Monday, May 31, 2004
May 31, 2004
Constitutional scholar Badnarik gets presidential nomination
ATLANTA -- In a stunning come-from-behind victory, Texas constitutional scholar Michael Badnarik has won the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.
Badnarik, 49, of Austin, Texas, won 423 votes -- or 54 percent -- from delegates at the Libertarian Party's national convention in Atlanta on Sunday. Coming in second was movie producer Aaron Russo, followed by longtime radio talk host Gary Nolan.
Badnarik's victory was considered a shock because he had been beaten in the polls and primaries by both Nolan and Russo. According to many undecided delegates, Badnarik's superior performance in the Saturday debates propelled him ahead of the other candidates.
In an emotional acceptance speech on the convention floor, a surprised Badnarik declared, "Never in my wildest dreams!" Then he thanked delegates for their support and made it clear that his campaign will stay focused on forcing the government to abide by the Constitution.
"The reason we can't find a relationship between the Constitution and the government is that there is none," he said. "If I can win the Libertarian nomination, there's no reason I can't win this election. We have a unique opportunity to change the world."
For the past three years Badnarik has been teaching classes on the Constitution, and his message of forcing the government to strictly abide by that document appealed to many Libertarian delegates.
According to many political analysts, the Libertarian nominee could cost President George Bush the November election by attracting votes from frustrated Republicans in key swing states such as Wisconsin, Oregon and Nevada.
According to a May 21 article by David Paul Kuhn, chief political writer for CBSNews.com, many conservatives are so angry over Bush's spending increases that they may abandon the GOP in November.
If that happens, the Libertarian nominee "may do for Democrats in 2004 what Nader did for Republicans in 2000" and cost Bush the election, Kuhn says.
The Libertarian presidential candidate appeared on all 50 state ballots in 1992, 1996, and 2000, and the party is working toward that goal in 2004.
Two other candidates, David Hollist of California and Jeffrey Diket of Louisiana, were eliminated in the first round of voting.
In a separate vote, delegates chose Richard Campagna as their vice presidential nominee. Campagna, 52, is an attorney is Iowa City, Iowa.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
From Drudge today:
FLASH: Al Franken has agreed not to draw a salary at AIR AMERICA, hoping to keep the fledgling talk-radio network afloat... Developing...
I find that sad. Props to Al for sacrificing a bit for the team, of course God knows he can afford it. I've been listening to a little bit of this network off and on. Yes, I know we don't get it around here, but it is on XM. You guys know I'm no ideologue conservative so I don't have an agenda with this, but frankly friends, the reason the network is tanking is, well, it's mostly not that good...mostly. Yeah, there's some good moments. There are some clever quips, some little stories you'll not hear anywhere else. But overall, it's not that good. It just feels so contrived. And it is. Air America is like the Backstreet Boys of talk-radio. They are simply a group put together to push the Liberal Agenda over the airwaves. The guys they're trying to knock out, Rush, Hannity, and the rest, didn't start out this way. There was no great movement to establish a Conservative radio presence. They just did what they wanted to do.
Now, I will say that now it seems like all the right-wing guys are just all reading from the same page, word for word. Well, save for Glenn Beck and the psychotic Michael Savage. But the point is, they weren't put out there by an outside presence for that purpose. It was pure capitalism at work. But this whole AA thing. It's just sad. Really really sad. I think it'd be great to have some lib talk show hosts out there. But i'd prefer some with, you know, talent.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
If you are someone who knows me or reads much of my rantings, you know that two of the biggest things I hate are double standards and hypocrisy. I've found each in spades with this Iraqi prison "scandal". Today there was the news story of Specialist Jeremy Sivits' plea bargain. His plea bargain includes a demotion, a "bad conduct" discharge, and a year or so in prison. I believe this also means he'll suffer a severe cut in pay and retirement benefits. Also, he has agreed to testify against other soldiers who were in similar situations as he was in Iraq. Unless I'm mistaken, this Sivits fellow didn't even participate in the "abuse". He was just there, and he took some pictures.
As you know, I find it sickening that these low-level grunts are taking ALL the heat for this scandal even though most of them were simply following orders. We also now know that most of the stories of rape and murders by our troops in the prison are false. And yet these volunteer soldiers take it in the face. For basically nothing.
Perhaps you are now wondering where my double standard argument comes in. Here it goes. These men and women volunteered to risk their lives to do what our military asked of them. They were put in a country where they would fight animals with no comprehension of humanity, let alone human rights. However, when these same soldiers are ordered to humiliate said animals to soften them up for questioning, they get gut-punched by their own superiors. They are taken down as if they themselves were some of America's most wanted, like they themselves are terrorists.
And yet, we have similar (in my opinion worse) occurrences here in America. Every day our law enforcement agents steal whatever they want from people. They have the authority to do this without arresting or charging the person with any crime. All they must do is THINK that the "confiscated" items are ill-gotten gains from drug proceeds. These same "law officers" often beat, torture, and kill suspects. Sometimes this is done before an arrest. Sometimes it is after the arrest. Sometimes an arrest is never made, either because the "perp" was innocent, or is now dead. And does the Congress scream for special courts to jail these people, or even demote them? Of course not. On the rare case that the perpetrators actually end up in a trial, they are almost always exonerated by a court system that, to put it euphemistically, is on the side of the police to begin with.
Then we have our prison industry. Perhaps this is a little more in parity with the current situation in Iraq. I’m not going to quote the statistics again; you’ve no doubt heard them all before. America has the most people in prisons per capita, blah blah. If you want to check the stats, feel free. That’s what Google is for. Daily in these prisons, inmates are beaten, raped, killed. Often these acts are committed by other inmates, and when that is the case almost always the guards look the other way. And often, these acts are committed either directly by the prison guards, or under the direction of the guards. If you don’t believe me, just walk around town and find anyone who’s ever been in prison. Ask them what it’s like.
The same goes for the cops. If you don’t believe what I say about their actions, then pick up a paper. It seems that monthly there is another police shooting, or a death from a chase. Look it up.
And finally, on the issue of basic, everyday police brutality, I can give first hand information. I’ve been arrested twice for driving with a suspended license. The arrests were lawful; I don’t claim I was in the right. Also, I’ve been around when others were arrested. For drugs, outstanding warrants, different things. Usually I was just there because I knew someone. Sometimes I was just walking by. Once I was pulled over because I was behind two guys who were racing down the highway. The Sheriff assumed I was racing too. To this day I don’t know why. Though the specifics vary, in each incident I was threatened. I was told if I moved, I would be shot. I was told if I spoke, I would have my jaw broken. I was told I was going to jail to be raped, then the cop laughed about it. I have been frisked, and during the “pat downs” I was fondled and molested. All these things I KNOW FROM FIRST HAND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. And you know what? No one cares. There is nothing I could do in any one of the above cases.
So here’s the basic thing I’m trying to get at. Our low level grunts in Iraq are getting drug across the fire for following orders. In doing so, they may have violated one’s civil rights. But these violations are incomparable to the violations happening everyday here in America by our own law enforcement and prison system. Americans can be beaten, raped, killed, threatened. And no one cares. But take a picture of a naked Iraqi man, and you go to jail
There’s your double standard.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
May 18, 2004
Schroeder slapped at campaign stop
MANNHEIM, Germany (AP) -- A man slapped Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the face during a campaign rally Tuesday, causing no apparent injury, police said.
The man lunged at Schroeder while he was giving autographs to a crowd of people at a Mannheim civic center during a campaign stop for his Social Democratic Party ahead of European Parliament elections next month.
Security agents subdued the man, and police took him into custody, Mannheim police spokesman Volker Dressler said. Police did not immediately identify him.
Schroeder suffered "no visible injuries," Dressler said.
Shortly afterward, the chancellor held a campaign speech as planned.
The unidentified man wins a severe and undisclosed beating by German secret service and also my invaluable respect
Monday, May 17, 2004
Hotel Charges $1,000 for Omelet
May 17, 7:55 AM (ET)
NEW YORK (AP) - It's not made of gold - just eggs, lobster, caviar and a few trimmings. But an omelet on the menu of a swanky Manhattan hotel will set you back $1,000, plus tip.
"I couldn't believe it was the price when I first saw '1,000' on the menu. I thought it was the calorie count," Virginia Marnell, a customer at Norma's restaurant in Le Parker Meridien hotel on West 57th Street, told the Daily News for Monday editions.
The omelet, which debuted May 5 and is billed as the "Zillion Dollar Frittata," has six eggs, a lobster and - here's the kicker - 10 ounces of sevruga caviar. The restaurant pays $65 an ounce for the caviar, according to Norma's general manager, Steven Pipes.
"Since we knew it was going to be a very expensive dish, we decided to have some fun with it," Pipes told the News. "It's not just a gimmick, though. It tastes good."
Beside the omelet's entry in the menu is the following message: "Norma dares you to expense this."
No one has ordered it yet.
A "budget" version of the omelet, containing only one ounce of caviar, sells for $100.
So, any takers? Oh yeah, you'll have to pay for my plane ticket too, so budget that in as well.
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Charles R. Smith from NewsMax.com thinks he can explain these odd sights in Mexico City. By the way, click here if you're unfamiliar with the story. I'm not going to waste space rehashing the story.
Here's a little pic of what the pilots caught on tape; I think seeing this picture adds credence to the theory below from NewsMax.com.
Here's an excerpt of what Mr. Smith has to say about the object(s), and I think he's dead on:
UFOs Gone Wild, Men From Mars Visit Mexico
Charles R. Smith
Thursday, May 13, 2004
The Mexican Air Force released a recent video of unidentified flying objects. A Mexican Air Force surveillance aircraft searching for drug runners spotted the UFOs, which were invisible to the naked eye. The UFOs were only visible on a special infrared camera.
Journalist and long time UFO supporter Jamie Maussan announced that the objects were real and "intelligent." The UFOs reportedly changed direction and surrounded the plane chasing them.
The Mexican Defense ministry confirmed to Reuters it had provided the video to Maussan. The video was taken by the Air Force on March 5 over the eastern coastal state of Campeche.
"They were invisible to the eye but they were there, there is no doubt about it. They had mass, they had energy and they were moving about," stated Maussan.
While X-files and UFO extra-terrestrial believers say the video is clear proof of some form of spacecraft visiting Earth, the sighting can be attributed to the Bush defense budget and not little green men. The unidentified aircraft that shadowed the Mexican surveillance plane are reportedly part of a squadron of new stealth strike craft operating from the U.S.
The aircraft are equipped with special infrared light panels that are only visible to special cameras or night vision gear. The panels are used in formation flying outside of hostile airspace to prevent the aircraft from colliding with each other or with support aircraft such as refueling planes. The panels are especially handy during aerial refueling with U.S.A.F. tankers, allowing the tanker operators to visually monitor the stealth planes in total darkness.
The UFOs were spotted on radar as they approached and tailed the Mexican Air Force surveillance plane. However, F-117A Stealth fighters normally operate inside the U.S. with special radar reflective panels attached to their planes in order to be tracked in commercial airspace and not attract attention.
The new stealth aircraft, working inside non-hostile airspace, would most likely be similarly equipped with radar reflective devices. The new stealth aircraft is said to embody the latest technology, including special light panels designed to hide the plane in broad daylight. The Mexican sighting confirms that the U.S. Air Force possess more than one of the new jets.
Neat huh? Head over here to the article and read the full thing if you'd like. I would say it's worth it. It's not even very long.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Do not read if you are easily offended
Alright. I’ve had it. You morons on the Right keep screaming about how the Left has politicized this war. “They’ve politicized our national security, the most important issue ever.” You know what? Maybe they have. BUT SO HAS EVERY OTHER PERSON SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN POLITICS AND WAR! You want real politicization of the war. Politicization that is actually KILLING our troops? Look no further than our current (and any past) administration. Every missile, every bullet, every troop deployment is based on political decisions. That’s the way it is, because god forbid we offend or alienate any of our Arab and muslim friends. I’ve basically been of the following opinion for a while, but the recent video of the beheading of our American brother, Nick Berg, has simply sent me over the edge.
I realize that my following comments will most likely bar me from any political office I may seek. They will chase after me all my life. I don’t care. I stand by them, unless I am ever PROVED to be wrong.
The death of Nick Berg is not shocking. I should say rather, that he is dead is not shocking. His actual death is. I mourn his loss and stand wholly with his family and friends. This young man was not a soldier. He was not an airman. He was not a sailor. He was not a marine. He was not from some private security service. Heck, he didn’t even work for Halliburton. Mr. Berg was in Iraq to help restore internal communications. He wasn’t there building sat con towers for the US military. He was doing what he thought was right by helping the Iraqi people return to normalcy.
I mourn the loss of all our troops as well. However, theirs is a slightly different case. Our brave men and women killed in battle in NO WAY deserved to die. But they knew the risks, and that was what they were there for. They signed up to fight and die for their country. I have a deep admiration for that. Were it not for a couple of medical problems that caused me to be rejected from my requests to join the armed forces, I would be standing, flying, sailing, swimming, right beside them. Their deaths are tough to take. But they are understandable. Nick Berg’s is not.
The release of the video of Nick Berg’s beheading has so incensed me. It has proved (to me) that my initial response to muslim terror was correct. When all This began, I suggested we should basically just wipe out the Arab world. That is the only way to stop this madness. You can call me a racist if you want. I’m not, but if that makes you feel better, then go ahead. The world has to understand now that yes, this is a war on islam (Notice I am not capitalizing islam or muslim. I am not, and will not because these words do not even deserve the respect of capitalization.). This is a war on muslims. This is a war against animals, not fellow humans.
In general, I am a very compassionate person. Ask anyone who knows me. If someone I know has a problem, they know I will always do whatever I can for them. If I see someone broken down on the interstate, I stop and try to help. I still open doors for women and my elders. I give money to the Salvation Army. I give money and supplies to the Christian Food Mission. I donate to the library. I’m saying this not to brag. I hate to brag. I despise arrogance and hubris. I’m not asking for your admiration. I really don’t care about recognition for what I do or any such thing. I simply mention these things to show I am not just some sadist who dehumanizes everyone. I don’t want to wipe out everyone who disagrees with me. But we must end this political correctness during this “war”. It is costing the lives of our soldiers. Moreover, it is costing the lives of innocent parties just there to help restore food, water, sewage treatment, communication, electricity. People like Nick Berg.
I haven’t watched the video yet. I doubt I will. I can handle blood and gore; this is just something I don’t think I need to say. However, I did listen to it. I think every American (US, North, and South Americans), Europeans, Arabs, Jews, Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Australians; everyone should be forced to listen to the audio of that tape. I think everyone who can, should watch it as well. This IS islam. This is wahabism. This is the muslim world. There can be no more talk of the “religion of peace”. There can be no more kowtowing to muslim interest groups. This is it. No more.
Listening to the video, one particular segment caught my ear and held it. As Nick Berg is being chopped several times about the neck during his slow and unbelievably agonizing death, as the blood starts to flow, as he screams loudly and terribly, these dogs are screaming, nearly as loud, “allah akbar”. Many of you, I’m sure, know what that means. I’m equally sure that many don’t. Below is a definition and an explanation from USC’s Islamic Glossary. Feel free to follow the link if you doubt my truthfulness.
Other Commonly Used Spellings: ALLAHOO AKBAR,ALLAHU AKBER,ALLAHOO AKBER,ALLAH AKBAR
This statement is said by Muslims numerous times. During the call for prayer, during prayer, when they are happy, and wish to express their approval of what they hear, when they slaughter an animal, and when they want to praise a speaker, Muslims do say this expression of Allahu Akbar. Actually it is most said expression in the world. Its meaning: "Allah is the Greatest." Muslims praise Allah in every aspect of life; and as such they say Allahu Akbar.
I realize that such a statement could be used at any time, but I want to look at what this definition, written by muslims (Principly ISL Software) emphasizes as the most common times the phrase is used. (Trust me, I’m getting to a point.)
“This statement is said by Muslims numerous times. During call for prayer, during prayer, when they are happy, and wish to express their approval of what they hear, when they slaughter an animal, and when they want to praise a speaker…”
Now, were these kind muslim brothers in a call for prayer? No. During a prayer? Maybe, but let’s continue. Wishing to express approval of what they hear? Absolutely, but not quite my point yet. Are they praising a speaker? I would say not. How about animal sacrifice? Having to think for a minute? The correct answer is yes. The particular animal being sacrificed is a human. Ladies and gentlemen. What we have (among other things) is a video taped human sacrifice. I hope that I’m not the only one disturbed by this. This is your religion of peace, right here in black and white, and plenty of flowing red.
Has there been a large outcry from muslim countries, the madrassas, the clerics? No. I’ve not heard even an AMERICAN muslim condemn this. I am assuming then that human sacrifice is ok with muslims.
Now we get to the meat of the matter. We must stop fighting this war on the terms of the enemy. We must stop fighting this war on the field of political expedience and political correctness. It is time to take the war to the enemy. And I mean the whole war and the whole enemy.
The time has come to leave no man standing. The time has come to stop pretending that these are humans in the first place, because it is so apparent now that they are not. It is time to turn to rubble every town, market, mosque, and outhouse in Iraq. In Iran. In Saudi Arabia. In Pakistan. In Syria. In Lebanon. The time for soft war is over. The time for complete destruction is here. There is no reason on Earth that these people should be allowed to exist. They cannot maintain any sort of society. The engender terrorism and dictatorships. They try to slowly starve America and the free world by keeping a choke hold on the oil supply. They teach their children to hate us. They teach our children that the road to heaven is paved with the corpses of Americans.
I’m usually very concerned with innocent life. I hate drunk drivers, I hate when people getting caught in the crossfire of gangs, I hate cops and prosecutors sending innocents to jail in order to get a promotion or a raise. But I cannot now believe that there exist any innocents in the places I mentioned. If there are, God have mercy on their souls. There is now excuse to let another American die because we can’t come within 20 yards of a mosque. There is no excuse to let another American die to maintain good relations with our “friends in Saudi Arabia”.
This is it. I’ve had it. No more blood spilled for political correctness or not to hurt someone’s feelings. Wipe the surface clean of these roaches, and maybe, just maybe, we can win this war on terror.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
On the one hand, I’m bothered by all the knee jerk “disdain” being paid these pictures by, not our citizens, but by the administration. On the other hand, I fully understand it. That phrase “plausible deniability” keeps coming to mind. The reason I say I’m bothered by our administration’s reaction is the fact that these soldiers were not acting out of their own sadism. They were not acting out of some sick sexual urges. These soldiers were acting under orders. It’s so odd to me that no one is mentioning that on the news shows, or even talk radio. The Bushies know these people were acting under orders. But they simply can not admit that. Like I said, I understand it to a point. It’s an election year and who want so vote for a man who says “yes, my troops were told to do this.”? I get that part. But let us leave politics aside for a moment.
The pictures I’ve seen are hardly what one would call torture. You want torture? Ask John McCain or any of the hundreds (or more)stil living Holocaust survivors here in the US. I’m sure they can tell you what torture really is. What is seen in these pictures is a demoralization scheme aimed specifically at Muslim men. You all know what Islam thinks of women. Imagine you, a Muslim man, being forced by an American female to disrobe, let alone being forced to do the other things that I will not mention here. You can imagine that that would have a rather negative effect on your ability to resist, no? What is being done in that prison is unbecoming to our eyes. But unbecoming also, is war itself, even in its noblest forms. These soldiers were ordered to mentally and emotionally tear these men down so that when the interrogation time came, they’d be a bit more cooperative.
Now, the above statements and opinions do not apply to rape, dog maulings, or any other such actual torture. Nor do they apply if these men being degraded are simple thieves and such. I am acting on the probable assumption that these men are at least suspected of knowing something about the Iraqi resistance. And if it takes stripping a few guys naked to save the lives of some of my friends in Iraq, I’m all for it.
One thing has puzzled me though, since these pictures came to light. What idiot would keep a photographic record of this stuff? Today, reading a news article, I found out why. According to soldiers on the scene, the pictures were also taken under direct order. The idea was to show the pictures to incoming prisoners in the hopes that the mere suggestion of such tactics would be enough to break them. That seems to make a little more sense.
Let me clarify something. I do not believe that all our soldiers (MP’s or not) are good people, ethically speaking. Many of them joined up because of sadistic tendencies. And frankly, I’d rather have them overseas than here where they could enact their tendencies on us. Further, I do not claim to know all the details of what went on in Abu Ghraib and other prisons. I assume that there are much more heinous actions that did take place. If this be the case, then those perpetrators should come to justice. But not these kids just following orders.
And one final note. I heard some talking head bleeding-heart on TV tonight complaining about the abuse. Among other things, he mentioned the use of threats as some of the “abhorrent behavior that must be stopped.” I laughed. Apparently this guy has never come into contact with one of our lovely peace officers. I have never committed a serious crime. I have had 4 traffic tickets, and one arrest due to an expired license. On almost every occasion I was threatened with beatings, death, and sexual abuse. And I wasn’t even being a smart ass. So yeah, threats happen. But if we’re going to put poorly paid, battle scarred young soldiers to the fire for threats, then perhaps we can get rid of some of our sadist cop friends as well.
Sunday, May 09, 2004
I could've probably gotten a date too....
Elimidate, NU style? Senior stages casting call for his partner to the senior ball
In recent days, Nevada Union has been speckled with fliers promoting Bailey's plan to hold open auditions - "all classes welcome" - for a date to the May 15 senior ball.
This morning, Bailey will assemble a panel of "judges" who will ask such probing questions as, "Do you prefer sourdough or French bread?" to determine the winner of an all-expense-paid trip to the prom.
Bailey is including a free meal - advertised as Jack in the Box - and either a ride in his mother's relatively new Chevrolet Monte Carlo or his 1989 Dodge Dakota pickup, with a passenger door purchased from a salvage yard and a motor that whines and pings from the weary valves under the hood.
Word has spread quickly about Bailey's hunt for a date.
"Oh God, it's freaking awesome," senior Sara Heidelberger said. "I have a date already, otherwise I'd go for this.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. -James Madison
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.
- James Madison
Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. -George Washington
Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master! -Thomas Jefferson
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds - Samuel Adams
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
- James Madison
The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty - John Adams
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.
- Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Above and below cribbed from Drudge
Thu May 06 2004 23:59:55 ET
In yet another sign of trouble for Air America Radio, the liberal talk network entering its fifth chaotic week on the air, co-founder and chairman Evan Cohen resigned Thursday, as did vice-chairman and investor Rex Sorensen.
The CHICAGO TRIBUNE is planning to report in fresh editions: The company also failed to make its scheduled payroll, leaving its staff roughly 100 radio personalities, writers, and producers unpaid until Thursday.
The departures of Cohen, a former political operative from Guam who was among the network's initial investors, and Sorenson, an investor who owns radio stations in Guam, mark the second executive shake-up at the fledgling network in as many weeks.
I'm kind of conflicted here. On the one hand, I like having the oppurtunity to turn my dial and get a different point of view. Until VERY recently (at least in my home market) there was NO alternative to the right wing yammerings on the radio. None. I, of course, am excluding the music stations. Even the "christian" stations are overrun with the ultra-right babblings of local hosts and also the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
On the other hand, I don't want an alternative to come about this way. I realize that the right-wing hosts of today are little more than Republican attack dogs and/or damage control guys. But it didn't start that way. These guys started out it little 2 watt stations talking to whomever would listen. They became famous, they're listening areas grew. Why? Because people listened! Maybe they did get some under the table money from the GOP. I don't know, don't really care. But 99% of what these guys are now, especcially Rush, is due to their own perserverance and hard work. Their market appeal. And THAT is how it should work.
To my knowledge, Air America is funded almost exclusively by George Soros and the DNC. They set out to set up a Liberal talk radio network, by any means neccessary. It's not supposed to work that way. Frankly, most of their shows are not really that good. I like Franken's show, but that's about it. That's why they're failing. They thought they could just hop out there, throw a LOT of money into the project, and they'd win. It don't work that way George.
I give my respect and support to all those liberal and moderate radio hosts out there who are building their shows the old fashioned way. Kudos my friends. And godspeed.
Does anyone else remember all that talk about how the war would pay for itself? We'd use the oil money to rebuild Iraq and reimburse ourselves for our "liberation" fee?
By ALAN FRAM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration will ask Congress for an additional $25 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a House Republican aide said Wednesday, a change from the White House's earlier plans to not request such money until after the November elections.
I really trust the government now!
By LESLIE MILLER
Associated Press Writer
May 6, 2004, 3:53 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- Air traffic controllers who handled two of the hijacked flights on Sept. 11, 2001, recorded their experiences shortly after the planes crashed, but a supervisor destroyed the tape, the government said Thursday.
A report by Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth Mead said the manager for the New York air traffic control center asked the controllers to record their experiences a few hours after the crashes, believing they would be important for law enforcement.
Sometime between December 2001 and February 2002, an unidentified Federal Aviation Administration quality assurance manager crushed the cassette case in his hand, cut the tape into small pieces and threw them away in multiple trash cans, the report said.
The manager said he destroyed the tape because he felt it violated FAA policy calling for written statements from controllers who have handled a plane involved in an accident or other serious incident. He also said he felt the controllers weren't in the right frame of mind to have consented to the taping, the report said.
"We were told that nobody ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated the tape," Mead said in the report sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who asked the inspector general to look into how well the FAA was cooperating with the independent panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.
That panel learned of the tape during interviews with New York air traffic control center personnel between September and October.
Mead said his office referred the case to federal prosecutors in New York, but they declined to prosecute because of lack of criminal intent.
The report did not characterize the tape's destruction as an attempted cover-up but said it could have been valuable in providing the public with a full explanation of what happened on Sept. 11.
"What those six controllers recounted in a group setting on Sept. 11, in their own voices, about what transpired that morning, are no longer available to assist any investigation or inform the public," the letter said.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
This probably going to be a long post. These people and their ilk sicken me. Also, I will be including many quotes from Mr. Robert T. Lee and son (the purveyors of this heretical filth). First, their URL:
Yeah, go check out the site. I thought, at first, what you probably also thought. At first. "Yeah, incorporating the 10 Commandments into our lives. That's not such a bad idea." Yes, well. That's not exactly what these psychotics mean. If you think I'm being harsh, please enjoy the quotes below. If you doubt that I actually took them from the site, email me or something and I?ll tell you the exact page URL and line number. Here we go! (Any text in italics is a direct cut-and-paste from the site. Any grammar or spelling errors will be left as-is.
From their "JUSTICE WATCH" page:
The purpose of this page is to list crimes as examples to show what God, through His holy Commandments, says should be just punishment for such crimes. This is really none other than a practical application of the penalties of TEN COMMANDMENTS to the crimes of man in a corporeal society. The list is composed of hypotheticals and reports of real cases from various sources. The names and status of the people who committed the crimes are not withheld if they are included in the reports or if hypotheticals are applied to any person. Some of the cases may not be regarded as crimes by local, state, federal or international law, but are nevertheless crimes in the sight of God. They should be regarded as crimes by every sane mind and sane government. None of the verdicts presented should be regarded as harsh, but should be viewed as pure justice.
CASE: "A robber set fire to a 71-year-old woman in southeast Washington who refused to give money, causing a blaze that gutted three homes and left 14 people homeless, police said Tuesday. The suspect, described as a woman in her later 20s, doused the elderly woman with a flammable liquid on Saturday night in an upstairs bedroom and ignited it. The fire spread to the two adjoining houses. The victim was listed in serious condition in a Washington hospital, being treated for severe burns. The Washington Post said the fire left at least nine adults and five children homeless. The robber took $30, it said. The police gave a detailed description of the suspect but declined to release her name or the victim's name." InfoBeat News 12/24/97
VERDICT: The robber should be doused with a flammable liquid and set fire. If she has any property, it should also be burned. If her victim dies, she should also be put to death. No mercy should be shown to her.
CASE: A son or daughter either curses or strikes his father or his mother.
VERDICT: The son or daughter should be put to death. (Leviticus 20:9).
CASE: Jack or Jill is married, but Jack commits adultery with another man's wife, or Jill commits adultery with another woman's husband.
VERDICT: "If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10)
CASE: My son, daughter, sister, brother, mother, father or husband and etc. has had an homosexual experience, or is gay, but he or she is a doctor, attorney, legislator, scientist, teacher, professor, president or etc.
CASE: Robin Shahar is a lesbian. She lost a job after deciding to marry another woman
VERDICT: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
And of course, Abortion:
CASE: Federal judges legalize abortion...
CASE: President Clinton vetoes legislation against partial bith abortion
CASE: A doctor performs abortions...
VERDICT: "And if a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death...And if a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye tooth for tooth: just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him...The one who kills a man shall be put to death. There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 24:17-22)
On this page, above the ?cases?, as if to justify their opinion, the Roberts? print the above verses from Leviticus. Maybe I?m wrong, but I?m afraid they missed the whole New Testament. See, there was this Jesus guy, and he said some very important things. Important mainly because he was, you know, the Son of God (and I must assume this is the same ?god? these sanctimonious morons purport to love and obey). Although Jesus came ?not to remove the Law, but to fulfill it,? he did have a few talks about grace and the like. One that pops out as highly relevant here is this, from Matthew 5:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
And then there?s the parts about ?the judgment shall be left to God? and things of that nature. But I don?t want to get to deep for these people. New topic.
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. satan is its author.
It's important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his origin in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been previously deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary's meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."
Ok, first, to begin their attack on atheism, they must first re-define atheism. Apparently the mortal dictionary is of no use. They must make up their own TRUE definitions. I?ve met many atheists. I have NEVER met any atheist who denies ?the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist.? Most of the atheists I?ve known were fairly bright and analytical. They are very rational in their disbelief in a god. Now, I realize that a lack of proof of existence does not prove non-existence, but given the dearth of evidence (in the mind of your general intellectual, secular person) one CANNOT have ?full knowledge? of the existence of God. Therefore, atheists, in this man?s twisted definition, can not exist. Jesus himself said (and I paraphrase) ?Blessed are you that have seen me, and believe. But more blessed are those who will not see me, and believe yet.? Sure, if you?re of a Christian (or pick a religion) frame of mind, you can see the evidence of God everywhere. However, that is only because you have a preconceived belief system. You ?know? God exists, therefore His creation proves His existence. This is fine for church chat, but does not work well for witnessing or arguing. Is it not through FAITH that we are asked to follow God? And as the Bible says, ?Faith is the evidence of things not seen (or perceived, or experienced, or known, depending on translation). Therefore, other than through faith, even the most religious among us do not have ACTUAL knowledge of God?s existence.
Let me take the time to say that I am NOT trying to argue for God?s non-existence. I only wish to argue that, as humans, to us, in this incarnation, His existence is not knowable, except through faith. And I do not mean to discount faith as ignorance. It is a wonderful and powerful thing, and for spiritual purposes, it is just as relevant as actual (tangible) knowing.
One more tasty note on Athiesm. I found this comment and response from their Guestbook.
In exposing the atheist,you say that we are not fit to live and should be dealt with accordingly. I hope you realize that this is asking for the GENOCIDE of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. This would constitute a killing thirty to fifty times as horrendous as the Holocaust. How can you, a Christian, member of what is supposedly the religion of love, condone such a horrible thought? Do you have some dark memory involving an atheist? Did an atheist doctor fail to save your mothers life? (as was the case with Hitler and a jewish doctor) How can you, a Christian have so much hate stored inside you?
Answer: Read Deuteronomy 13:1-11. This is what the government should do. Atheist teach against the true God.
And in case you?re curious as to what Deut. 13:1-11 says:
If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
Yeah, I didn?t see any mention of atheists there either. Unless I?m wrong, it?s referring to evangelical idol worshipers. Don?t see many of them around much. I guess this guy just wants an excuse to stone SOMEONE.
Now, let me move on.
On Rights and Freedom:
We, the corporeal citizens of America (and the world community), should acquiesce to the fact that many of the so-called "rights" and "freedoms" guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, its Amendments and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not genuine rights and freedoms, but moral evils in the sight of God.
We should, therefore, not be the least disquieted at the thought of such "rights" and "freedoms" being abridged in any way, as long as only those so-called "rights" and "freedoms" which are truly evil in the sight of God are taken away, and as long as our genuine God-bestowed rights, freedoms and responsibilities to do that which is right in God's sight become state-embraced, state-established, state-guaranteed and state protected, under a new, righteous and perfectly antithetical Constitution - the Moral Law of God, without such a holy Constitution ever being amended in any way, and without the least abridgment of the holy rights, freedoms, responsibilities and rewards such a holy Constitution guarantees.
We should determine to never possess the least respect or veneration for our or any other citizen's so-called constitutional rights and freedoms to do even the least moral wrong, whether such wrong be directed towards God or man; or whether such wrong is performed in the exercise of the principles of the various heathen religions, or the so-called non-religious philosophies; whether performed in the various dialects of speech and press; whether performed in the various types of assemblies or petitions of the government; without partiality unto ourselves, kin, color of skin, national birth, service and position in public office, type of employment; whether educated or uneducated, rich or poor, male or female, young or old; etc.
Ok, I believe that last part speaks for itself.
That?s about I can tolerate on this subject for now. Soon, there will be a blog post containing the full text of an email I sent to Mr. Lee. I would love my readers? comments both on the abovementioned site, and my upcoming letter to its owner.
Monday, May 03, 2004
A Nice Story. There Are Still Heroes Out There
Cpl. Samuel Toloza of El Salvador's Cuscatlan Battalion displays his bloodstained
knife that he used to fend off Iraqi gunmen in Najaf, Iraq, Saturday May 1,
2004. One of his friends was dead, 12 others lay wounded and four soldiers still
left were surrounded and out of ammunition, so Toloza used his switchblade knife
to charge the Iraqi gunmen.
Special court upholds decision to oust 'Commandments judge'
Or, will the real Judge Roy Moore please shut up?
A special court unanimously upheld the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court to oust Chief Justice Roy Moore for his refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument.
The Special Alabama Supreme Court, which voted 7-0, issued its opinion (PDF File)this afternoon.
Moore said in response to the decision: "The elected representatives of the people, the eight associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court, hid behind the robes of an illegally appointed, politically selected court."
Full Story From WND
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad called radical Islamic insurgents fighting coalition troops in Iraq a legitimate resistance.
"Certainly, what has happened on the popular level gives legitimacy to the resistance and shows that the major part of what is happening is resistance," Assad said in comments aired on the Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite channel al-Jazeera.
Full Story from WND
A lovely little article. Enjoy.
The Savage Mind
* Desperate to catch-up with Fox News, MSNBC hired the conservative commentator Michael Savage. It thought it was getting a ratings grabber and a New York Times-best-selling author. Instead, it qot a disaster. In a rare interview, Savage tells his side of the story. by Jake Tapper
You can be forgiven if you didn't watch Michael Savage tell a caller that he should get AIDS and die. You can be forgiven because that day a mere 123,000 people, out of passion or inertness, were watching another weekly edition of The Savage Nation on MSNBC. It was Saturday afternoon, July 5, and while most of America was occupying itself in more subdued ways, Savage, rejoicing in his anger as always, hammered away. And why shouldn't he? It was a good couple of weeks for him. Or at least for topics for his compassionately conservative show: The United States Supreme Court had not only condoned affirmative action; it had also overturned laws forbidding sodomy. The Supreme Court, Savage ranted, is "paving the way for all kinds of deviant behavior to become acceptable and even legal. And that means bestiality next." As far as Savage was concerned, America was falling apart.
Savage decided to take phone calls. That's when Bob Foster, a computer technician and confirmed prankster, began talking. The exchange went like this:
BOB FOSTER: ...I need to suggest that Don and Mike [a Washington, D.C.-area radio duo] should take over your show so you can go to a dentist appointment, because your teeth are really bad.
SAVAGE: So you're one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?
FOSTER: Yes, I am.
SAVAGE: Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. Okay, do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse, who's angry at me today? Get me another one. Put another sodomite on.
The producers cut to a video clip of two people grilling sausages as "The Marines' Hymn" swelled in the background.
Two days later. Savage would be fired by MSNBC in a brief statement from a flack: "Savage made an extremely inappropriate comment and the decision to cancel the program was notdifficult." But Savage wasn't finished. The next day, on his syndicated radio show--broadcast on almost 300 stations and reaching 5 million people weekly--Savage painted a broader picture. "The American people understand what went on.... I am a victim. They know very, very well that the left are like jackals in this country. They do not believe in freedom of speech; they only believe in freedom of their speech"
At that point, of course, Savage seemed indefensible. And yet a mere four months earlier, Savage was the hope and future of MSNBC, a channel no doubt desperate to counter the whomping Fox News Channel has been delivering to it the past couple of years. To the average viewer, hiring Joe Scarborough to do his best version of a Gen-X Bill O'Reilly was clearly a sign that the network executives were eager to gain legitimacy in conservative precincts and to find an even stronger, louder voice than O'Reilly's.
MSNBC president Erik Sorenson remembers the night late last year when he first heard that voice. As he recalls it, that epiphanic moment occurred when he was driving home from work and, he says, stumbled upon Savage's show on WABC radio in New York City. "I found him engaging and interesting and provocative," Sorenson says. Strangely, Sorenson, a media executive, had never heard of Savage. He did some research. He found out Savage had the fourth largest audience of any talk-radio host in America. Over the next few months, he tracked Savage as the pundit's book, The Savage Nation, climbed the New York Times best-seller list. All of which sounded great. "I thought," said Sorenson, "I need to call this gentleman."
Although Sorenson and other executives at the channel may have been hoping Savage would be the answer, within the halls of parent company NBC not everyone was happy. The reputation Savage had earned from his book and his radio show--which debuted in 1994 on San Francisco's KSFO--- prompted Tom Brokaw to express his concerns to NBC executives when it was announced that Savage had signed with the company in February. Is this the sort of man who embodies the values of NBC? Brokaw asked, according to a source. Savage, after all, had a long history of mouthing off. Like the time he said that Latinos "breed like rabbits," or that "every rotten, radical left-winger in this country" is more a threat than Al Qaeda. Back in 2000, he had derided a high school program to feed the homeless by saying that the female student volunteers could "go in and maybe get raped...because they seem to like the excitement of it. There's always the thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a Dumpster while giving out a turkey sandwich."
Clearly, Savage speaks his mind. When Sorenson read The Savage Nation, he was not troubled by it, even though Savage referred to MSNBC as More Snotty Nonsense By Creeps. Savage also didn't like the channel's talent. In the book, he calls anchor Ashleigh Banfleld "the mind-slut with a big pair of glasses.... She looks like she went from porno into reporting." On MSNBC's Buchanan and Press, he was asked if he had apologized to Banfield. Savage said he wouldn't. When Banfield learned of the incident, she cried.No matter. By March, Savage and his show would be on MSNBC."Savage is a strange enough character" says Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers, the trade magazine of the talk-radio world. "He might be doing a satire. I'm not totally sure that he's not." L. Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center, earns his bread and butter searching for liberal media bias, and even he thinks of Savage as "a cartoon figure" who should not have been held up by MSNBC as a leading member of the right wing. "Savage is just purely nasty. I don't care if I agree with his positions on, say, the homosexual lifestyle. It was wholly inappropriate for him to say what he said." Bozell says that as soon as Savage signed his contract with MSNBC, conservatives knew it was only a matter of time before he'd step over the line.His onetime friend, the poet Neeli Cherkovski, sees Savage's current incarnation in part as the realization of his lifelong dream to be an entertainer. The two of them, in fact, were going to do an act together. In one routine, they were two nuclear bombs in a stockpile; in another they were two guys opening a Jewish deli in China. Back in the '70s, Cherkovski says, Savage admired controversial comedian Lenny Bruce. "I think a lot of this is [Savage's] longheld beliefs and opportunity and the need to be heard all coalescing," says Cherkovski. Savage, for his part, insists that his public and private beliefs are "in total accord."
Savage, however, has not always been Savage. He began his life as a Weiner--Michael Alan Weiner. A 1959 graduate of Jamaica High School in Queens, he received his college degree from Queens College in 1963 and left New York City in 1968 with his girifriend (now wife), Janet, for a year of study at the University of Hawaii, funded by a National Science Foundation fellowship. The plan was for him to get his master's degree in zoology and then return to teach in the Adirondacks. Savage and his girifriend rented a cottage. It was idyllic--until, as Savage recounted to me, bitterness in his voice, "friends stole from us. We were penniless"
Eager to get work, Savage turned to the university. But the world of academia was no help. Savage wanted to photograph birds, but as he recalls, the chairman of the zoology department "put up every roadblock he could." Savage changed his course of study to pharmacology. When the head of the pharmacology school offered him a job cleaning the basement lab, Savage took it. The job didn't last long. "The chairman told me, 'Not only do you have to clean rat shit; you have to kill animals to sacrifice them for experiments.' I said, I won't do it.'" The chairman fired him, but Savage stumbled upon another job, with the botany department, hunting for plants with medicinal properties in Tonga. He used that experience as the basis for his master's thesis in 1970. "The thesis was so good, the Harvard University Botanical Museum published it," Savage says. "It was a real feather in my cap. It showed that my thesis was special, perfect and so original it's a classic to this day." In 1972 he earned a second master's, in anthropology.
But by then Savage found Hawaii wanting. He couldn't get a Ph.D. in the field he was most interested in, ethnobotany. He was also having trouble at home. His son, Russell, born in 1970, was having a tough time at school, getting teased by Hawaiian boys. "They are the most racist little boys in the world, the Hawaiians," Savage says. "And I was not going to subject my son to the equivalent of being a Negro in the South."
Savage moved the family to Fairfax, California, and created his own ethnomedicine Ph.D. program at Berkeley. Having befriended Beat poet Alien Ginsberg--"he was almost like a rabbi to me"--while in Fiji, Savage hung out with members of the Beat crowd, including Neeli Cherkovski and Lawrence Ferlinghetti, the cofounder of City Lights Bookstore.
"It was assumed that he was somewhere on the non-Communist left," Ferlinghetti says. Still, Cherkovski says, although Savage didn't seem to have any problem with Cherkovski's homosexuality at the time, "he always had an inclination to speak against organized gay political rights. I saw what I consider to be conservative, or right-wing, tendencies in him from the beginning, things like the man is head of the family, in charge of his wife and kids. Old-fashioned, old-world beliefs."
By 1978, Savage had earned his degree, and his dreams of a professorship seemed within his grasp. "But there were no jobs for me," Savage says. "I was told, 'Fuck you--white men need not apply.'" He pursued jobs in botany, nutrition, anthropology, but nothing panned out--directly because of affirmative action, he claims. "It was a real awakening to the social engineering in this country. It's disgusting. It's un-American."
Savage admits that some job interviews got contentious because he would demand to see the resumes of other people to learn why he was not getting hired. "Fucking academicians," Savage says, "are like magicians behind their black cloaks. 'We are keepers of tradition; we need not explain ourselves to you peons.'"
Though his search for a home in the academic world was failing, Savage was making some money. Writing under his given name, Michael A. Weiner, Savage had already begun a career as an author. In 1972, Macmillan published Earth Medicine--Earth Foods: Plant Remedies, Drugs, and Natural Foods of the North American Indians. Then, in 1975, Macmillan published his Al Gore-ish sounding Plant a Tree: A Working Guide to Regreening America, in which he proclaimed the need for each state to have a "tree czar." In it, too, he singled out for special mention a California judge who gave people convicted of minor misdemeanors the choice of prison, a fine or the task of planting some trees. A 1980 book, Weiner's Herbal, advocated the therapeutic uses of marijuana, as well as treating gonorrhea with Indian corn and using an ointment containing witch-hazel bark for hemorrhoids. Throughout the '70s and '80s, Savage would remain one of the leading authors in homeopathy and herbology.
Savage was doing other writing too. As Cherkovski recalls, during the early 1980s "Savage wrote some inflammatory pieces about bathhouses--a Xerox, this kind of crudely done thing--which he passed out halfheartedly throughout San Francisco's North Beach, kind of bemoaning gay sex." In Savage's 1986 book, Maximum Immunity, he spoke of the need for the gay community to "accept the blame" for the AIDS crisis and came out in favor of mandatory AIDS testing. No publisher, Savage claims, would touch the next book he wanted to write, Immigrants and Epidemics, in which he would attempt to link the rise of immigration to specific epidemics. Savage saw political correctness trumping science. "It really burned me up. I saw emerging illnesses from the unchecked flood of immigrants. Combine that with AIDS, which was just emerging in America, and it was a public-health disaster waiting to happen."
Savage found work heading up the herbal division for the nutritional-supplement manufacturer Twinlab. Under the auspices of a vitamin company, he began conducting a weekly call-in radio show on a New York City station, WOR-AM. "It dawned on me that I was good at radio," he says. "And whenever I had done book tours, the hosts would tell me I had a great voice." He hadn't thought about a second career until his book on immigrants was rejected. So, taking on the nom d'air "Michael Savage," he recorded a makeshift radio program and sent out tapes to around 400 radio stations, hoping someone might find his rants interesting. KGO, in San Francisco, bit and on the evening of March 21, 1994, brought Savage in to do late-night fill-in work. He quickly hopped to number one in afternoon drive time at competing KSFO-AM, then got national syndication. But it wasn't as easy as it looked. After his first show, on which he argued against affirmative action, Savage was deluged with calls from angry San Franciscans. "I drove home saying to myself, I will never, ever do radio again.' I had been Mr. Friendly, Dr. Friendly, Dr. Vitamin. Who could dislike him? But the minute I expressed my political views, I was hated. I had no idea there was so much hate in the world."
At the moment, I think Michael Savage may hate me. It's not a particularly pleasant feeling.
In one of our conversations before his meltdown, I raised the topic of a letter Savage wrote to Allen Ginsberg back in March 1970, unearthed by a contributor to Radar magazine. The letter goes like this: "After speaking to you on phone about how nice black-white thing is in mountain villages in Fiji," Savage wrote, "I walked downstairs to school courtyard where little known black brother looks at me, takes my hand gently, we do some old world lower-east side finger tricks and he peacefully kisses the back of my hand--I do the same for his hand.
"I told him about our brief talk and he says 1 must have felt the vibes.' "
When I read the letter to Savage, he says, "I'm not going to deal with the salacious issues that these faggots come up with," he told me. "If I know a gay, suddenly everyone's gay? It's disgusting! Should I drop my pants so you can take a look at my dick to see if I'm a Jew?"
That won't be necessary, I said, surprised at his tenor and his temper. He had been easygoing with me in general; this eruption came as a surprise. Indeed, I'd only brought up the letter because Savage had told me he was eager to discuss his time in Fiji.
"It's a very sore subject with me," he said, his voice sounding more conciliatory. "I'm sick of it already." He was, he said, "a pioneer in the field of vitamins and healthy eating, but all that reporters ask about is sex, sex, sex, sex. I don't understand the mind of American journalism."
Critics might argue that Savage brings up sex a great deal. He has ranted that the United States is ruled by "degenerates on the left who want to sell Americans on the idea that homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, even sex with animals is normal." In his book, he muses about people who say his anger turns off female listeners. "It's probably true," he writes. "Women are afraid of angry men. Particularly in this homosexualized, feminized America."
In 1983 a small publishing house in San Diego brought out a collection of seven apparently autobiographical short stories Weiner had written from 1967 through 1982. The tales, about a character named Samuel Trueblood, owe something to the Beat influence of Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti. In one story, Savage writes sympathetically about Trueblood taking his fiancee for an abortion. In another, he writes of a tryst with an ex-lover: "Instant arousal!! Stiff and ready and wet and soft we moved around the room.... Four hours of intense, sweat producing, sheet soiling dirty, filthy love and sex." A woman has skin "softer than that Northern Indian prostitute in Fiji whose covering was as soft as that of my own penis; a phallus come to life in female form."
Trueblood, a character of humble Jewish origins who, like his creator, had dreams of "becoming a serious writer who would write popular books about the right foods to eat, how to avoid being swindled, [and] corruption in government"--has latent homosexual feelings. These are revealed in passages such as this one, penned in Honolulu in 1973: "Ever since his early teens he had been plagued with questions about his sexuality. 'Am I gay, or am I straight?' he would wonder endlessly." A first-person Trueblood story written seven years later in California states that Trueblood knows his skirt-chasing "may be a homosexuality unlived, of that I am aware. So what? I choose to override my desires for men when they swell in me, waiting out the passions like a storm, below decks. It is simply a matter of seeing what it's like to fight a 'weakness.'"
Asked about those passages, Savage says, "Everyone has some latent homosexual feelings. It doesn't mean you have to act them out."
To be sure, he has left Trueblood and his past behind. "People change," he says. "That doesn't make them hypocrites; it means they evolve. I was a boy then; I'm a man now.... I had no idea what I was involved in when I was younger. And the movement changed; it went from being a democratic left to a fascistic left."
After his firing, Savage went into seclusion and refused to speak with me. Then, the day this piece was going to press, he called--because, he said, he "wanted to be fair." When I asked him about his dismissal, he said this: "The man made a personal attack on me. Not at my ideas, but he attacked my vanity. He attacked my looks. And it got very down and very dirty very fast. I was surprised that my comments went out on the air. I assumed it was a conversation just between me and a very frank caller. In radio, you have a seventeen second delay. I said, 'Cut,' and he kept up the tirade in my ear."
He believes, too, that MSNBC made a mistake in firing him. "There was a lot of regret by MSNBC executives. They loved the show, they loved me. They knew I was the most talented person on the channel. That's why I was the best-paid person on the channel."
Days before he was fired, he told me that "Fox would hire me in a minute. And believe it or not, CNN would, too." (Not true, says a Fox News Channel spokesperson. "Not a chance would we ever be interested." According to CNN, "[We] had not pursued nor are we pursuing Mr. Savage. And we have no interest in him")
Maybe Savage doesn't need TV. His radio show continues essentially as strong as ever, and he has another book due out in December, The Enemy Within.
And yet Savage may be setting his sights even farther afield. I asked him, before his firing, now that he had conquered radio and publishing, plus scored his own TV show, what next?
"What I would really like to do, what I am going to do in the next year or so, is I want to do music," Savage said. With a heavy-metal band providing backup--he favors the Metallica of 1987--he wants to tie his rhetoric to music. "Not rap," he says, "but like it. I may invent a new genre.
"I could reach a lot more people," he added. "Especially the young."
Sunday, May 02, 2004
I still liked him as Mr. Grant... But I digress, as most of you know, ole Asner has become a vapid, venomous leftwing loony. Lately he's made many disparaging (and worse) comments about one Sean Hannity. Now, those of you who are faithful followers of my work know that I hold no love whatsoever for Mr. Hannity. However, I think if he goes down, he should go down due to his own arrogance and faulty logic. It shouldn't be some leftwing hit job, as they tried to pull on Rush. Below I have reprinted in full a column from WorldNetDaily written by Kevin McCullough. Please enjoy.
Ed Asner: 'Hannity's next ... just like we went after Limbaugh'
Posted: October 10, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
In the news this week are several reports of an exchange between syndicated talk-show host Mike Gallagher and actor-turned-leftist-poster-child Edward Asner.
The account goes like this: Mike Gallagher approached Asner at a recent cocktail party promoting the new film "Elf" in which Asner stars as Santa Claus. As Gallagher introduced himself, Asner asked his profession. When Gallagher replied "radio talk-show host," Asner replied, "I love going toe-to-toe with you guys.''
''I know,'' Gallagher replied. ''I've heard you on Sean Hannity's show.''
''Hannity's next, you know,'' Asner responded.
''Huh?'' said Gallagher.
''Hannity's next,'' said Asner. ''We're going after him just like we went after Limbaugh. And you saw what happened to Rush this week, right?''
I can attest to these news reports because I was there. Standing not more than 10 feet from where the conversation was happening. Shortly afterward, as Mike and I were exiting the party, we were chatting on the elevator of the Empire State building.
"Kevin, did you hear what he said?" Mike exclaimed, "That was a truly strange experience." And he then proceeded to relate the story to the rest of the folks riding with us in the elevator.
The following day, as a part of the same film junket, I found myself sitting in a room with Mike and several others waiting for Mr. Asner to field his questions from us regarding the release of "Elf" – a movie that I believe will be huge at the box office this holiday season.
As Mr. Asner walked in, he saw both Mike and me sitting at the end of the table closest to him and quickly quipped, "What is this? The Salem witch trials?" This, of course, being a play on words alluding to Mike being a syndicated talk-show host for Salem Radio Network (and heard on better than 200 stations), and that I had just taken over as the host on the legendary New York's WMCA 570 "Home of the Good Guys," also a Salem property.
Upon seating himself at the end of the table and making small talk about cookies and cupcakes – he did seem to be in a particularly jovial mood – he asked point blank: "Does anyone at this table hate me? Hate my work as an activist or in any other way?"
It was such an odd question that the room fell dead silent for a moment before breaking into the short amount of time he had for questions about the film.
As he answered questions about the film, he often broke into stories about his days gone by, and even his reasons for getting involved in left-wing politics. He even talked somewhat reflectively about one of his first acting gigs, playing Santa for the downtown Chicago Marshall Field's store.
"It was the worst job I ever had," said Asner. "All I could do was put these poor – extremely poor – kids on my lap and say to them, 'Well Johnny, well Susie, Santa's gonna see what he can do about getting that for you. Knowing full well that these kids' parents were so poor that more than half these kids had no chance of ever seeing the gifts they asked for. It was just awful.'"
By the end of his time with us, I had not asked him a specific question yet, and in my mind I could not get away from the scene from the party of the night previous.
"Mr. Asner, I do have a question – unrelated to the film," I said. "In your long and distinguished acting career, going back to your earliest days in Chicago all the way up to present days working with Will Farrell on 'Elf', you have had the chance to do almost anything you could ever wish to do. But if you had the chance to play the biographical story of a historical figure you respected most over your lifetime, who would it be?"
Remembering the sad story he had told about the poor kids in Chicago, I half expected him to come out with a political name of some sort.
"I think Joe Stalin was a guy that was hugely misunderstood," said Asner. "And to this day, I don't think I have ever seen an adequate job done of telling the story of Joe Stalin, so I guess my answer would have to be Joe Stalin."
Suddenly the time had run out, and for the third time in less than 18 hours, Ed Asner had puzzled the room he was in, into a stunned and disbelieving silence.
Mr. Hannity ... I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Partial Retraction by McCoullough:
In my WorldNetDaily column, I incorrectly quoted both myself and actor Edward Asner near the end of the column. The lack of accuracy occurred because I did not wait to review the audio of the media session in which Mr. Asner and I interacted. To date, I still have not personally reviewed the audio, but have made multiple good faith efforts to obtain it. I will not only review it upon receipt but also play the actual audio on my radio show so as to communicate the quote correctly in all formats.
Upon reflection, I should have waited for the original audio so as to quote the parties involved as accurately as possible. Fairness and truth are what I am in constant search of and, therefore, when I am wrong I should be the first to admit such shortcomings. I do apologize to Mr. Asner for use of the inaccurate quotes regarding Joseph Stalin.
What follows is what I have been told are the actual quotes on the audio recording:
McCullough: "If you could portray an historical biography and you had an unlimited budget, unlimited support cast and everything you could ask for, who would it be?"
Asner: "Well, you know something, they've played Hitler, nobody has ever really touched Stalin, it just occurred to me. It's not because I am a liberal or anything like that. Stalin is one big damn mystery, I wonder why nobody has tried it? Many people, you know, speak of the fact that he killed more people than Hitler – why does nobody touch him? It's strange. So, and he was about my size, my height – with a wig I probably could do it."
My two cents on the retraction: Umm...Mr. McCullough, that's one heck of a memory you've got there. This guy's fair and balanced too, I'm sure.