At 28-years-old, it's probably too late to pick up all of the technical know-how I would need to work for a company like Pixar. I'll be damned, however, if I wouldn't want to work at their office.

Here's a lesson in foreign relations: It's only a human rights violation if you aren't on our side. Case in point: Uzbekistan.

Uzbekistan is a great entry point into Afghanistan (map), so in order to land jets there and use their airspace, we fund them and overlook the whole no free elections thing.

Oh, and there's that little bit about boiling prisoners to death. No biggie.

After all, it's important to note that the Uzbekies are torturing muslim dissidents. I guess that's okay, since we're detaining a few of our own, right?

I'm not sure if I should trust a Pakistani news site to tell me that the US plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp, but hell, I don't trust most American news sites. The possibility of the Bush Administration building an execution chamber there, however, would not be surprising. He hasn't been Texas governor for a while, and he's no doubt itching to flip the switch.

Gotta catch up on these science articles:

SCIENCE ARTICLE #2:
Redefining the kilogram

SCIENCE ARTICLE #3:
Energy-efficient light-wave alchemy

SCIENCE ARTICLE #4:
Chimps belong in human genus (disussed in a previous post)

I got this from Tom Tomorrow first, but it's worth repeating.

I've said before that Bill O'Reilly isn't as bad as many of us on the left claim. He still leans pretty far to the right, but he's espouses far more leniency on many freedom issues -- gay rights, for example -- and sucks far less of the Bush administration's cock than those fucks on MSNBC.

And now even Bill O'Reilly is saying that not finding any weapons of mass destruction is pretty bad for Bush:

The bad news for President Bush comes on the weapons of mass destruction front. CIA chief, George Tenet, wants a panel to investigate whether U.S. intelligence was faulty on that issues vis-a-vis Iraq. A panel? Shouldn't tenet know what the heck is true and what isn't?

What's going on? The U.S. has captured enough scientists like Dr. Germ and Ms. Anthrax, or whomever, to get a picture of what Saddam Hussein had or didn't have. The Bush administration needs to begin explaining the situation. "Talking Points" understands time is needed, but the right wing spin that Saddam was a deadly weapon himself isn't going to cut it here.

The American people must have honest, accurate intelligence in a world this dangerous. This is a vital issue that we hope will be candidly addressed by the President and soon.

When even Bill O'Reilly is talking like this, one can only hope that the tide of opinion will change, and people will not sit idly by as our administration blitzkreigs across the Middle East. (You know they're after Iran now, right?)

Reed ranked the Dean campaign ahead of the pack in its sophisticated adoption of Internet communications tools, including an internal blog.

As someone who knows Iraq, speaks Arabic, and spent seven years in the Middle East, if the Iraqis believe rightly or wrongly that we come only for oil and occupation, that will begin a long bloody war of attrition....

So I dig the speech Chris Hedges gave. There's no disinformation. It places the Iraqi conflict in a historical perspective and surmises that it will only lead to more violent reactions, a very likely danger. However, I have to concede that it wasn't exactly an appropriate speech for a commencement ceremony. I mean, come on. A commencement speech is supposed to be, "The world is going to present unexpected challenges, but now that you are college graduates, stay strong, for you now posess the tools to rise up to those challenges and overcome them." Graduation is an uplifting experience. The last thing I want to hear at my graduation is, "Iraq was a cesspool for the British when they occupied it in 1917; it will be a cesspool for us as well," even if I do agree with it.

Does the Congo have oil? Maybe then we could help them.

As soon as I get a chance to, I'm adding this to "Bored?": Spinsanity - Countering rhetoric with reason. Instead of bashing conservatives or bashing liberals, this blog bashes anyone who gets it wrong, no matter what side of the aisle he or she is on.

Science versus religion. Usually, they butt heads. Galileo said Earth rotated around the Sun, not vice versa. That claim sure pissed off the Church. Ultimately, the Church had to own up to the truth, and they rightly did so -- in 1981. However, the fight between Galileo and the Church was not over science versus The Bible; instead, it was a fight between Copernican astronomy and Aristotelean astronomy, an argument over what is.

When the arguement concerns what was or will be, or when The Bible itself is challenged, the arguments reach their typical impasse. Recently, scientists have discovered (confirming past hypotheses) that chimps share 99.4% of their genetics with humans. Now, there is a movement to put chimps in the same genus as humans, "homo." (Quit giggling.) This finding, though telling, cannot truly prove that humans and chimps are evolutionarily linked. Nothing but a time machine or God could actually prove where we came from. Therefore, if you're life is based on the The Bible as infallible truth, this finding proves nothing.

Emperical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can always be punctured by whoever wants to puncture it. A good example is the struggle between those who believe and those who disbelieve in global warming.

Despite sharing nearly our entire genetic makeup with chimps, not to mention a passing resemblance, there's still no way to definitively prove we are evolutionarily related to them, despite the overwhelming evidence that we are super-smart chimps as opposed to having been made by God (Genesis 1:26).

Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius in his defense: "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." Thus it should be with all of science.

Finally, I'll leave you with some irony: Gregor Mendel, whose research helped define the the science of genetics, was a monk.

This George Bush resume needs a companion. Is there someone -- anyone -- out there who can do the same with Clinton? I'd like to see them side by side. Maybe I'll e-mail Ann Coulter.

I'm currently enrolled in a Biology class since my school wouldn't transfer my science credits from my Alma Mater because I took Geology (i.e., Rocks for Jocks). ILIA doesn't offer Geology.

I'm actually not complaining. So far, I've taken a Physics course that mainly focused on the history of Physics and a Chemistry course that mainly focused on the various environmental disasters that could end the world. Without these courses, I wouldn't have my current opinion about hydrogen energy (it could save our country from itself).

My biology teacher is requiring the students to collect 10 science-y articles to turn in at the end of the quarter. Since most of what I do here it point out articles, how efficient is it to do my homework and fill my blog at the same time? After I've posted 10 articles over the course of the next few weeks, I'll write a summary. So dig it:

SCIENCE ARTICLE #1:
Scientists create robot that runs on a rat brain

I haven't started the book Alex loaned me yet for the big Read-Off. I'm almost done with A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius which started out brilliantly but is now, towards the end, a steaming pile of pretentious, unfocused vomit.

But speaking of Alex, perhaps the one or two of you who read this blog remember recently when I agreed with him that liberals can't take a joke, that one of the reasons liberalism can't compete with the din of conservative rhetoric is because they aren't putting up a strong front and instead are looking whiney.

When Michael Graham said on MSNBC, "I wanted to bludgeon [Hillary Clinton] with a tire iron", my favorite blogger Atrios decided to take him to task. My favorite line from Atrios' letter: "If Susan Sarandon had suggested that Tom DeLay should be beaten with a tire iron, there would be howls of outrage on your side."

If given the opportunity, would Michael Graham actually beat Hillary Clinton with a tire iron? Can't say -- I don't know the man. But I guess it was a joke, right?

I have to also argue that its not enirely the Democrats fault that they look that way. Just like the conservative mantra that chastises the "liberal media" made it all true, conservatives are much more adept at broadcasting any action by a Democrat as morally reprehensible. When the world is a black and white issue, like it is to conservatives, its easier for all of them to yell the same thing.

Look at the Texas Democrats -- their stunt worked, by the way -- they took a bold stand to kill a bill that is the exact kind of crap Republicans pull all the time -- the districting of Texas is none of Tom DeLay's business. The Republicans even made playing cards like were made of wanted Iraqis. So what's more reprehensible, using parlimentary procedure to kill a bill that is unfair to Texans, or to compare democratically elected officials to wanted military enemies?

Oh, but I guess I can't take a joke, right? Look who wins -- the conservatives. What the Texas Democrats did was right. But by making playing cards and parading men in Chicken suits, the Democrats are now made to look ridiculous, and when they try to explain the finer points of the bill and be forthright about their opposition to the bill, the Republicans can say, How dare you hold up the legislature? You're a terrorist!

It's not that Democrats can't take a joke. It's just that the Republicans haven't told one yet.

Before Clear Channel and Fox can rule the airwaves and even Joe Scarborough can't complain about a liberal media, tell the FCC that you won't stand for lifting limitations on airwave ownership.

Screw the anticounterfitting measures in the new $20 bills. What I like is that our money is looking more and more like pre-Euro European money, with large faces, different colors, sleeker design choices -- like, say, the franc, ha-ha-ha. Since the $20 is the most counterfitted bill, it makes sense to start with that.

However, why don't they change the one-dollar bill? The US is simply not a big fan of coins, including myself. I throw all of my change (sans the quarters, which I save for laundry) into a big beer stein that I affectionately refer to as my Powerbook* fund. And the jingle-lingle-ling of change in my pocket makes me think of unfortunately infectious one-hit wonders.

So why a no new one? My theory -- soft drink machines. Already machines that could read all bills had to be changed. If the one-dollar bill was changed, nearly every soft-drink machine in America would need to be retrofitted.

Don't you see, though? Change the one-dollar bill, and the companies that make soft drink machines will have to make new bill readers, and the drink bottlers will have to buy the new bill readers and pay the technicians to install them. Then, they'll have to raise the price of soft drinks. Because we like (read "are addicted to") our soft drinks -- I drink at least one fizzy, canned, caramel-colored Coca-Cola product a day -- we begrudingly pay it, but at least that one industry got some new jobs and new money fed into it.

I beg the US Mint -- save our economy and the jobs of soft drink machine manufacturers and technicians -- change the one-dollar bill.

(Okay, this entry wasn't as funny as I thought it would be.)

*I saw a 17" Powerbook up close finally yesterday. It's not the lunch tray I thought it would look like. It's actually not to unreasonable to carry. Though, I'm still waiting on an updated 15".

The investigation into the Fall 2001 Anthrax mailings will see the FBI drain a pond. Strange.

So, let me get this straight. The link between bin Laden and Saddam was decided in a court of law and not actually proven? (Courtesy of This Modern World.)

Told you the Bush tax cut plan is untimely.

Get your Nevada's Most Wanted playing cards today!

Ladies and gentleman, the following is written by Alex Monical. It in no way reflects the opinion of I, Arlo Bryan Guthrie. It is presented as part of the Arlo/Alex Read-Off that commences this Saturday.

I strongly believe a leftist slant exists in the mainstream media.



By mainstream media I mean NBC, CBS, ABC, and most, if not all, of the major newspapers in the country. I know that there are certain conservative news outlets like the Fox News Channel. However, that is but one cable news network in a vast sea of leftist leaning news sources.



I'm not interested in listing every little petty example of when Brokaw or Jennings or Rather might have been more objectionable to a conservative viewpoint than to a liberal viewpoint. That type of thing doesn't interest anyone and it won't change anyone's mind.



The one and only instance I will site before reading Arlo's book is the case of Bernard Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg was an Emmy award winning CBS journalist and producer of 48 Hours when he was fired by CBS over an editorial piece he wrote about how he thought mainstream media had become too biased.



Goldberg wasn't pointing a conspiratorial finger at CBS or Dan Rather; he simply voiced his opinion in a small editorial column of, I believe the New York Times and for this, he was let go after something like TWENTY YEARS with the network.



I'd like to add that Mr. Goldberg is card carrying Democrat; this isn't like when Rush spends a segment on his show talking about the liberal tilt in the press.



Goldberg's obvious argument is that if there is no lean to the left in the news, why would a small editorial piece on the subject cause such a stir? Goldberg was a highly acclaimed and respected member of the broadcast community and a prominent figure of CBS journalism. After his piece came out he was outcast, losing most of his friends at the network, including Dan
Rather. As Goldberg's downward spiral continued within the walls of CBS News, a fellow correspondent, one which Goldberg didn't name, came to him suggesting that in order to keep his job he would need to apologize for his 'treason.' The unnamed person privately concurred that there was a liberal bias but if Goldberg went public with the conversation, the admission would be denied.



I believe the book Arlo is having me read addresses the issue of Bernard Goldberg and the circumstances with which he was let go. I'm interested to read the author's viewpoint on what, to me, is obvious favoritism.

Very soon, I will be redesigning this page to reflect the Read Off. Actually, I'm looking for a zippier name for the Read Off, and I'm open to suggestions. Please keep in mind that, as David Letterman always about Stupid Pet Tricks, "This is merely an exhibition. It is not a competition. Please, no wagering." And that means you, Bill Bennett.

Alex has agreed to read What Liberal Media? and plans to write a pre-read missive about liberal bias in the media. Stay tuned...

It started with an e-mail from my conservative friend Alex, who I mentioned in yesterday:

I don't know if this is the type of book you'd be into but this is what I was talking about at the Nisei (sic) on Friday night...

Nissei is a local pub where the Hi-Volters hang out after Calgony Springs, and the book Alex was discussing is Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First.

Despite Alex's slightly passive-aggressive tone, I know he has strong convictions. Alex wants me to read this book, I just know it.

As a true "lefty," I respect any American's Constitutional right to believe and say whatever they want. I also believe we should get along, and the only way to do that is to understand the context that frames certain beliefs or life experiences. Therefore, ladies and gentleman, I am prepared to take that fall for you. Read on...

To Alex, my conservative friend (and I mean that -- "friend"):

Yes, I'll read the book. You have to make a deal with me, though. Right here, on the public forum that is my blog, I am throwing down the guantlet.

From the descriptions and the reader reviews, I think I know in what direction the book you are recommending goes. In order to read this book with an open mind, however, I have to put my preconceptions aside. The following began as a stream of consciousness rant that I've edited slightly.

Any political ideology in the extreme is bad, and Communism is very bad. Sharing for the good of the country is a positive ideal -- it worked in the United States during the Depression and World War II. Communism, however, takes it to the extreme, basically stating, "Share or we'll kill you." Communism is the extreme of liberalism, as I'm sure you know.

The other end of the spectrum is Fascism -- bolstering the military, rewarding the privileged, and worsening the lives of the needy and those the regime considers unworthy of fair treatment, a judgement often governed by religious ideals. Fascism is the extreme of conservativism, as I'm also sure you know.

Both Fascism and Communism have one thing in common -- political infidels are imprisoned, even tortured and killed. From the Amazon.com description of the book you just recommended to me:

"One example tells of Katie Couric's visit to Cuba in 1992. Upon her return, according to Charen, Couric raved about Cuba's 'terrific health-care system,' but uttered not a word about the men and women detained in Cuban prisons."

The author is right. Cuba still has some serious human rights issues to deal with. On the other hand...

-- continue to humor me, no matter how painful it might be --

...I'm of the opinion that Conservatives focus too much on extra-national military affairs and lose focus on those who need help in the United States. Why do the Republicans feel that the suffering, impoverished people of Iraq deserve free elections and universal healthcare when the suffering, impoverished people in their own backyard are told to suck it up and get a job? (That's not rhetorical -- I'd like to know the answer.)

It's not a question of selfishness on my part; it's a question of priorities. Reagan paid too much attention to corporations (i.e., the elite) and the Cold War, and poor and working families suffered. Bush is also paying too much attention to corporate interests and the obfuscating "War on Terrorism" to make lives better for Americans.

Gee -- bolstering the military, rewarding the priviledged, and worsening the lives of the needy (not to mention a leader who usurped the White House under dubious circumstances). Sounds frightenly similar to Fascism, does it not?

Sure, that's an extreme leap of logic, and not one I necessarily believe, but I only do it to make a point. We should hold ourselves to the same standards we hold other nations -- no weapons of mass destruction, no unfair treatment of its citizens. Hell, the government isn't even living up to its own standards -- what happened to innocent until proven guilty, Mr. Ashcroft?

I also believe that the many problems of the Cold War were exacerbated by Conservatives. McCarthyism. The arms race. Religion versus Marxism. Hell, a great deal of the trouble we're in right now with the threat of terrorism was largely influenced by conservatives' attempts to fight Communism, like the rise to power of the Taliban in Afghanistan, or providing weapons to the Iraqis to fight the Iranians (we're just as guilty as the French, you know).

I doubt that this book will sway me into believing that Liberal choices towards the Cold War were unpatriotic. As I see it, there is a huge difference between Patriotism (belief in one's own country and the people that inhabit it) and Nationalism (belief that our country is better than your country). Nearly every group that Conservative administrations have supported in the interest of US nationalism, like those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Nicaragua) have come to bite us in the ass. If that amount of money and energy was committed to feeding, medicating, and educating Americans instead of arming radical fascists, we wouldn't need to spread the message of Democracy with tanks; instead, we'd simply set the example. THAT is why I'm a liberal.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the author of Useful Idiots can rightly criticize Katie Couric for not pointing out Cuba's human rights violations, but it sounds like she wants to deny my right to question the choices made by our own sitting government. If Democrats, liberals, and people like me are to be admonished by authors like Mrs. Charen, Attorney General Ashcroft, or our own President for speaking out against our government for serving its own interests and not serving its people, then we're one step closer to fascism ourselves.

Rant completed. I've cleared my head of the reasons why I would never read this book. Here comes the gauntlet:

You feel strongly enough about this book to have made a special effort to email me about it. After all, I disagree with a lot of the rhetoric of extreme liberalism -- I don't blame America for 9/11 (though I do think it is arrogant for us not to take a look at what we did wrong). I think cutting the dividend tax is a great idea -- it'll help revalue the stock market, which will bolster companies (not just the executives), investments, and retirement plans. I think health care should remain a private industry because private industry fosters innovation (though no one should be denied access to adequate health care). Furthermore, people like you, our bald bedroom musician friend, and your short Italian castmate were able to show me that a lot of my reasons for opposing the war in Iraq were faulty. (It actually helped me solidify a much stronger arguement in opposition to the war. Sorry.)

Bascially, I'm open to new ideas; if I wasn't, I wouldn't be a liberal. Therefore, I'll make a deal with you:

I'll agree to read this book if you agree to read any one of the following two books:

What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News by Eric Alterman

or

Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America by Arianna Huffington

You pick the book and I'll supply it. If you'd like to write a rant about your preconceptions before reading it, I'll gladly post it here. When we've each read each other's book, we will then have the opportunity to respond to what we've read, and I will again offer up this website as the platform.

The choice is yours. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Arlo ;->

Tune in tomorrow...

Now that Iraq is liberated, I feel much safer.

"A specially trained Defense Department team, dispatched after a month of official indecision to survey a major Iraqi radioactive waste repository, today found the site heavily looted and said it was impossible to tell whether nuclear materials were missing."

Yep. Thanks for keeping me safe, U.S. military.

Canada is looking better and better every day. "Civil marriage should adapt to contemporary notions of marriage as an institution in a society which recognizes the rights of homosexual persons to non-discriminatory treatment.”

Read this excellent article from The American Prospect about how the Republican party's choice to hold their 2004 convention in New York in September to capitalize on 9/11 is far more offensive than anything Rick Santorum said. It also makes some good points about how the Democrats should respond -- not demand apologies but demand action.

My ultra-conservative, Rush-Limbaugh-deifying friend Alex made an interesting point to me a few weeks ago. Why is it that liberals can't take a joke? Conservatives always weather insults and jokes fine, but when a joke is made about, say, gays or blacks, liberals are up in arms. My response to him was, "It's easier to write off a joke when you see the world as black-and-white," a response I don't think he appreciated.

However, he does have a point, a point similar to the above quoted article. Liberals do tend to come off as whiney, and defending the liberties of the downtrodden and the classes ignored by über-capitalism does involve a lot of complaining.

Furthermore, though defamation of gays and blacks is inconsiderate, unfair, and borne of centuries-old dogma and ideology, if someone in America should be free to be gay, proud, and vocal about it, then someone else is just as free to be homophobic, proud, and vocal about it. A good example is when GLAAD went after Eminem -- he has free speech rights just like you, and for a group that advocates freedom for gays to try and deny Eminem's own freedom is the epitome of hypocrisy.

As vile as what Rick Santorum said, he has a right to say it. Instead of demanding an apology, Democrats should take the high road and demonstrate why Rick Santorum is wrong, not whine about not having an apology. If the Republicans want to use 9/11 to bolster their campaign, they can. Democrats shouldn't whine about it -- instead, they should set an example. Complain and be angry, sure, but words and actions are always two different things.

This Christian Science Monitor editorial describes last weekend's Democratic debate like so:

The "debate's" most interesting talk was saved for Iraq, where all candidates seemed to have a thoughtful position that they were happy to discuss. All of which means the real winner from Saturday's debate was ... the president.

...which makes no sense. Just because Bush did his victory lap on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln don't mean moosedick. It'd be nice if the author explained that reasoning.

Here's what I thought of the debate, going from stage right to stage left, with a focus not as much on who said what but who can beat King George in 2004:

• Congressman Dennis Kucinich - "Take the profit out of health care" is not a good battle cry, especially for a plan that would probably require an increase in taxes and coming from a man that was ousted as Mayor of Cleveland when the city went bankrupt. On the other hand,...

• Congressman Richard Gephardt is a pussy, and his health care plan, as John Edwards rightly pointed out, rewards corporations for giving their employees health care, something most are already doing. My feeling on health care is closer to what Kucinich is saying, but we need baby steps, like Howard Dean's goal to cover children and the elderly.

• Reverend Al Sharpton is not even an issue. His big campaign issue to make elections the domain of the federal government and not the states, despite what happened in Florida in 2000, is a counterproductive idea. Bob Graham responded to Sharpton, saying he'd propose federal level guidelines but still leave running elections up to states. However, Sharpton's focus on voting improprieties is right on -- what Sharpton will do is register a lot of African Americans to vote, and as long as their votes are actually counted, Sharpton's hard work could make a huge difference in this election.

• Senator Joseph Lieberman - Gore lost in 2000 for three reasons: 1. The Supreme Court declared Bush the winner before the voter fraud that ran rampant in Florida could be properly investigated. 2. Ralph Nader took a lot of left-wing support from Gore. (Please don't vote for a third party at the national level until they sufficiently saturate regional positions and/or the United States institutes condorcet voting. I'm all for voting, for example, Green party for Alderman.) Most importantly, 3. Gore tried too hard to distance himself from Clinton, and he tried to do that by chosing Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman is like a Republican who couldn't join the party because he's Jewish, and I'll abstain from voting for President if it's between him and King George.

• Former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun I like enough, but let's face it -- she doesn't stand a chance. I did like her joke that the 2000 election was decided by the black vote -- Clarence Thomas's. Having two black candidates will hopefully, at the very least, bring some attention to the election in the African American community.

• Former Vermont governor Howard Dean is My Boy, you all know that. Does he have a chance at winning the nomination? I hate to say it, but no. He's yelling a little too loudly at other Democratic candidates, which I'm sure is pissing off plenty of people in the party. Yes, Dean and John Kerry are neck-in-neck in New Hampshire, but that's to be expected -- one's from Vermont, the other's from Massachusettes. Dean has executive experience and a good record, and he's obviously fired up. He's short on foreign relations experience, however, his biggest disability. However, Dean's charisma and firm stance on issues I think would really make Bush look like a fool in the debates. After all, Dean is not a wuss like Dukakis, another former New England governor who once lost to a Bush.

• Senator John Edwards was a personal injury attorney which will get him raked over the coals by the Republicans. Other than that, I really like the guy. With a little more experience, I'd definitely consider him to take the title of My Boy should Dean drop out.

• Senator Bob Graham co-authored the Patriot Act. Bad, sure, but we have to remember that the Patriot Act is only so bad in the hands of John Ashcroft. The Patriot Act also has a clause making it only a temporary measure. If it were to become permanent, then we'd have a problem. Graham, however, does have a good foreign-policy history and -- here's the clincher -- he's from Florida. That alone could cause a huge stir for the Republicans, and since I want anyone OTHER than Bush (or Lieberman) in the White House, Graham is fine by me.

• Senator John Kerry has rolled over and played dead for the President just like Gephardt, Daschle, and most other Democrats in congress right now. And though not quite as boring as Gore can be when he's not on Saturday Night Live, Kerry's pretty boring. He is, however, a veteran, which would benefit him in the election.

In November 2004, the Democrats need a candidate who can stand in such opposition to Bush that it makes the President look like the greedy capitalist warmonger that he is. I don't necessarily think we need a candidate that makes the country feel safe; instead, we need a candidate that doesn't exaggerate the threat for personal gain.

On the basis of how electable they are and how closely they relate to my feelings on the issues and their ability to quell my outrage overload, I rank the Democratic candidates as such:

1. Dean
2. Edwards
3. Graham
4. Kerry
5. Kucinich
6. Mosely Braun
7. Gephardt
8. Sharpton
9. Lieberman

Remember the Afghan Mujahideen? We supported them so they could fight our enemy, the Red Menace of USSR. The Afghan Mujahideen turned into the Taliban, and we know what they did.

Guess who just signed a deal with the Iraqi People's Mujahideen, a Hussein-supported group that combats Iranian groups, a group that "supported the takeover of the American embassy in Tehran in 1979" and were labeled a terrorist organization by the US in 1997? Yeah, one guess. Sure, they're cooperating now....

Rapid fire Friday:

George Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier certainly was ironic -- ironic because when he went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard.

Howard Dean may not have a lot of name recognition, but if the all important New Hampshire primary happened today, he and John Kerry would be tied. Debate this weekend. Howard Dean is the dark horse that will make Kerry accountable.

There's an article in Rolling Stone about Pro Tools, the most widely used audio production software. A Slashdot contributor makes an interesting observation: "Why aren't the benefits of lower production costs being passed on to the consumer?" Good point.

By now, Donald Rumsfeld's history with Iraq is legendary. How about Donald Rumsfeld's history with North Korea?

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it's surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. What's even more surprising about Rumsfeld's silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.

And finally, the publishers of Ann Coulter's new book Treason have sent a press release-y looking thing (I can't find a link -- it was on MSNBC last night) asking something like Which would Bill Clinton or you or anybody rather sleep with -- Hillary Clinton (who has her own book coming out) or Ann Coulter? I'd like to answer that question, and my answer is Ann Coulter. In Dan Savage's fantastic book Skipping Towards Gomorrah, he refers to a T-shirt he saw during a Gay Pride parade that read, "If I wanted to hear what you had to say, I'd take my dick out of your mouth." That's why I choose Ann Coulter.

King George? Maybe it should be Queen George.

Of course, you could probably edit together video of any president, Republican or Democrat, contradicting themselves. However, when lives are at stake and the duplicity is this dangerous, this segment from the almost always brilliant The Daily Show is all too disturbing...and funny.

By the way, like you really care, I'm wearing my first new pair of glasses in five years. Thus, it's the first time in five years that I've noticed the frames of the glasses, and therefore, I have a headache.