It's official, Karl Rove is a genius. At first, I didn't understand the decision to hold the Republican National Convention in New York City, but now, it makes sense. They hold the convention in September. A bunch of bongo playing, hippied-out morons show up with puppets of George Bush dressed up as Adolph Hitler and start protesting. They're dancing around and painting their faces red with the "blood" of dead soldiers, etc. It's all very baroque and spectacular. Then, Karl Rove says to the swing voter, "You see? These are the people who oppose George Bush. Do you want to be associated with these extremists?" Enough of the swing voters get weirded out and vote Republican. The RNC protesters will be so dense as to not understand that they are doing exactly what Karl Rove wants them to do. Show up and act absolutely insane. Get really stupid. Compare Bush to Hitler and dress up in silly costumes. Let's see how many average Americans will identify with this display. As far as I am concerned, this election is lost unless the Convention protest takes a more subdued approach.

THANK GOD THIS DEMON HAS BEEN DESTROYED!!!

What else is there to say? It is helpful that a missile was fired from an aircraft and that this quadriplegic militant was disintigrated. Yeah, I know he founded Hamas and encouraged all sorts of violence, but he was an invalid!! I doubt he had much of an important involvement with the day to day operations of Hamas, yet Ariel Sharon found it beneficial to blast him to hell with a few missiles. This will undoubtedly benefit all of Israel. Palestinians will stop to wonder, "What is it? What is this thing that we do? Why would they blow up the paralyzed invalid unless we did some horrible thing. We must stop and discuss our future."

The FCC is coming!

I'd like to take this moment to personally challenge the FCC to come and fuck with me! I'm not scared of Colin Powell's little baby offspring. They want to get at my millions and fine me $500,000 for talking dirty to their mammies? Then, in the words of John Kerry or George W. Bush or whoever the fuck, "BRING IT IN!" I'm taking this conversation to the potty because somebody is goddamn lying to me. Dick Clark(e), of all people, is telling me, after so many decades of government service, that the Bush Administration is jerking me around, and, naturally, Scott McClellan (the White House spokesperson) implies that Clarke is a "disgruntled ex-employee" as if he were some janitor hired last year to keep the urinals clean and then just happened to write a book about international terrorism. He's pissed because he didn't get a gig in the Homeland Security Department. Yes, I know most of you babies automatically gobble down Clarke's steamy dish of lum-lum, but what the fuck?!!@!#% Can all of the members of the Bush Administration have been this oblivious to modern terrorism, so fascinated, they were, by the prospect of invasoring Iraq? It takes more support than a half-assed, "It rings true."

At risk of damaging my reputability, I must mention that Alex Jones received top billing on C-SPAN recently. Of course, the topic of discussion was conspiracy theory.

And speaking of conspiracies, let me predict that China, France, and Germany will be joining forces to battle against the United States at some point in the future. China and France ganged up the other day to practice naval exercises. (I'd link to The Wall Street Journal, but you have to pay to read their online stuff.) I just want everyone to be on the lookout.

Also, tell Bill O'Reilley to stop stealing stuff from my blog. Specifically, he likes to go on and on about not bloviating and how you should look up "bloviate" in the dictionary. You decide.

"Mehlman & Trippi on 2004 election"

The above is an interesting C-SPAN bit about the Internet and politics. I suggest you watch it if you have RealOne Player. The most compelling idea from the piece has to do with people "hijacking" campaigns by using the Internet to self-organize. This could be a good incentive to compel participation in non-swing states where people in, say, Texas would organize to lobby voters in Florida. Though, I have no idea how exactly that will develop, but it is much more feasible with the Internet around.

An interesting statistic, the Republican party raises more money in $100 and under donations. In fact, the Republican party raises more money in every category ($100 and under; $3,000 and under; $1,000,000 and under) except $1,000,000 and over. Naturally, the Dean Campaign changed that dynamic. So, while one may consider the Democratic Party to be for the people, it seems to be for the people who can't and/or won't give as much money as average Republican. (Or the Democratic Party is for those people and organizations who can give $1,000,000 and more.) Either way, most interesting is the $100 and under category.

After September 11, 2001, a number of nations watched to see how the United States would respond. There were places like Libya, North Korea, Iraq and Iran who wondered what sort of behaviour they could get away with (e.g. can we continue pursuing nuclear weapons?). Other up and comers, most importantly China, probably just wanted to see what the US was going to do. I think it was of utmost importance that the United States of America attack something. Anything else would indicate weakness. Now, I seriously doubt that bombing up Afghanistan scared off any terrorists, but I assume that it did "check" China. Now, rip roaring into Iraq is another matter. Historically speaking, invading Iraq strategically benefits the USA. The problem? This pissed off the rest of the world. So, we just vote out George W. Bush, vote in John Kerry, and all is repaired. I doubt I'm being very clear so let me reiterate: When all of this is said and done, the United States will have showed off their big weapons and big resolve. And, then a new administration will come in to mend our ties to the international community. "We're so sorry! Mr. Bush was just out of control. Let's forget this ever happened. (But remember the weapons we showed off.)"

Of course, I say all of this from the comfortable position of an unenlisted person. I don't have to die for this country to make a point. Then again, that's just complicated, morally ambiguous jibber jabber.

Alright, my honey babies, let's talk leadership and political strategy. Everyone knows that John Kerry is a flip-flopper and President George W. Bush is a steadfast, resolute leader. If you don't know by now, the Television will let you know by next November. So, let us all ponder the question, "What makes a good leader?" I am full aware that the world is a murky, complicated place with very little certainty. But, what does the Group want from a leader? They want sweet little lies, just like anyone else. Girlfriends, bosses and voters all want the same thing.. confidence. The President's job is to make the world make sense, not to ponder the more subtle crannies of the moral landscape (well, he-she-it isn't supposed to let us know about the pondering.) Therefore, as much as it pains me to admit, George W. Bush serves the Presidency's symbolic role well. He may be flap-jacking the English language, but he seems to have a clear sense of what must (rightly or wrongly) be done. This issue is one that more intellectual humans seem to overlook. All those truisms about "wisdom" rattle around in their heads: "Wisdom is knowing you know nothing", "The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know", etc. That crap may work for the swami on the mountain top, but it doesn't float for the 'Leader of the Free World'.

Now, why is it that the crux of Karl Rove's attack seems to be, "John Kerry is a waffle"? Labeling Mr. Kerry a breakfast treat might work with the Republican base, but I doubt it really stirs up the swingers. If Karl Rove really were a Boy Genius, he would make the attack somewhat more nuanced. "John Kerry thinks, but he can't act!" "John Kerry is unwilling to make the difficult decisions required by uncertain times." We shall see if Rove picks up on this necessity. [In case you were wondering, this was inspired by an Op-Ed titled "The Presidency And the Mind Of John Kerry" by Daniel Henninger in Friday's (3.12.4) Wall Street Journal]

Next up, The Iraq War was Necessary but Politically Damaging (in an international sense)

I know you've all been wondering why the Serious Bastard hasn't been pumping out the hits, day after day. It all goes back to last Monday (March 9th) when James Taranto wrote an opinion editorial titled Why do Dems Lose in the South? Don't Blame Civil Rights for The Wall Street Journal. This gets all so complicated because Mr. Taranto has no simple explanation for "Why do dems lose in the south?", and as most of you are probably aware, complexity finds no friend in the world of the weblogger.

Vague Summary Follows: LBJ signs Civil Rights Act of 1964, turns South over to Republicans until 1976. That year, Jimmy Carter wins the entire South minus Virginia. The Confederacy := Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. The South := Kentucky + The Confederacy. Later in life, segregationist politicians like Strom Thurmond change their views. Mr. Taranto then states it would be absurd to think that anger over Civil Rights compels Southerners to vote Republican even after 40 years. So why? First, he says defense and national security. Then, he says social issues like abortion, guns, gays, welfare and crime. He mentions Bill Clinton losing most of the South in 1992 and 1996 (well, he won 5 states out of 12). Then he closes by suggesting that the South stepped into the American mainstream following the Civil Rights Act. :End Vague Summary

It is much more confusing than that so don't blame me for your inability to process it. Here's a nice picture of the 1996 electoral distribution. Stare at that. Now, stare at this. So, what seperates the Democratic and Republican states? Progressive politics and paternalism with a dash of moral indignancy. It really is about "States' Rights" in some twisted way. Progressive politics always requires a little bit of paternalistic leadership, guiding the people down the right path. The average Republican voter doesn't want a great big federal grand pappie on the hill. They want someone to shake a stick at the boogieman to keep him away while waving some flags and sneering at morally ambivalent progressives. Now, the terror is that California may be swinging this direction. Governor Schwarzenegger is showing off the more attractive aspects of the Republican ideals (give money back to citizens, clean up government waste) while masking the more worrisome ones (prescriptive moral behavior, intolerance and the like). In eight months, will California be massaged into a swing state? Fifty dollars says "No", but it seems like a possibility.

For those of you crying about site feeds. Blogger uses Atom for site feed. Here's the actual feed link.

Also, Potty Mouth Blog has officially become Serious Bastard Blog. Get used to it. Less updates. Less prattle. Well, maybe a little prattle.

I officially declare political news to be dead. Everyone's very excited that John Kerry called someone a lying crook or something of the sort. IT'S OUTRAGEOUS! How could he do this?! I could care less. Put this blog on the weekly watch list since there is nothing worth talking about. There will plenty of blogs rehashing the spectre missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Plenty will prattle on and on about who-gives-a-shit-what. The most interesting event in this evening's news cycle was when Christopher Hitchens rode into Scarborough Country to call The Passion of the Christ a homoerotic horror film made by a fascist anti-semite. (That got a lot of people very excited.) I could practically hear Joe Scarborough peeing in his pants with anticipation of all the guests he would be getting for the next week. "Then we can have Hitchens back on to start it all over!! HAHAHAHAHA!"

Now for a massive jump in another direction. I see absolutely no news stories, programs discussing what will happen to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid once the money runs out in about fourty years. Maybe it should die, but I would prefer to hear some sort of argument about it. Go read some of the Federal Debt Schedules and be sure to skim the overview. Almost $4,000,000,000,000 (that's four trillion dollars or four thousand billion) of the Federal Debt is leveraged against things like the Social Security trust funds and other federal retirement funds. I pray to the dear lord that President George W. Bush wins re-election. I pray for this so I can sit on some stupid cable news show 40 to 50 years from now and tell all those Republican Grand Pappies to get knocking on their childrens' doors because the Fed ain't taking care of them. It may be a long time to wait, but I won't mind. Anyhow, let's get back to discussing whether John Kerry should apologize for calling someone a crooked liar.

First, I never wrote my post on Antonin Scalia. So what. I'm sure someone, out there, wrote the exact same thing I was thinking about writing. (It's bullshit to try and float some moronic, patronizing argument essentially saying, "Hey, mannn... what's the big deal? Duck hunting's coool.") Anyhow, it's time for my weekly splurge. It's that time of the week when I troll the playground and pick on the kiddies. Why isn't it considered strange that so many conservative commentators seem to have a sort of peculiar obsession with homosexual activity? At the moment, the focus centers around homosexual marriage. The terrifying spectre of man on man marriage petrifies any number of nationally televised news personalities. Every hour of the day is spent conversating about this dangerous man on man marriage thing. Somehow, I imagine Jerry Fallwell and his ilk waking up in cold sweats squealling about floppy gay phalli tempting them at every turn. They must resist this unlawful temptation!! Once it becomes legal, there is no hope!

This is a small taster for what will come later today. The Wall Street Journal editors opined about Antonin Scalia's conflict of interest brewha-nanny. After reading the tidy little piece, I've seen the future. The next smear word (replacing liberal) will be activist, frequently used to modify judges. In this specific piece, its use is so subtle that I, more than likely, will be called a foolish stump. As it were, read:

On the other hand, what a crock. The case involving Mr. Cheney (Cheney v. U.S. District Court) is about his institutional role as Vice President. A couple of activist groups [emphasis mine, obviously] allege in their suits that the 2001 energy task force failed to abide by the Federal Advisory Commitee Act's (FACA) demands for public disclosure. The idea that Mr. Cheney would invite Justice Scalia to hunt ducks in order to importune him on the issue of executive authority and FACA is so ludicrous that only an editorial writer could believe it. -The Wall Street Journal Tuesday March 9 2004

Now, my ridiculous prediction is that 'activist' will be tacked onto anything that requires a little impugning. It will be like calling someone a busybody but with more ominous portent. Of course, the coup de maman du football de la bourgeoisie will be, either activist liberal or liberal activist.

More to come on Justice Scalia.

Melanie Kirkpatrick, The Wall Street Journal's associate editorial page editor, wrote a little ditty about "Memogate" for this Friday's Journal. It is a wonderfully reductivist argument suggesting that Republican staffers downloading private Democrat memos was a mere misdemeanor, a quaint little "All's Fair in Love and War" sort of thing. To quote, "The memos fell into his [Manuel Miranda's] hands as a result of Democratic negligence, he says--the computer-age equivalent of 'leaving sensitive materials on the table of the lunchroom used by both sides'." Now, I love a folksy, colloquilaism just as much as the next fellow, but something's rotten in this fresh net of tuna. You can pile the homespun wisdom a mile high but that will not change the fact that Mr. Miranda, in the least, acted unethically. It is not acceptable for any person to wander around checking for unlocked doors to see which homes they might be able to investigate. And, even though we might have a grand time arguing the more subtle nature of "private" property in the electronic realm and how much more difficult it is to know when one tresspasses, the Federal Government seems to have decided long ago that computer hard drives are private property. It is a crime to electronically access someone elses computer even if it is really, really, really easy.

If you are unclear on "Memogate", read this for a very unobjective review or search news.google.com.

Just a few things. First, let us touch briefly upon "Abuse of Judicial Power". I am quite mesmerized by all this talk of activist judges leading this country, against the popular will, down the path of moral depravity. (I would put half of these phrases in quotes so just add them yourselves.) There are any number of individuals outraged by the fact that homosexuals could be granted the right to be legally married. The crux of this outrage centers around the fact that 60% of the citizens in this great country do not support homosexual marriage. That is, if homosexual marriage were an animal or human, I guess they would not help it change a flat or loan it money to buy a home. Thus, it is only right and good, that these wild-eyed anarchist judges should not be allowed to gang rape the rule of law in the United States of America. In truth, I guess that a large number of those opposed to sleazy homosexual marriage are the same Democrats who so nobly moved to the Republican side of the isle when the Civil Rights Act was pushed through by Lyndon Baines Johnson. There is this illusion that Democracy unequivocably means the will of the people is right and proper in all scenarios. If the masses always decided to act justly and fairly in the interests of all humans, there would be no need for the federal government to exist. We could all just organize ourselves in that most rational of manners that we have done throughout human history (note, there are no html tags to indicate sarcasm). This has all been written over and over in any number of articles and blabbed about during numerous vapid "news" programs so I'll leave this horse dead and let history find its place.

If you live in any of the following states, go out and vote this November or I will find you and slap your stupid ass face:

Florida (obviously)
Iowa
Maine
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
Oregon
Wisconsin

In the 2000 election, neither candidate won over 50% in any of those states. Here are the states where the winner got under 52% of the vote:

Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Michigan
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia

In these states, you can put up a fight and not feel like it's a waste of time. I personally don't care who you vote for since my life does not hang in the balance with this election. I'm not going to bother with the "Nader Factor". I will note that 49% of the voting age population (VAP) voted in 1996 and 51.2% voted in 2000. This means that 2.2% more of the VAP came out in 2000. I'd be curious to see which age group (if it was just one) showed up in larger numbers for 2000. Anyhow, it's strange that Bill Clinton got elected in 1992 with 55% of the VAP coming out, but only 49% came in 1996. Maybe it was some sort of "Perot Factor", or people just liked Bill Clinton so much at first. Either way, I predict a 56% voter turnout for the 2004 Presidential Election.

In the interest of educating you, my friends on the other end of the fiber optic cabling, watch this. If you don't have RealPlayer, then don't bother (don't complain to me, complain to C-SPAN). If you're an insensitive, racist jerkoff KKK member and don't want to watch that, then go to cspan.org to absorb other information.

Also, I have decided that John Kerry will choose his good friend Ted Kennedy to be his running mate. HAHAAHAHAHAA! BOOM!

David Brooks has a cute litte Op-Ed in The New York Times about John Edwards. If you have no idea who David Brooks is, read Bobos in Paradise by David Brooks.

This is for everyone's personal edification. Al Gore lost because he couldn't even win his home state. If he'd just managed to impress 30% of the New Hampshireans who voted for Nader, he would have won. Keep that in mind, whiney-baby Nader-haters. For the record, I've never voted for anyone, and I hate wearing my seatbelt. And, even though seat belt laws are not specifically Ralph Nader's fault, I hold him responsible for having the seat belts, themselves, placed in vehicles. So, essentially, I should despise Ralph. Also, read this to educate yourself about voter turnout in 2000. It appears that about 67% of registered voters actually showed up to vote, and only about 50% of the voting age population is even registered to vote. So, for those who need help with remedial multiplication of percentages, that means that only 33.5% of the people in this country who could vote actually did. (Technically speaking, the percentages will be a little different since a small part of the voting age population is not eligible to vote. Dollars to donuts says that the end result is within +-2 percent.)

Now, to make this even more insane and to stretch those little butter brains thin, let's now apply the yimmer yammering about political bases and vacillating voters. We'll use the John Q. Wilson model to be conservative. Mainly, eighty percent, of that 33.5% who voted, are evenly split between the Republican and Democrat party. This leaves the fabled 20% to decide an election. That's twenty percent of thirty three point five percent. Do I need to calculate that for you? I think I do. Six point seven percent of the voting age population decided the 2000 election if you buy the jibber jabber about political bases. How many people is that? 13,789,605.. Somewhere under 14 million people decided "that election three years ago." I blame it on seat belts.

Oh, I made some of this stuff up.

[To clarify, it actually shows on the link I gave that 51% of the VAP showed up to vote, not 33.5%. Seventy-six percent of the VAP was registered in 2000 and 67.5% of that 76% showed up to vote. (.675 x .76) = .513 ~ 51% Are we clear, now?]

Since someone stole my newspapers today, I have nothing better to do than gloat about old shit (TV is too damned ephemeral to compel prose of the caliber that I vomit out). How about those geniuses on the internet who just know that Rudy Giuliani will replace Dick Cheney as Vice President on the Republican ticket? Is that dead yet? I will bet $100 that Rudolph Giuliani will not be George Bush's Vice Presidential candidate this year. In case you are sort of dumb, let me explain how Rudolph Giuliani has cross dressed and has cheated on his wife. Let me also explain how he has gay friends whom he stayed with during his divorce. I think Boy Imbecile can tolerate the gay daughter of Cheney ("Dumb kids, what can you do?"), but Giuliani's level of gay friendliness does not mix with the Rove-vision. Though, it would be odd if they decided to dump Cheney and blame everything (? what is "everything"?!?!!?!) on him.