Election 08

This one's for you Pops...

Why we love Palast!

Greg Palast has done it again. He took a largely de-newsworthy appearance by Monica Goodling and exposed the nugget of damning testimony. Monica Goodling testified in her opening statement that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty (Not former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson as it says in the linked Truthout article) had been apprised of Tim Griffins vote 'caging'. Not ONE Congressman asked what the hell she was talking about. It's alright blogheads. I'm going to email every member of the House Judiciary Committe and see what happens:)
Palast tells it best:

Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.

Here's how caging worked, and along with Griffin's thoughtful emails themselves you'll understand it all in no time.

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and - you got to love this - American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation - and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.

How do I know? I have the caging lists...

I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can't be found. I have the emails. 500 of them - sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.

Here's what you need to know - and the Committee would have discovered, if only they'd asked:

1. 'Caging' voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony. 2. Griffin wasn't "involved" in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove's right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It's in the email I got. Thanks. And it's posted above. 3. On December 7, 2006, the ragin', cagin' Griffin was named, on Rove's personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.

More to come on this. Tune into the Naked Zoo on 90.5FM KWMR.org for more...

Stay smiling and as always...

Stay Naked.

ad

It was 40 Years Ago today...

That Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play...

This post pretty much speaks for itself. A huge thank goes out to our buddy Chris Breyer for forwarding this along:)

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: I wish I could report to you that the conflict is almost over. This I cannot do. We face more cost, more loss, and more agony. For the end is not yet. I cannot promise you that it will come this year--or come next year. Our adversary still believes, I think, tonight, that he can go on fighting longer than we can, and longer than we and our allies will be prepared to stand up and resist.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: Our South Vietnamese allies are also being tested tonight. Because they must provide real security to the people living in the countryside. And this means reducing the terrorism and the armed attacks which kidnapped and killed 26,900 civilians in the last 32 months, to levels where they can be successfully controlled by the regular South Vietnamese security forces. It means bringing to the villagers an effective civilian government that they can respect, and that they can rely upon and that they can participate in, and that they can have a personal stake in. We hope that government is now beginning to emerge.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: This forward movement is rooted in the ambitions and the interests of Asian nations themselves. It was precisely this movement that we hoped to accelerate when I spoke at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore in April 1965, and I pledged "a much more massive effort to improve the life of man" in that part of the world, in the hope that we could take some of the funds that we were spending on bullets and bombs and spend it on schools and production.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: A time of testing--yes. And a time of transition. The transition is sometimes slow; sometimes unpopular; almost always very painful; and often quite dangerous. But we have lived with danger for a long time before, and we shall live with it for a long time yet to come. We know that "man is born unto trouble." We also know that this Nation was not forged and did not survive and grow and prosper without a great deal of sacrifice from a great many men.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship…A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Spooky...

Stay dry and as always...

Stay Naked.

ad

Best On-line Story EVER!

This one makes me laugh everytime I read it. Thanks McSweeney's Internet Tendency.

A REALISTIC
ASSESSMENT OF
HOW MANY 12-YEAR-OLDS I COULD BEAT UP BEFORE THEY OVERTOOK ME.
BY MATT SCHWEIGER

- - - -

Your average 12-year-old boy is about 5 feet tall, weighs in the area of a buck-fifteen, and has developed little muscle mass.

I am 21, approximately 6 feet tall, tip the scales at an even 180, and have a moderately athletic and muscular build.

Judging on these statistics and what I assume would be a natural ferocity that would spring forth in a moment of physical danger, I estimate that I could beat up seven 12-year-olds before they overtook me. Of course, these would have to be the aforementioned average-sized 12-year-olds. Future linebackers, NBA players, and all Scandinavian children would throw off this equation. On the flip side, if these were some wimpy, four-square-playing, future-jockey 12-year-olds, I imagine the number would skyrocket to anywhere between 12 and 15. It's simple exponential math.

This is also assuming that my opponents are smart enough to organize themselves into a circular attack instead of coming at me one by one. If it were an individual, king-of-the-mountain battle royale, I could endlessly pummel 12-year-olds without mercy. But we're assuming at least a sixth-grade education in a marginal public school as well as some exposure to kung-fu movies, so these kids would form a circle.

However, using my quick wits, I would charge one portion of the circle, landing a devastating blow on the unlucky individual, which would make the others proceed with hesitancy. One on one, I feel like I could deliver a lot of punishment to a 12-year-old. There would be one or two brave ones who would jump on my back, distracting me and thus enabling the others to attack. At best, I could fight off the two heroes on my back and maybe take out four on the ground before I was felled by fatigue and numerous kicks to my groin and shins. This would equal a grand total of seven.

My friend Brian, who stands about 6 feet 2 inches and is stronger than myself, estimates that he could take down a dozen 12-year-olds. I find this hard to believe, but he has been in a fight with people his own age and is a little taller, making groin shots more difficult. Brian's reach is much longer than mine as well, which is a huge advantage. If you can land solid shots from a distance longer than the 12-year-olds' legs, there is no need to worry about groin kicks.

He says he would attack one portion of the circle in a fury, scaring off any would-be heroes who wanted to jump on his back and sacrifice themselves for the group. Then he would deal massive blows until fatigue and the inevitable groin shots brought him to the ground. I told him I'd give him nine or ten, but even for the above-average Brian, taking down a dozen 12-year-olds seems like a lot.

If it weren't for the law and my own morals, we could put these pressing questions to rest. Alas, these barriers still stand in our way.

I'm a pacifist anyway.

Stay Pacifistic and as always...

Stay Naked.

ad

How much did you say this picture cost?

Thank you Rawstory via CREW...

Stay Photogenic and as always...

Stay Naked.

ad

Sometimes you just gotta smile.

Stay true and as always...

Stay Naked.

ad

PS. I don't know if it's necessary, but having worked with marketing types helps with this joke as you can see them doing exactly this.

The Smiling Face of Facism

Good Morning, boys and girls. That smiling and attractive fellow is Newt Gingrich who probably would like to be President of the United States beginning in January 2009. He "hasn't made up his mind" yet, of course, but he does turn up on CSPAN's "Road to the White House" with the rest of the hopefuls and otherwise acts like a presidential candidate.

So why are we using the "F" word for Mr. Gingrich ? Easy. Because of a report from the Vermont Union Leader today in which he calls for "changes to the rules" regarding Free Speech to help fight terror. Changes are needed, he says, "before we lose a city".

Mr. Gingrich did not spell out the connection between Free Speech as protected by the Constitution and the loss of a city, nor how his unspecified changes might avoid this result. We don't care.

It could not matter less what price in freedom Mr. Gingrich thinks it appropriate for us to pay for some illusory security. Freedom of speech is not a noted feature of Russia and the restrictions did not prevent the Beslan school outrage.

Restrictions on freedom are never to protect the people and always to protect the privilege of the few.

Mr. Gingrich had some other dishonest things to say about free speech. He attacked campaign finance reform and said it did little to stem "attack ads". Actually, the ill that campaign finance reform is designed to deal with is corruption of public officials.

All right class, take a pen or a pencil or a crayon or a sharpie or whatever you have and draw a clear line through the name "Newt Gingrich" on your list of presidential candidates for 2008. And if any of your mommies or daddies are in a position to have Mr. Gingrich identified as an Al Quaeda operative, subjected to extraordinary rendition and transported to Egypt for a few months, we would all be grateful.

StayNaked
jd