Friday, June 30, 2006

Today's Cartoon: U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Military Tribunals for Guantanamo Detainees

It must be really frustrating for the Bush Administration to have this huge detention center, loaded with captives; and yet, not be able to PROVE the guilt of any single one of them through the American judicial system. However, a "military tribunal" could have provided the government with ALL the necessary tools that they needed to ensure the "guilt" of the accused.

In particular, the use of "secret evidence", which could have been introduced to the court without the knowledge of the defendant, would have helped guarantee the prosecution a “guilty” verdict every single time. This is essential, because the more convictions the Bush Administration can get, the more "proof" they will have that their "Global War on Terrorism" is actually working, right? ;)

Another advantage that America's military tribunals have over the regular judicial system is the fact that defendants do not even have to be in attendance for their own trial. This means that the whole proceedings could actually be conducted in total secrecy.

Basically, it doesn't matter "how" the Bush Administration get the convictions (just so long as they get them) because they already know that the mainstream media will not bother to dig pass the headlines.

The whole thing almost seemed too perfect… which is what the U.S. Supreme court thought as well; when they ruled that such trials were indeed “illegal” because they violated military law and the Geneva Convention.

You know, at this point I’m pretty sure that President Bush would probably just prefer “settling” the whole thing "out of court" anyway; by closing down Guantanamo sending the prisoners back to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and praying for them to re-offend.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Star Jones Fired from "The View"

Star Jones fell victim to the exact same thing that happen to Kathie Lee Gifford before she left "Regis and Kathie Lee"; she was a co-host who began to believe that she was a bigger "star" (insert "fat" joke here) than the guests on her show.

People tend to get upset when they believe that "celebrities" (such as Sean Penn, Bruce Willis or "The Dixie Chicks") are overstepping their "boundaries", and using the status they've earned in the entertainment industry to influence or manipulate people (depending on how you see it) outside of their profession. I guess the idea is that "we" did not make stars like George Clooney or Bono "famous" for their political views, but rather for their acting, singing and/or how attractive they are (eh, ladies?). So when they decide to use the fame that the public believes that they have given them, to somehow tell US what to do (or who to vote for), some people tend to get quite offended by that; perhaps because they believe that celebrities are supposed to work for "us" and not the other way around.

The misappropriation of fame is not a one way concept that applies solely to "celebrities" who try to use their status to achieve recognition in other fields. It also applies to those who have achieved recognition in other fields, who then attempt to use their status to become celebrities, which brings me back to Star Jones...

Before co-hosting "The View", Star Jones was a former lawyer and prosecutor who gained recognition as a legal correspondent and analyst on TV. Her job was simple; report on what she knew (the law) and give her opinion when asked for it. It was through this "arrangement" that the public came to know and accept her. While on "The View", nobody demanded anymore of Star Jones than what she was already providing to the public. Yet, somehow she determined that we simply could not get enough of her. So, she went from being a "celebrity news reporter" to a "TV Personality", which is basically just another way of saying "Attention Wh*re".

Basically, Star Jones decided that she wanted to be MORE famous than the public was willing to allow her to be. If she was "celebrity" worthy, the public would have demanded it... and not Star Jones.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Rush Limbaugh Detained for Carrying Viagra without Prescription

So, it appears that controversial right-wing radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh may be given a "stiff" fine in accordance with Florida's "hard" penal code, for having a bottle of Viagra in his luggage without a prescription.

Having an erectile dysfunction must be pretty hard (heh heh!) to begin with; but it must be even worse for someone who plans to go on vacation to the "mongering" capital of the Caribbean.

From what I've heard about the Dominican Republic, it seems that Viagra is as much a recommendation for travelers as an inoculation against "yellow fever" is for someone going to Mexico. In fact, I'm pretty sure that at the airport there's probably a sign like the ones you see at the amusement park; except, instead of saying "You must be this TALL to ride"... well, you get the idea :)

Now I'm not going to make fun of Rush Limbaugh for having an erectile dysfunction, but I will for him getting busted with the unprescribed bottle of Viagra in his luggage. I mean; if he's was on "safari" in the Dominican Republic, then would it have killed him to finish the bottle? Well... maybe, but at least it would have saved him the embarrassment of trying to explain his "little problem" to the customs agent at the airport; and then have the story leaked to the media.

I guess that's one of the downsides of being a "conservative" ;)

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Warren Buffett Donates $31 Billion to Bill Gate's Charity

These billionaires who were once SO competitive when it came to earning their money, now seem every bit as such when it comes to giving it away. Though, I still say there is some sort of sinister catch to all of this "generosity". With Warren Buffett's huge donation of $31 billion to the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation", Bill Gates is now one step closer to ruling the planet.

I guess when you have all the money in the world, the next thing to do is transform that immense wealth into "influence". Through the work of his charitable organization, Bill Gates could achieve "saint-like" status, which could then easily be translated into "political capital" (if he so desired). I mean, who wouldn't vote for the guy that cured "AIDS", or paid for every child in America's education?

With over $60 billion dollars now at his disposal, let's just hope that Bill Gates' idea for curing "AIDS" doesn't somehow involve turning us all into "Microsoft cyborgs", so that the "anti-virus can come in the form of a CD-ROM (which would ONLY be available for the PC) ;)

Monday, June 26, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Hamas Militants Tunnel into Israel / Nicole Kidman's Wedding

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian territory is NEVER going to end until one side finally decides that they are NOT going to retaliate, no matter what. Of course, this is way easier said than done, which is perhaps what each side actually counts on the other believing, when they decide to launch an attack.

Both sides seem to rely upon the fact that each of their attacks will provoke an almost immediate response, which in their mind not only provides them with an opportunity to retaliate (against the "retaliation"), but it also then justifies their initial attack as well. It's like in boxing, where you have fighters that are willing to take a hit in order to give a (harder) hit; both the Israelis and the Palestinians seem willing to provoke a response from the each other so that they can then be given the "moral authority" to launch an even larger attack in response to that. Some people call this a "circle" of violence, but I see this more as a "downward spiral".

However, I believe I have the solution to not only this conflict, but to ALL conflicts in the world. Desperate times call for desperate measures, which I why propose that the United Nations find a country that it's citizens no longer want to be in (like Mexico), immediately relocate its population throughout the rest of the world and then designate that vacated nation as a permanent "war zone"; where (when diplomacy fails) ALL of the disputes of the world are settled through military means.

Think about it, there would be no more civilian casualties because the only people who would be in that country would be those who WANTED to be in that country; and those who would want to be in that country would be those who wanted to fight. There would only be one "war" at a time, so if more than two countries were in dispute and wanted to settle it on the battlefield, they would have to wait until the Israelis and the Palestinians had FINALLY settled their differences and gone back home... sometime around the year 2500.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Today's Cartoon: The U.S. Senate Rejects Democrat's Proposal For Iraq

I think the main problem with Iraq is that there is no consensus among Democrats and Republicans as to what the "mission" actually is.

Even when George W. Bush landed on that aircraft carrier back in 2003 and declared victory in front of a banner which read "mission accomplished", people didn't know for certain which "mission" he was referring to. Was he talking about the discovery of those elusive WMDs, or did he mean the defeat of "Al Qaeda"? Was it the overthrow of Saddam Hussein or was he referring to the introduction of "democracy" to the region? I guess it didn't really matter what the reasons for "celebrating" were at the time; they were every bit of confusing as the reasons for starting the war were to begin with. Mainly because they didn't even match-up.

Fast forward three years and the situation in "Post-war" Iraq is even worse now than it was when the U.S. has just "won". The casualty rate is increasing, morale is low (at least on the home front) and partisan "wordsmiths" continue to squabble over whether "sectarian violence" or "civil war" is the more appropriate term. For ALL that the world knows now about the "faulty intelligence" leading up to the invasion, if the United States was SO "wrong" for going into Iraq in the first place, then how could they possible be SO "right" in staying there?

Using "9/11" and the "War on Terror" as the justification for the war in Iraq is kinda’ like saying that the U.S. was invited to a "Frat party", but got the address wrong and showed up at some old guy's house instead. But rather than leave and walk down the block two houses, to the party; they just insisted that the old man had beer, made him "bartender" and invited the "Frat party" to come over to his house instead. And even when they realized that there was no beer in the house, it was more than made up for by the in-ground swimming pool in the back yard.

I think the only way that the rest of the world would even consider getting involved with Iraq now, is if the United States was NOT calling the shots; because they can't seem to agree among themselves as to why they're even there to begin with. The term "Stay the course", has become like one of those graphics TV stations put up on the screen when something goes wrong, which read "We're experiencing technical difficulties, please stand by", except then they usually do something to make the show come back on the air; however, it's now been over 3 years, and the static has actually gotten steadily worse.

What Democrats and Republicans have to do is agree upon what the mission in Iraq actually is, before they can figure out a way to “accomplish” it. I know this can be tough, I mean the UN did call the invasion "illegal" for a reason.

The only way to learn from your mistakes is to admit that you've made them in the first place. Sometimes the truth hurts, which is why God invented "hangovers". "Hindsight" has always been 20/20, which makes it far more reliable than "foresight"; especially when it is seen through "beer goggles".

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Dan Rather to Leave CBS After 44 Years

This hasn't been a very good week for former "CBS Evening News" anchors. First Connie Chung loses her MSNBC show (and then apparently, her mind) and now Dan Rather is being forced to leave CBS after 44 years, as a result of the fallout over the his now infamous "Memogate" scandal.

Well, if "trouble comes in threes", then my guess would be that Walter Cronkite is probably going to get arrested for streaking the field; during the United State's next World Cup match against Ghana :)

Dan Rather seems to be the poster boy for an alleged “liberal media bias” in the American mainstream press; but, I think the problem with all these perceived "liberal/conservative" biases in the media is that as soon as one side believes that they see it, there is a conscious and deliberate attempt to create a stronger "counter-bias" in reaction to it. For example, it could be argued that the perceived "liberal bias" presented by "CBS News" gave rise to the more obvious "conservative counter-bias" of "FOX News"; just as the perception of a "conservative bias" in American talk radio gave rise to the more obvious "liberal counter-bias" presented by "Air America Radio". As a result, they become much more about “exposing” their opponents and championing their cause then they are about giving you the actual “news”.

People can question the "motives" of individuals like Michael Moore, Dan Rather and yes... even Ann Coulter until they are blue (or red) in the face; but regardless of whether or not you agree with their "politics" or even like them as a person, if what they are claiming actually holds merit then all the character bashing in the world is not going to change that.

For their critics, the best that they can do is hope that they can find (or create) some sort of technicality (ex. fake memos) which could then be used to derail the conversation and silence that individual; leaving the statements and the claims that they’ve made to continue to go unchallenged, until they are (hopefully) forgotten altogether.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Caputred American Soldiers Killed In Iraq / Carolina Hurricanes Win the Stanley Cup

As Canadians, we have been conditioned (through the media) to believe that our national identity somehow revolves around the sport of ice hockey... this is why I am SO glad that an American team has won the "Stanley Cup" for the 13th consecutive year.

You see, the United States does not treat the Hockey with the same sense of intense "patriotism" that our media tries to bestow upon us here in Canada. They treat the sport simply for what it is... a "game".

It's not that I am not a fan of the "sport" of hockey. I enjoy the game, as long as it remains treated as "a game". My problem lies in the manner in which I see the sport being used as a propaganda tool, to create a false "national identity", which is then used to promote false national endeavors.

Basically, had the Edmonton Oilers won game seven of the Stanley Cup finals, I fear that the Canadian press would have become too pre-occupied with overkill-coverage celebrating the Stanley Cup's "triumphant" return to Canada that they would have had little time left to cover more important current events. In this day and age, with the "War on Terror" raging on with absolutely no end in sight; as far as I'm concerned, the United States can continue to hold on to our cherished "Holy grail" of Hockey, if it means that that Canadians can remain focused of the issues that TRULY matter most to them.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Today's Cartoon: North Korea to Test-Fire Long Range Missile... at Connie Chung!

Ah, forget about North Korea's long-range missile test; if you really want to see a "provocative act" then get a load of Connie Chung's cringe-worthy rendition of "Thanks for the Memories".

Although I never actually watched "Weekends with Maury and Connie" had this been the way she ended EVERY show (instead of just her final one), I probably would have tuned in just for that :)

To say that her singing is "bad" is an understatement... Connie Chung's performance is SO awful that North Korea wants to fire a missile at her.

"Thanks for the Memories" could end up being more than just Connie's way of saying "good-bye" to her short lived cable show, which she co-hosted with her husband, Maury "you ARE the father!" Povich; it could also end up being the "swansong" for her career as a network news reporter. I mean, it's going to be awfully hard for her to go back to reporting "serious news", when every time she opens her mouth, people cover their ears out of fear that she's going to start singing again.

So, "Thanks for the memories" Connie Chung; my ears will never forgive you :)

Monday, June 19, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Alleged Al Qaeda Plot For NYC Subway System in 2003

I wonder how many of these "alleged/foiled" terror plots are going to be revealed to the American people leading up November's Congressional Elections in the United States; and what the "desired" reaction to them is SUPPOSED to be.

On the one hand, you have a reminder that "Al Qaeda" is "real" and still operational in the U.S. (well, at least up until 2003) and that this should "scare" people (perhaps even into voting "Republican" again). On the other hand, it is also a reminder to Americans that despite ALL of the invasive new security measures and laws which have been passed by the Bush Administration in an effort to secure their country; it would appear that the U.S. is just as vulnerable as ever. To me, what is most troubling about this story is the fact that the attack was not carried out, because it was "cancelled" by the terrorists rather than being "thwarted" by the authorities.

As far as "fear mongering" goes; the "official" story would need to undergo a couple of edits in order to become an effective (or "infective") tool, in time for the Congressional elections. The key for Republicans is to ensure that the focus remains solely on the "threat"; while for Democrats, it would be to shift attention towards the failed security measures, which allow for such threats to continue gathering on American soil (after 9/11 and on Bush's watch).

The way the government should go about "tidying" up this story is to mention that despite the fact that the plot was ultimately abandoned; the attack still wouldn't have taken place because they already knew EVERYTHING about it and had taken ALL the appropriate measures to prevent it from happening. Then (closer to the elections) reveal that it was actually due to their "unprecedented preparedness" that Al Qaeda got cold feet and called the whole thing off; thus creating the perfect balance of "fear" and "reassurance", necessary to get re-elected ;)

Friday, June 16, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Bill Gates to Retire from Microsoft in 2008

Call me cynical; but whatever his reasons for stepping down from Microsoft may ACTUALLY be, Bill Gates did NOT decide to retire just so he could spend their immense wealth on the poor and the needy. For him to quit and devote his time to philanthropy completely flies in the face of everything that I have come to learn about disgustingly rich people.

As an "entrepreneur", Bill Gates will most likely be remembered as one of the all-time greatest; but as a "business man" he's more Mike Tyson than Muhammad Ali.

For years, Gates was able to get by on his ruthless (and wealthy) "reputation"; but when push came to shove, if he's was not able to take out (or buy-out) his opponents early (Google, Apple), he would quickly lose his "competitive edge" and inevitably give up the fight altogether. For years, Gates was able to ensure Microsoft's success by basically buying out the competition in order to maintain a monopoly for his company. "Success" was therefore achieved primarily by default. This made any actual "business savvy" completely irrelevant because all he had to do was sign cheques to succeed.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Today's Cartoon: FEMA Loses $1.4 Billion in Katrina Aid to Bogus Claims

You may not know this, but the use of federal "relief funds" to pay for a "gender re-assignment sugery" was actually the original concept for the 70's TV show, "The Six Million Dollar Man"; until Lindsay Wagner was replaced with Lee Majors, and she became "The Bionic Woman" instead :)

The media has been throwing around terms like "bogus", "stolen" and "fraudulent" to describe FEMA's distribution of over one billion dollars worth of Hurricane Katrina aid to supposed "victims" of the storm. I believe that these labels are inaccurate. The use of these funds to purchase alcohol, erotic videos and gender re-assignment surgeries indicates to me that these individuals had more than just their "survival" in mind, but the survival of the entire species as well. You may call them "thieves", but I call them "heroes" ;)

Let's face it; in times of tragedy, beggars can't be choosers. When disaster hits and it's up to you to help re-populate the planet, chances are there's not going to be any Swedish Bikini models around to help you out (unless you're in Sweden); and even if there were, they're definitely not going to look like they do in the magazines, considering the circumstances.

People have given FEMA a lot of grief for being ill-prepared to handle the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; and while in some cases (food, shelter and re-construction) that arguement could be made, when it comes to the "preservation" of the human race, they've got it covered.

FEMA may not be a "dating service", but this doesn't mean that they don't recognize the problems that exist in a "relationships" between two complete strangers, forced together through catastrophe. When the future of humanity so desperately relies upon a small ragtag group of survivors "getting it on", it appears that FEMA has spared no expense giving these "patriots" all the assistance they need.

That being said, it must have really sucked to be the one who pulled the short straw and got the "sex-change" instead ;)

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Karl Rove Avoids Charges in CIA Leak Investigation

Well, I guess all those rumours of Karl Rove's indictment can now be put to rest. Wow, not since O.J. Simpson have so many people been so upset over somebody's "innocence" ;) Of course, it will be interesting to find out what information (if any) Rove gave to the grand jury where it may lead investigators ( Cheney? ).

Some people have commented that they believe that this whole "indictment saga" was actually some sort of elaborate "Rovian Deception" meant to discredit reporters and build distrust among their readers; as well as a way of flushing out individuals who are "leaking" to press by deliberately providing them with "misinformation". While I guess ANYTHING is possible, I still think that they are giving Karl Rove way more credit than he truly deserves for this one.

It seems that people have become so quick to reject ANYTHING that comes out of the Bush Administration these days that they are entirely willing to accept anything to the contrary, even if there is not a single shred of evidence to support it. There are more opportunists out there who are eager to take advantage of people's complete distrust of the U.S. government than just Karl Rove.

I think the most important "life lesson" I ever learned was on a farm. It was that you can't avoid bull-sh*t simply by staring at it and running the other way. You have to watch where you are going because if you not paying attention, chances are you'll just wind up in some other bull-sh*t :)

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Bush Administration Calls Guantanamo Prisoner Hangings "Good P.R. Move"

Do you suppose when the U.S. Government refers to the death of 3 detainees at Guantanamo Bay Prison as a "Good P.R. move", they meant "good" for the deceased or "good" for the prison itself? (Because either way, it sounds pretty bizarre to me)

Well, it now appears that the Bush Administration is SO certain as to the guilt of these "prisoners" that even when they hang themselves in their cells, they are still being accused of committing a terrorist act. Hmm... why does it always seem to me that the only time the Bush Administration ever knows for sure, is when there is no way for anyone else to know for certain?

Say what you will about the inmates at Guantanamo Bay prison, but until they are actually charged and convicted of a "crime", the worst that can (honestly) be said about them after 4 years of incarceration is that they are (still) "alleged terrorists", which by itself doesn't mean that they are.

Monday, June 12, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Jewish Groups in Germany Protest Iran at World Cup

You know, for "Soccer Hooligans" the Jewish people in Germany are extremely well organized and remarkably sober; but honestly, isn't this REALLY just jealousy directed at Iran for having a team in the World Cup, when Israel doesn't? I mean, I'm pretty sure that if Israel had a team in the tournament, the Jewish community would have absolutely no problem with Iran being there (or their president in attendance), as a potential opponent for them to defeat.

... And it would ONLY be if they lost, that they would go back to protesting again ;)

Look, I know that Iran's president has said a whole bunch of nasty things directed at Israel and the United States recently; but couldn't all of this just be just a really BIG misunderstanding? Maybe Ahmadinejad is just a HUGE sports fan who gets a little carried away whenever the World Cup comes around.

"Trash talk" is common in every sport and especially soccer (er... "football"); so maybe when he mentions his desire to wipe Israel "off the map", what he really meant to say is that he'd like to challenge them to a "friendly". Or when he warns the United States that his country is willing "cut the hand of any aggressor", what he really means to say is that if the U.S. team plays rough then his team will play even rougher (with knives) :)

Soccer fans are extremely passionate. Mix that "passion" with "patriotism" and alcohol and you have an explosive combination. Fortunately, Ahmadinejad is Muslim and doesn't drink, but that doesn't make him any less of a soccer fan. In fact, by saying the things he says without drinking first, arguably makes him the BIGGEST "soccer fan" in the world... Next to Tony Blair and George W. Bush ;)

Friday, June 09, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Killed in U.S. Airstrike

Let's see here, two 500 pound missiles dropped directly on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "safe house", reducing the house and everything around it (and in it) into smoldering rubble; and yet there was STILL enough of the guy left to for them to not only make a visual identification, but to take his portrait and present it in a gorgeous gold frame to the press, like some sort of "war trophy" to later be hung over the White House fireplace, next the portraits of Uday and Qusay.

Now that's what I call "precision bombing".

I guess that's why they used "laser guided" missiles instead of their regular ones. Otherwise Zarqawi would have probably been turned into toothpaste and ruined the whole "photo-op"... or is that "Psy-ops"? I always get those two mixed up ;)

Actually, with all the previous times that Zarqawi and been reported dead, I can't help but wonder if this is indeed, "The Final Chapter". You see, like cats most "bogeymen" (ex. "Jason Vorhees" and "Freddy Krueger") have around nine lives (or sequels). Currently, Zarqawi has only been defeated 4 times, which if you do the math means that we're still not out of the woods just yet; and even though the U.S. may actually has his body this time, that doesn't mean that Zarqawi is any less of a threat ("Michael Myers" anyone?).

I say; to be on the safe side, shoot the remains out into space. Let him be the future's problem, when he returns to Earth 5000 years from now... Around the time that the "War on Terror" FINALLY ends and everyone is looking for something to do ;)

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Today's Cartoon: US Senate Votes Down Same-Sex Marriage Ban

If the Republicans are using the "Same-Sex Marriage" debate as a way to shore up support from their "conservative base" ahead of November's Congressional Elections, then they may want to reconsider their strategy because even children don't like to drink THAT much kool-aid :)

Talk about taking your friends for granted.

If the Republicans REALLY cared about same-sex marriage, they would have already tried to incorporate the debate into other big issues. For starters, they would told you that Osama Bin Laden is a homosexual. They would have also accused the insurgents in Iraq of being children of gay parents and they would have put Rosie O'Donnell on the government's "No Fly List". The way I see it, right now "Islam" is probably more likely to receive a constitutional ban in the States than gay marriage, which to some on the "Christian Right" may be considered a fair trade ;)

Republicans have been relying upon the certainty of "faith" voters for years. Yet, regardless of how many times they disappoint them, in the "two party" US political system, a "Faith" voter will always vote Republican out of the perceived possibility that they MIGHT get their way; rather than voting for the Democrats, where they already know that they won't. The truth is neither party will actually cater to their demands, or those of any other special interest group (at least outside of an election cycle). The difference is that the Republicans will use this (and them) to their fullest advantage, by placing their "faith" on faith voters, who they know have no other choice but to either give them their vote or not vote at all.

By exploiting divisive issues to gain support in the elections, the Republican party is sending a clear message to its base, "keep the faith"; that even though they have been let down in the past... "Miracles" may happen if you vote for them this time. If anything, you can say that these voters are extremely patient; but then what do you expect from those who have been waiting for Jesus for over 2ooo years? :)

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Ann Coulter vs. Matt Lauer

You know, the more that I listen to Ann Coulter, the more I'm convinced that she is a "satirist" posing as a right wing pundit, much like Stephen Colbert. In fact, I'm pretty sure if Colbert was to start using her material instead of his own, you probably wouldn't even notice a difference... she's THAT good! :)

What amazes me most about people like Ann Coulter is how much they have been able to cash in on their "unpopularity". Her core "fan base" seems to be her detractors; mainly self-described "liberals", who react SO negatively to whatever she says that they in a sense make her relevant, by placing so much attention upon her. She's like a bad habit for angry "liberals". The more they pick and scratch away at her, the worse she'll become in order to remain that constant "itch", which drives them crazy.

There is no such thing as "bad press". "Negative attention" is just the same as regular attention, especially when it comes to self-promotion and selling books. "Controversy sells", because controversy generates curiosity; and "curiosity" generates potential new readers. Ann Coulter knows that if she can get people's attention, then she can probably get their money too. And the BEST way for her to get people's attention is by enraging her "liberal base" and letting them do the promoting for her.

At the end of the day, lots of people will end up buying her new book; and whether it's to read it or burn it, it really doesn't matter to her. Afterall, "Bestsellers" are not determined by how many copies are actually read.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Today's Cartoon: "6/6/06" The Day of the Beast!

Well, the day has finally arrived, International "Push Your Agenda" Day. The one day where just about every religious organization, government, cult, gang, club and fanatic probably has some sort of sinister "false flag" event cooked up in an attempt to further their cause and promote their beliefs ;)

Now, I'm not "paranoid" but that does not mean everyone else isn't either; so, I plan on spending the day avoiding all those crazy people as much as possible, by hiding under my bed with pair of nunchucks and a roll of duct tape for protection. Remember, in a crisis situation, "crazy" is contagious; so wherever you are, make sure the place is stocked with LOTS of duct tape :)

Actually, today is the only day of the entire millennium where you can say "the Devil made me do it" and people will actually believe you... and think that you are possessed, so you'd better not.

So however you plan on spending this "Devil's Day", whether it's praying, drinking or cowering in fear; always remember, "the meek shall inherit the Earth", which for me at least is a very encouraging thought. Hopefully, I will see you all back here tomorrow. In the meantime, be safe, be good and be careful :)

Monday, June 05, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Canadian Police Foil "Homegrown Terror Plot" in Toronto

You know, I didn't realize that it is not until the point that the "terrorists" have ALL the components of their weapon and are just about to carry out an attack that they've actually committed a crime. I always thought that, well... just about every step up until THAT point was pretty much illegal. I guess at the end of the day, the bigger the threat is the more impressive (and "important") the arrest becomes, eh?

Now, I completely understand the threat and I appreciate the efforts that our government and the authorities are making to keep us safe here in Canada (I think). But the problem I have is trying to understand just how much of a "threat" this "Homegrown Terror Cell" actually was to the public; especially since learning that they had been under police surveillance for quite some time and were supplied with key bomb making ingredients from the RCMP. The same material that was later put on display and claimed to have been seized after the arrest.

While "desire" and "motive" are arguably the most dangerous components of any "terror plot", such intentions cannot be carried out unless they are supplied with the means to do so. If the reports are accurate, then it would seem to me that the police already had enough evidence against these guys to warrant an arrest without needing to supply them with the 3 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, as "material evidence". If these guys could have been arrested sooner ("conspiracy"?), then why risk a defense of "Police entrapment" by supplying the suspects with the "evidence", which is also the key ingredient they needed to carry out an attack on the public?

It's like lighting a fuse just so you can put it out and tell everyone that you've "saved the day".

Friday, June 02, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Hurricane/Severe Weather Season Begins in the United States

Well, it's that time of year again. It's time for the Almighty to unleash his fury upon the Gay and Lesbian communities (in and around the "Gulf States") because of their selfish "hedonistic" lifestyle. ;)

Hmm... You know, I sometimes wonder if weathermen could actually start getting away with blaming bad weather on homosexuals when others already seem to. I guess, maybe they could if they worked for the "700 Club". It would certainly be a lot easier than trying to explain "cold fronts", "jet streams" and effects of "global warming" on the environment.

You see, the main issue that I have with blaming hurricanes on "homosexuals" is that if they were indeed responsible for these storms, then God would want us (and them) to know, by providing some obvious tell-tale signs. First of all, with sustained winds in excess of 100 mph, why is there not even the slightest hint of lavender or potpourri in the air? And secondly (and most obviously) if God truly wanted us to believe that these storms were directed at the Gay and Lesbian community, then he would make sure that every hurricane was preceded with and concluded by a spectacular rainbow ;)

The way I see it, if God is responsible for these natural disasters, then it is industry and big business (not the churches) that are TRULY doing his work here on Earth.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Today's Cartoon: United States Offers Direct Talks with Iran

While the gesture is somewhat admirable, the conditions in which the United States is willing to sit down and negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear ambitions are completely counter-productive; especially if the United States actually wants to meet with Iran

You see, if Iran agrees to suspend its nuclear program in order to have direct negotiations with the States; there would actually be no need for those negotiations, because the US would have already gotten it's way. It's like saying "stop doing the thing you are doing and then we'll sit down and discuss you not doing the thing that you've already stopped doing" :)

If the US actually wants to have face-to-face negotiations with Iran then they've got to set conditions that would help encourage the need for such a meeting to take place. So, instead of calling for the Iranian government to suspend its uranium enrichment program and ease the tension between their two countries, President Bush should be openly calling on Iran to double its efforts and suggest to President Ahmadinejad that he threaten Israel some more.

That way, we are practically guaranteed a meeting between the two countries. A very LONG meeting with LOTS of negotiating and PLENTY of progress to be made ;)