pitch.

Of course, I’m just the pot calling the kettle black here. When you think about it, isn’t a blog just a dumbed-down version of a newspaper op/ed?

Okay, this Uggabugga post freaks me out :

We’ve seen over the last couple of years a vicious political debate. Exhibit A is Ann Coulter’s Treason. Democrats are traitors, don’t you know. And then there were the ads that tied Daschle with Saddam. And so on.

It’s going to get worse as the presidential race heats up. The end result will be whole bunch of people enraged at the Democrats.

So, donning our Nostradamus hat, we boldly make the following prediction:

There will be at least one major act of violence against the senate candidate(s) for president.

And we mean life-threatening violence. Like attempted murder.

The scary thing is, I wouldn’t be 100% surprised if something like that happened either. People on both sides of the aisle have been really stepping up their rhetoric lately. With both sides accusing the other of being traitors, it’s just a matter of time before somebody snaps and decides to do his/her “patriotic duty”.

First of all, lemme just say that I think the news people made up the term “spider-hole”. Secondly, I’m glad we caught Saddam. He was obviously a twisted bastard and I’m glad he’s going to stand trial. Buuuuttt…..

Everybody needs to stop doing the dance of joy and realize that we’re still stuck in Iraq. Once the public tires of seeing the “Saddam goes to the dentist” clip, they’re going to realize that we’ve still got 20-25 body bags transfer tubes coming home every week.

As far as the political implications of this, I think it’s too early to tell. The conventional wisdom is that it hurts the Dean campaign. Of course, people said similar things after Bush landed on that aircraft carrier. So far, Dean’s been doing the right thing. He’s giving credit where it’s due, and then hanging back to see where this story goes. Lieberman, on the other hand, is a little toady who will take any opportunity to bash Dean at this point.

Call me optimistic, but when all is said and done, this could benefit the Democrats quite a bit. The problem with this whole “war on terror” thing is that Bush has been constantly moving the goalposts to easy targets. He knows as well as anybody that we can’t really rid the world of terrorism, any more than they can rid the world of selfishness, greed, or lust. That’s why he’s been making this all about personalities.

When the war on an idea is framed in a way that it’s the United States versus a boogeyman (Bin Laden, Hussein), a “war on terror” is something that people can easily wrap their heads around. Rather than carefully explain what it means to be “at war” against an undefined concept, it’s easier for Bush to just get behind a podium and taunt the evildoers like he’s a pro wrestler. But now that Hussein is caught, they’re going to have to move the goalposts again.

The worst thing about the way that Bush has been framing the debate is that liberals have been falling into this trap again and again. By punctuating our arguments with “Where’s Hussein/bin Laden?”, we’ve been going for the easy win. While the temptation is to respond to Hussein’s capture with “Now that we’ve caught the guy who killed thousands of Iraqis, can we go after the guy who killed thousands of Americans?”, we need to turn Hussein’s capture into the living embodiment of the failure of Bush’s foreign policy.

Saddam’s gone, but terrorism isn’t going to go away. As the terrorist attacks continue, the senate message needs to be that George Bush doesn’t understand terrorism. His fixation on Saddam Hussein was a detriment to the war on terror. Not only did they spend too much time obsessively searching for one man and his fictional WMD’s, but they took time and money away from the fight against the Islamic Fundamentalists who attacked us on 9/11 (of which Saddam isn’t a part). Sure this is a victory in a broad sense, but don’t ever forget that this has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11.

Okay, I’m getting tired of the “Fair and Balanced” quote in my title bar. I want something new. Can you guys think of some good ones?

Here’s a few ideas to get you started:

a word or phrase the describes the purpose of the site (Yahoo says my site is “ranting and raving about politics”)

a depression-era reference that loosely fits the look of the site (maybe a Ukulele Ike reference?)

a satire of a popular political or commercial slogan (ex. “The Suck Stops Here”)

something completely random and funny

Or should I just go without a slogan? Lemme know in comments.

Also via TBogg, comes this video of a CNN broadcast showing American soldiers murdering a wounded Iraqi man followed by cheering.

And they wonder why the rest of the world hates us….

Damn. It seems that the Salvation Army has their minds stuck in the stone age (link via TBogg) :

A lawsuit will be filed against The Salvation Army alleging discrimination against married women in management. Married women “officers”, as the administrators are called, are expected and REQUIRED to perform the same tasks as the married men, while their salary is given to the husband only. As a result, the married women officers cannot collect social security benefits or have any reported income for tax or credit purposes. Even the yearly Christmas bonus allowed per officer was given only in the husband’s name.

Allowances are paid to both single men and single women. However, once a woman becomes married, she loses her individual pay and becomes listed as a spouse for income tax purposes.

Each officer’s schedule requires many long hours performing equally the same duties and responsibilities. Both married men and women are reviewed yearly for their job performance, skills, and areas to improve. The married women are reviewed and rated with the same guidelines and formula as the married men.

The Salvation Army requires married couples to be officers together. That is, married men and women are not allowed to seek employment outside the organization, due to excessive demands placed upon them as officers. However, if the married couple decides to leave, or is terminated, it is very difficult for the married woman to establish herself financially and in the workplace.

Needless to say, this will definitely be on my mind the next time I see some little old man ringing a bell outside a department store. Y’know, wilh all the patriarchal bullshit that women still have to deal with in our society, I assumed being treated like they were the property of their husbands was one of those things that had virtually disappeared. I’m willing to give people a little leeway when it comes to being old-fashioned, but the idea that the money married women earn is going directly to their husbands is twisted and dehumanizing and just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Back in July, I posted a link to SelectSmart’s Presidential Candidate Selector. Here were my results then :

1. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH – Democrat (100%)
2. Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat (81%)
3. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat (78%)
4. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO – Democrat (72%)
5. Edwards, Senator John, NC – Democrat (71%)
6. Lieberman Senator Joe CT – Democrat (70%)
7. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL – Democrat (70%)
8. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat (69%)
9. Graham, Senator Bob, FL – Democrat (58%)
10. Libertarian Candidate (32%)
11. Bush, George W. – US President (4%)

When I take the test again today, I get this result :

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH – Democrat (80%)
3. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat (79%)
4. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR – Democrat (74%)
5. Green Party Candidate (70%)
6. Edwards, Senator John, NC – Democrat (66%)
7. Socialist Candidate (62%)
8. Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat (59%)
9. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO – Democrat (59%)
10. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat (54%)
11. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT – Democrat (42%)
12. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. – Democrat (40%)
13. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL – Democrat (36%)
14. Libertarian Candidate (29%)
15. Hagelin, Dr. John – Natural Law (14%)
16. Bush, President George W. – Republican (9%)
17. Phillips, Howard – Constitution (2%)

I dunno what the hell changed in the last few months to make the results this different. The biggest change here is the 20-point drop in compatibility with Kucinich. I’m not sure what may have caused that, but skimming through the Kucinich page on SelectSmart’s site, I see a few things I disagree with :

Faith based initiatives:
Voted “yes” on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations.
Security & Terrorism:
Voted “yes” on the “Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001″, a bill to strengthen counter-terrorism efforts by imposing restrictions on student visas and among other things, it creates a centralized ‘lookout’ database.
Abortion Policy:
He received a 10% score from Planned Parenthood and a 75% from the National Right to Life Committee.
Civil Liberties:
He received a 66% score from The American Civil Liberties Union.

I doubt these positions have changed since the last time I took the test.

What’s even stranger is that I only have 14% in common with the Natural Law Party Candidate. New-Agey, Hippy shit aside, I usually like the Natural Law Party stances on quite a few issues (at least, a lot more than the Libertarians). If you check out John Hagelin’s page, it’s blank. If they don’t even have the data, where the hell is the 14% figure coming from?

I dunno how to explain it other than to say that these kinds of quizzes are completely worthless, but they’re still kinda fun and addictive.

(more…)

Y’know, I keep wanting to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. I keep telling myself that we all want the same things, just that they have a really screwed up way of doing it (poor planning, lying, unfounded optimism, etc.). But then something like this happens…

A Pentagon investigation has found overcharging and other violations in Iraq reconstruction contracts worth $15.6 billion that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, two defense officials said Thursday.

An audit of Halliburton’s Kellogg, Brown & Root subsidiary found substantial overcharging for fuel and other items, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The problems go beyond overcharging, they said, declining to elaborate.
. . .
senate Reps. Henry Waxman of California and John Dingell of Michigan have accused KBR of price gouging for gasoline used in Iraq. The two congressmen said Halliburton charged the Army as much as $2.65 a gallon for gas under a no-bid contract, while another Pentagon agency imported fuel from Kuwait to Iraq at a cost of $1.09 to $1.15 per gallon.
. . .
Congress’ General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.

These guys aren’t patriots, moral leaders, or even legitimate businessmen. They’re just thieves, pure and simple. The only thing that separates these guys from bank robbers is that instead of using a gun and a mask, they use a pen and a handshake. I hope this investigation goes somewhere, but I’m sure it’ll end up in the dead letter office along with the Plume affair, the Energy Taskforce, Enron, etc…

That’s Cliff “Ukulele Ike” Edwards. Although best known for his hit “Singin’ In The Rain” and being the voice of Jiminy Cricket, he was a huge star in the 20′s and 30′s. Throughout his career, he sold over 70 million records, but today he’s virtually unknown.

Here’s an obituary from 1971 :

‘Ukulele Ike’ dies broke, alone at 76

HOLLYWOOD – (UPI) – Clifford Edwards – alias Jiminy Cricket and “Ukulele Ike” – who had the sheiks and flappers carrying Ukuleles and swinging to “Jada Jada Jing Jing Jing” in the 1920s, is dead at 76.

Edwards died Saturday broke and forgotten, a welfare patient at the Virgil Convalescent Hospital. His remains were still unclaimed today.

Born in Hannibal, Mo., Edwards began singing as a teen-ager in St. Louis saloons and made the ukulele his trademark.

He rose to star status when he teamed with Bobby Carelton to sing Carelton’s tune, “Jada”, one of the first big hits of the jazz age. He introduced “Singing in the Rain”, had a role in Gershwin’s “Lady Be Good” and made hit records of “Sleepy Time Gal”, “June Night” and “I Cried for You”.

His singing and film roles made Edwards a millionaire, but he wound up bankrupt after two divorces, income-tax troubles and years of gambling.

In 1940 his career revived when he was chosen as the voice of Jiminy Cricket in the Walt Disney movie classic, “Pinocchio”, and sang the introductory song, “When You Wish Upon a Star”.

A few nightclub engagements followed but interest faded.

Edward remained in the entertainment business until the end, however: His 30-year-old recording of “When You Wish Upon a Star” opens The Wonderful World of Disney on television each week.

Officials did not report his death until yesterday because they had not realized who Cliff Edwards was.

If you’ve never heard him before, you should definitely check out his page at RedHotJazz.com. I especially recommend “That’s My Weakness Now”, “Anything You Say!”, “My Dog Loves Your Dog”, and definitely “I’m Going To Give It To Mary With Love”.

For those of you interested, I’ve written an article for the newest issue of Ostrich Ink comparing the websites of the nine senate Presidential Candidates. You can check it out by clicking on the image below :

Warning : The article contains many, many cheap shots. If you take your favorite candidate too seriously, you’re likely to get offended.