Currently generating a new wish list, since all my wishes were granted over the Holidays.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

I hate polls!

Attached to the title is a link to an informative article by John Zogby about polling.

Ok, I don't hate all polls, but I do dislike most of them. There are way too many polls saying way too many different things. Why not spend more resources on educating the uninformed issues as opposed to polling the uninformed about the issues?
The fundamental flaw with polls is that the majority of news coverage is on this "horse race" idea instead of about the issues that actually affect the people of the country. All we hear from the coverage is "more than half of americans polled view George W. Bush as strong on national defense" or "more americans believe John Kerry and John Edwars are stronger on the economy."
As a result the polls which are supposed to be a sampling of people's opinion become fact. If an uninformed voter tunes into to any coverage of the polls they will most likely believe the polling numbers that are presented. There is no focus on the actual issues, such as how the war in Iraq has made us less safe, or on the National Intelligence Estimate which proves that the resources spent in Iraq are being wasted. The only focus is on opinion.
The media has shirked its responsibility to provide us with information to form opinion, instead they give us numbers that tell us opinion.
Fight back!

What to do:
You must contact the media. Here are is an email address of the Chris Matthews, one his shows is actually called Horse Race or something to that effect:
Chris Matthews-

Here is a link to a page with every media email address known to us!
To find a specific name use Edit, Find on Page

Monday, September 27, 2004

Where is he Now? Ahmad Chalabi, former favorite of the Bush Administration

Here is an article about the most recent appearance of Ahmad Chalabi in Iraqi court. You may remember Chalabi as the former favorite of the Bush Administration to eventually run Iraq. He is most likely responsible for a lot of the misinformation we received from a "credible source" about the potential threat Iraq posed to us. Anyways here is the link to the article, if anyone has any more info please post a comment.

Friday, September 24, 2004

A History of Minorities in America

If you are interesting in reading a minority account of the history of our great country you should read Howard Zinn's Twentieth Century. This book provides a great insight into the history of the majority of americans, the laborers, minorities, women, and children. This account is not from the perspective of historians who usually focus on the big picture and not necessarily the little pieces that are affected.
As you all probably already know, our conquest in Iraq is not the first time we have attempted imperialistic conquests at the expense of American and Foreign lives. These failed imperialist conquests are always viewed as negative experiences yet they seem to be forgotten each time we embark upon a new one.
Here is a great Howard Zinn site
Also I will put an amazon link to his book down below.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Sean Hannity Email of the day

Dear Sean,
I listen to your radio show every day. It is very entertaining. The entertaining aspect of your show is the way you totally misrepresent every piece of information that you present. If you were so confident that your candidate for president was such a great one why can you not debate based on the facts. You are full of shit and you probably realize this. By the way you are not fooling anyone into thinking you are intelligent with your attempted use of big words. For example, your new big word is exculpatory, I would advise you look up the definiton and figure out how to use it in the correct context. For the time being stick to simple words, 3 or less syllables should do. Notice that my sentences are short so you can understand.
Will Weltman
"not hannitzed"

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Sean Hannity Word of the Day: Appeasement

If you are reading my blog you most likely know who Sean Hannity is. If you don't, he is a conservative tv and radio personality, who pretty much echoes whatever the message of the day is for the Republican Party.
It is my opinion that Sean Hannity has one of those vocabulary enhancing calendars. He chooses a new word every once in awhile that is applicable to the republican agenda and uses it over and over again in his broadcasts. This is his attempt to pass himself off as intelligent when he is really a mindless voice for the Republican party. This will be an ongoing segment in which I single out Hannity's word of the day/week/month. Sean likes to attempt to pass himself off as an intelligent person, unfortunately he isn't. You hear that Sean you are D-U-M-B!

If you were lucky enough to survive reading either of his books you would see that he has a penchant for using the same big words over and over again. Most likely he did not write the books, but he made sure that one of his special big words that he uses was present in each of the books. Having just suffered through Deliver us from Evil, the big Sean word for the book was appeasement, which Hannity still uses on air to reference the politics of failed diplomacy of Neville Chamberlain.

Chamberlain was the British Prime Minister during the beginning of the rise of Hitler in Europe. He was also conservative, like Mr. Hannity. His politics of appeasement were designed to avoid a European war by agreeing to some of the demands made by Hitler and Mussolini. However, we know this did not work and ultimately World War II began. If you want more info on appeasement here is a link,

Sean claims that we were practicing appeasement with Sadaam Hussein prior to W's presidency. He claims that John Kerry is an appeaser. He even claimed that Jessica Simpson of the Newlywed's appeased him last night. That last one was a bad joke.
It is apparent that Sean likes to use big words that he probably has little understanding of.
Stay tuned for the next edition of Sean Hannity Word of the Day!

John Kerry on Letterman:Top Ten Bush Tax Proposals

Kerry's "Top 10 Bush Tax Proposals" are:
10. No estate tax for families with at least two U.S. presidents.
9. W-2 Form is now Dubya-2 Form.
8. Under the simplified tax code, your refund check goes directly to Halliburton.
7. The reduced earned income tax credit is so unfair, it just makes me want to tear out my lustrous, finely groomed hair.
6. Attorney General (John) Ashcroft gets to write off the entire U.S. Constitution.
5. Texas Rangers can take a business loss for trading Sammy Sosa.
4. Eliminate all income taxes; just ask Teresa (Heinz Kerry) to cover the whole damn thing.
3. Cheney can claim Bush as a dependent.
2. Hundred-dollar penalty if you pronounce it "nuclear" instead of "nucular."
1. George W. Bush gets a deduction for mortgaging our entire future.

Friday, September 17, 2004

The Bush Administration: Not Conservative....

President Bush claims to be a compassionate conservative. I don't know if Mr. Bush knows the definition of conservative, but it seems to me that he is anything but on a majority of the issues. He claims to be compassionate, but I ask compassionate to whom? Oil companies, Insurance companies, Halliburton, and Saudi Arabia.

The problem with the Bush administration is that they have no frickin clue what they are doing or they have a clue but don't give a shit! My guess is the latter, except for Mr. Bush he just doesn't have a clue.

Either way its a problem!They speak of conservatism, yet the only thing they are actually conservative about is the instituition of marriage and abortion. Both issues which do not affect anyone but those evangelical conservatives who turn red when they see two people of the same sex kissing.(Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson probably turn red when he sees a man and a woman holding hands) Or go homicidal if an abortion clinic is opened.

As long as President Bush is vigilant on homosexuality and abortion, the evangelicals don't care what he does elsewhere.

They don't care if he takes money that could be spent on education, and diverts it to rebuilding Iraq and the beleagured Halliburton Income Statement.

They don't care if he sends thousands of their children to die in a war we shouldn't be fighting, as long as a woman isn't allowed to have an abortion to save her own life.

They don't care if he allows the environment to be destroyed, as long as homosexuals can't have the same rights as heterosexuals.

They don't care if we are imprisoning and killing innocent people worldwide in the name of national security, when it is doing anything but making are nation more secure.

The most frustrating part is that these people will vote Republican, no matter what the reality of their situation is! As long as homosexuals can't be on equal footing with heterosexuals and women do not have the right to choose what is done with living cells(not humans) inside their bodies, President Bush can do whatever the $#@% he wants!

It's alright to be a Conservative.........

If you still believe that slavery should have never been abolished. Obviously not all conservatives are so extreme, but the ones who really push the movement and drive the Republican Party, the evangelical conservatives, are that extreme. They may not believe that slavery was a good institution, but they support other socially repressive initiatives, i.e. gay marriage. Anyways here is the official definition of

1. resistant to change

2. Tending or disposed to maintain existing institutions; opposed to change or innovation.

3. Of or pertaining to a political party which favors the conservation of existing institutions and forms of government, as the Conservative party in England; -- contradistinguished from {Liberal} and {Radical}.

Here is the link if you wish to check out the rest of the definitions:

Conservatism isn't all bad, as long as you disregard the first and second definitions. The group that fails to do this is the evangelical conservatives mainly because of their belief that we should be governed by religious laws. They do not seem to understand that this country was formed to escape religious persecution. That is why in our governing document the separation of church and state is explicitly laid out. The evangelical conservatives disregard this and seek to impose their religious beliefs on the United States and the rest of the world. This is the group of conservatives that I am afraid of, if you want to see why, you should read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaids Tale.

I believe conservatives, disregarding the evangelicals, are beneficial and very essential to our government. Basically, they keep us liberals in check.
They make sure we are fiscally responsible and they also make sure that the government does not intervene too much in people's lives. They understand that in certain areas self-regulation is alright.

Everyone, whether they classify themselves as a liberal or conservative probably has a little bit of both inside. The problem arises when one leans to far to either side and there is no balance.

If you want a copy of The Handmaids Tale, go here

It's Great to be a Liberal

Most right leaning pundits blame a lot of our current problems on liberals. They use the term as if it were a dirty word. When being characterized as liberals most people feel that it is derogatory and some even take offense to this characterization. Here is some comfort for those who have liberal beliefs.
After reading the definition you should realize that it is a compliment when right wing pundits call your views liberal. I'm actually pretty sure that some of them don't know the real defintion, because if they did they would not characterize their opponents in such a complimentary fashion.
If you are a republican, take note of the definition, for you may find that you identify more with liberal ideals, or at least possess liberal ideals on certain issues.
I truly believe that a majority of Americans would fall into this definition, they just do not realize it yet.

The official definition of the word: LIBERAL

[n] a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

[n] a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

[adj] tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

[adj] showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and
broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"

[adj] not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

[adj] given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

[adj] having political or social views favoring reform and progress

Here is a link to the page where you can find these defintions if you wish to check up on the info

Monday, September 13, 2004

O'Reilly Factor: Where the spin supposedly stops!

First and foremost I would like to make the point that Bill O'Reilly should rename his supposed "no spin zone" to the no spin zone unless you are a supporter of George W. Bush, then be my guest and spin away.

On September 8, 2004 at about 8 p.m eastern time I tuned into the O'Reilly Factor as part of my usual routine of watching Fox News Channel(FNC) to get their supposed brand of "fair and balanced" coverage. Anyone rational person who watches this network admits there is a rightward slant of the coverage on this supposed news channel, except of course for the Fox News people. Of course, we can't expect them to be honest about their own political views anyways. I usually watch O'Reilly because he is the epidemy of the Fox News ratings machine. He is loud and emotional in his broadcasts and also somewhat of a bully. His bullying makes the show worth watching especially when some of his guests decide to stand up to his bull shit.

On this particular show O'Reilly was set to interview one of the authors of the controversial book, Unfit for Command, John O'neil in the "No Spin Zone." I was expecting O'Reilly to at least challenge some of the controversial material in the book, much of which has been discredited by almost anyone with a fully functioning brain. Of course, there is the possibility that O'Reilly does not have a fully functioning brain.

Anyways I could not find the words to tell you how disappointed I was that O'Reilly did not bully O'neil around at all. He also failed to call into question any of the disputed points in the book. Then I came to the conclusion O'Reilly had fallen prey to the "Bush Spin Zone" or in other words the "Bull Shit Zone".

Obviously, since I am an avid watcher of FNC, I knew that there was no way O'Reilly would characterize O'neil and the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth(lies)" as what they really are, using O'Reilly's own words, a group of "hatchet-men", "character assassins", or "hate group".
These are the characterizations O'Reilly uses of his critics and the Bush administration critics. However, he fails to use them in referencing any of the groups that provide misinformation about the left.

I guess the new catch phrase for O'Reilly's show should be,"The spin stops here if your ideals differ from mine."

Saturday, September 04, 2004

Out of Context

This is my first foray into the blogosphere. I decided to start my own blog after being told to do so while watching the American Compass conservative book panel. Although Mr. L Brent Bozell III was probably talking to young republicans when he directed them to create blogs in an effort to fight back against the supposed "liberal" media bias, I am creating a blog to fight back against this false propaganda.
Another goal of this blog is to combat the misinformation provided by some of my favorite conservative tv and radio hosts, such as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and the other nuts on the air. That's all for now, I will be back with more later.