Saturday, December 25, 2004
Happy Holidays from Green Voicemail
Our gift to you, this gif, taken from Bartcop :
To be used whenever someone talks about how corrupt the Democrats are.
posted by Green Voicemail 12/25/2004 01:47:00 PM
Good Morning, Iraq!
with Muna and Rasha Muhammed!
There hasn't been a lot of talk in the Blogsophere about our failed attempt at a Fox News Channel of our own in Iraq, called al-Iraqiya.
Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing. The CPA (remember those guys) thought it would be a great idea to bring you a "fair and balanced" look at all the progress we were making in Iraq. The difference between al-Iraqiya and the two major satellite news channels, al-Jazeerah and al-Arabiya, was simply this: "We report. You (the Iraqi people) decide."
Thus our attempt to bring Happy News and Outrage to Iraq. At first, 40 percent of Iraqis watched al-Iraqiya, the cementheads were happy to tell us. Al-Iraqiya outperformed both of the other two channels. The emphasis in al-Iraqiya was progress, progress, progress, interviews with the President of Iraq, and Americans and CPA officials about how much progress was going on and about how everything bad in Iraq was the fault of dead-enders, or al-Qaeda.
Well, it looks like al-Iraqiya's numbers are something down to 12 percent. And only six percent of Iraqis view al-Iraqiya as a reliable source of news: undoubtedly, everyone decided to give the new kid on the block a try, but now they're back to their previous stations again.
What happened? Well, the first problem was that al-Iraqiya had a few of its employees KILLED by US soldiers while trying to report the news. Oops. You see...well...we thought they were insurgents...uh...yeah. The result is that al-Iraqiyas NEWS TEAM NOW coverage sort of dwindled to...uh...zero. Iraqis say that al-Iraqiya's news is "warmed over" coverage, relying on a lot of footage that had already aired on the other two channels.
Next is...well...somehow, we forgot to PAY some the employees at al-Iraqiya. As a result, the channel's director resigned. One of his complaints was that al-Iraqiya was 'outsourcing' local programs, purchasing expensive Arabic programming from foreign countries and not producing their own soap operas and game shows.
Those complains are all well and good, but I know where the REAL blame lays for al-Iraqiya's failure.
On 'Good Morning Iraq'.
I can imagine what the promos are like.
"Hello everyone! I'm Muna Mohammed--!"
"--and I'm Rasha Mohammed--!"
"--and welcome to 'Good Morning, Iraq!' Worried that that package you received from your uncle in Mosul might be an explosive? Major Bob Franks will tell you how to make sure that your Ramadan doesn't end with a 'bang'!"
"Does your teenage son think insurgents are 'cool'? Dr. Ghazi Mibjil will tell you how to talk to your son and daughter about hanging around with a bad crowd near the marketplace!"
"And for our good friends in Fallujah, our Magician in the Kitchen, Saalah ali Kteb, will tell you how to cook up a delicious dinner out of rocks and burning metal! All this week on 'Good Morning, Iraq!'
posted by Green Voicemail 12/25/2004 01:08:00 PM
Friday, December 24, 2004
Your (Vichy) Friend, Tim Roemer
Diet Democrats! Fewer calories, less meaning than regular Dems!
From MyDD , I've learned that two of the major candidates for head of the DNC are Howard Dean and Tim Roemer.
Here are some of the positions Tim Roemer holds, as a Democrat:
Let's let his record do the talking:
Member of Democratic Leadership Council. (Nov 2000)
Voted YES to authorize use of force in Iraq
Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
This is from a comment by "kitsae". Senate Minority Leader Read and House Minority Leader Pelosi are endorsing him. Ladies and gents, the fix is in.
Here are some pictures that tell the tale: from the On The Issues site, here is where Howard Dean rests on the political spectrum:
Now here's Tim Roemer:
And here's Boy George:
Yeah, I can just imagine the candidates Roemer will groom for leadership: right-leaning moderates. The big discussion from the Kerry/Roemer side of the hall is how the Democrat Party should do more to be inclusive of the anti-abortion crowd, like say, support the idea of parental notification or bans on late-term abortions.
My solution? Fetuses are not infants. Abortion is not murder. Women are not incubators. End of discussion.
This constant racing to the right by the Democratic "Leadership" drives me insane. It's one of the reasons I stopped supporting the party. I'll have to borrow some thoughts from other bloggers here (if you're one of those bloggers who thoughts I'm stealing, I apologize -- I don't know who to give the credit to).
The first thought is that for the Democrats to move to the right is nonsense. The Republicans will run even HARDER to the right in response, and the race will never end. You can't out-Republican the Republicans. You can't out-cement the cementheads -- the conservatives have the cement monopoly.
The second thought is that the Democrats and Republicans have values, supposely. When the Republicans LOSE an election, their first conclusion is, "I didn't SELL my values well enough. I'll do better next time at SELLING the message." When the Democrats lose an election, the conclusion of the leadership is "the values are wrong. Let's get the values that the winner had!"
This is why the Democrats are doomed to be a losing party as long as Vichy Democrats like Roemer are threats to run the show.
Undoubtedly, there needs to be a real third party. I hope that it will be the Green Party, but I'll take ANY really progessive party, as the Democrats seem eager to abandon any support for people who have to struggle in life. As Jim Harris, a Canadian Green said, "What do we do now? You identify the party you most despise and pick the one with the best chance of beating them. You hold your nose and vote the lesser of two evils. If we never vote for the government we want, we never get the government we want."
posted by Green Voicemail 12/24/2004 04:18:00 PM
Thursday, December 23, 2004
What Some Christians Want
Probably insensitive, but what the hell?
posted by Green Voicemail 12/23/2004 01:59:00 PM
The Browser Wars: Part 348,842
Who's eating who's lunch?
From some page somewhere about something :
Browser Statistics for Mozilla Month by Month in 2004
December 21.2 %
November 19.3 %
October 17.5 %
September 16.9 %
August 15.5 %
July 13.8 %
June 11.8 %
May 11.0 %
April 10.3 %
March 9.6 %
February 9.0 %
January 8.2 %
I tell you, my family went to Mozilla three months ago...we've never looked back.
posted by Green Voicemail 12/23/2004 01:21:00 PM
This is Radio Clash
"can we get that world to listen?"
From The India Times , of all things:
An unauthorized radio station in the nation's capital called for "massive protests" in the week leading up to the January 20 presidential inauguration. The station broadcast Wednesday at 1680 AM and identified itself as "Guerrilla Radio, WSQT." During the identification message, an announcer said, "WSQT is a project of urban activists in the D.C. area working on housing issues, homeless issues, issues of war, issues of occupation both at home and abroad, and issues of the environment that we all have to live in." After being tipped by a reporter, an official with the Federal Communications Commission said enforcement investigators will try to pinpoint the transmitter using direction-finding equipment.
I'm sure I'm supposed to take this threat seriously, but somehow, I just can't summon up the outrage.
posted by Green Voicemail 12/23/2004 01:11:00 PM
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Bush's 'Peace' Mission
"Peace is what we want and do have/and a piece of anything that you have!"
From The New York Post :
December 22, 2004 -- WASHINGTON -- A somber President Bush said yesterday that U.S. troops killed in an attack in northern Iraq were on a mission of peace as the heavy death toll presented him with a fresh challenge in the war.
Bush paid a Christmas-time visit at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to families of troops wounded in battle.
The visit came on the same day terrorists attacked a tented dining hall at a U.S. military base, killing as many as 22 people -- 15 of them GIs -- in the Iraqi city of Mosul.
"We pray for them. We send our heartfelt condolences to the loved ones who suffered today. Just want them to know that the mission is a vital mission for peace ," (emphasis mine) Bush said.
Okay, let's see.
First, it was "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!"
Then is was "We're here just to clear out the terrorists!"
NOW, it's a "vital mission for peace".
More framing from Acme, Inc. I tell you what...probably the best thing we could do for peace is to get the hell out of Iraq. For those who claim that Iraq would descend into chaos, what makes you think we're not already there?
posted by Green Voicemail 12/22/2004 04:44:00 PM
Mosul Bomber 'Framed' By Fox
"You say homicide, I say suicide, let's call the whole thing off!"
Looks like our friends at al-Foxeera are trying to "frame the discussion" again....
WASHINGTON -- Investigators think a homicide bomber probably caused the blast that killed 22 people, including 13 American soldiers, at a U.S. base in Mosul Tuesday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.
'Homicide bomber'? I suppose that the reason they called this guy that other than 'suicide bomber' is that the word 'suicide' makes you wonder what this guy thought was so important that it involved giving up his life for it. Whereas 'homicide' frames it as a civil crime instead of it being an act of agression expected from those rebelling against an occupying force. 'Homicide' implies that the US government and the puppet Iraqi government are the legitimate rulers of Iraq and that this was the act of a 'lone gunman' type dissident.
Besides, it's less precise. If you think about it, EVERY bomber is a 'homicide bomber' -- people don't set off bombs in a crowded area, or fire mortars for the most part without expecting to kill someone. Whereas a 'suicide bomber' is a particular type of bomber, one who is usually making a political statement.
Are we calling our soldiers 'homicide soldiers'? After all, soldiers commit homicide, it's part of their job in a war. al-Foxeera is trying to get you to use this term so they can frame the argument. Don't fall for it.
posted by Green Voicemail 12/22/2004 04:35:00 PM
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Rumsfeld Is Doing A Wonderful Job
Taken from CNN.com
Multiple rounds hit a dining hall at a U.S. military base near Mosul on Tuesday, killing 22 people, including U.S. troops, members of the Iraqi national guard, and Iraqi civilians, Pentagon officials said.
Fifty-one people were wounded in the incident -- which occurred at noon (4 a.m. ET), the officials said.
No other details on the attack were immediately available.
The only reason I hope Rumsfeld isn't replaced is that Bush will undoubtedly replace him with someone 10 times more incompetent.
posted by Green Voicemail 12/21/2004 08:30:00 AM
Blogroll Addition
Jesse of the former Gotham City 13 has a new blog, Republican Sinners , which I've added to the blogroll. Time to make this the holiest time of the year!!
posted by Green Voicemail 12/21/2004 08:08:00 AM
Monday, December 20, 2004
A Year IN
I'm just as skeptical as My Heroine....
Well, we've now finished an entire year of Green Voicemail. Yep, that first GVM post was created on December 21, 2003.
Or at least, the first GVM post that you can see. I had actually started the blog earlier than that, but I wanted to make sure that I could sustain something approaching a political blog before I released it to the world. (Or, as some might claim, GVM wasn't released, it escaped.)
I was inspired by both Bartcop and N. Todd of Dohiyi Mir to actually begin making political posts. Like most political bloggers, I was a commenter first, and then a blogger. And from that point, I began to muck up everyone else's life, and my life too.
When Dean got his orange hat handed to him in Iowa, I was crushed. I was also down for a while when Kerry lost to Boy George (if he indeed DID lose) in 2004. I blogged on, I blogged off, and I tried to post as much as I could.
Yet after one year of blogging, I'm still pretty dissatisfied with the final result. I still remember what my wife told me: "hey, it's not as if they're PAYING you for blogging!" (Which means, basically, that you shouldn't be so concerned as how the blog comes out.)
Then again, I have to remember a few things:
1) I'm not a professional writer,
2) I'm not a professional web designer, and
3) I can't spend six hours a day blogging.
So for the half-assed job that this is, it's not that bad. However, if anyone has any suggestions as to how this blog could be made better, please let me know.
I intend to keep on blogging, for the most part. However, I'm becoming more and more dissatisfied with the Green Party, so I wonder if this is really an appropriate title for the blog, as I don't even post about Green Party politics or about my feelings about certain elements of the Green Party. The title of this blog might change in the near future; don't be surprised if you have to change your uplinks. Either that, or figure out something else that G. V. M. can stand for other than "Green VoiceMail".
Don't be surprised if you come back some day to find the whole thing with a new layout, painted in orange and fuschia and dedicated to MTV's greatest cartoon ever, "Daria". In the meantime, the political blogging will resume.
And a BIG ASS THANK YOU to everyone who has posted here!! Those comments really keep me going! And I apologize for not commenting more on your more than noteworthy blogs!
posted by Green Voicemail 12/20/2004 05:36:00 PM
Green Voicemail's Man of the Year
Ah, it's that time again when Green Voicemail chooses the Man/Woman/Thing of the Year.
Last year, GVM chose Saddam Hussein as its Man of the Year (with Arnold Schwarzenegger as a conservative alternate). Why did we choose these people? Because everyone was talking about them. They might not have made the most news, but they sparked the most discussion.
So who is it going to be? George W. Bush? No. He really didn't spark much discussion at all, despite the fact that he was running for president. He seemed to be running on autopilot, he didn't turn a phrase well at all, he hid in the Oval Office and at staged rallies and didn't leave much of an impresison on anybody. Time Magazine needs to curry favor, but not I.
John Kerry? No. Same reason. Wasn't the most compelling speaker -- Barack Obama had him beat. Howard Dean had him beat. Most progressives were on the Kerry Wagon only because the alternative was clearly worse, and frankly, I was glad to get off it after the fighting was done.
So who should it be?
Michael Moore? He was a very strong contender. I'm sure that most of you will be saying, "it was really the movie he made that was newsworthy, not him personally". And that's true, but Moore is so strongly associated with his movies, that a lot of people say, "I'll see the next Michael Moore movie when it comes out", and it's not really important what the movie is actually about. You know the movie will have a strong progressive slant and pull no punches. But he was topped by at least two other people.
Lynndie England? She was also a very strong contender, stronger than Michael Moore even. America was very much intrigued by Ms. England, who she was, and what her motives were. If you don't know, England is the American soldier charged with prisoner abuse at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, where it is charged that Iraqi prisoners were physically and sexually abused.
The most damning evidence is a series of shocking photographs taken at the prison. England takes part in some of the photographs: leading an Iraqi prisoner on a leash, pointing at another prisoner's naked penis, and posing with a human pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners. To say that America took notice was an understatement.
Which led to a round of speculation: is Private England the EXCEPTION in Iraq...or is she the RULE? The US Army would have you believe that prisoner abuse was just limited to England and her friends. So what is England's motivation? Is she a sex deviant? Got caught up in a bad crowd? Filled with post-911 fervor to punish our enemies? What? But the big question remains, "how could such a seemingly normal American girl get caught up in...this?!?"
Certainly, Iraqi citizens and those from other Arab countries took notice. To the one billion or so Muslims, England said much more about America's intentions in the Middle East than a hundred Iraq water projects. Much of our good will has been undone, and those photographs might have indeed undone our entire effort in Iraq, whether we were there to help establish a free democracy in Iraq (conservative view) or to establish the first foreign outpost in an America-dominated colonial empire (progressive view).
However, there is one person who has England beaten. And the strange thing is, no one knows the man's name. We can only guess who he is. We can only guess what he is feeling.
What we can say, without a doubt, is that this amateur photograph is definitely the photograph of the year, and its subject is Green Voicemail's Man of the Year in 2004. This man, whoever he is, summed up America's presence in Iraq for a fifth of the planet, MINIMUM. However, the conclusions you draw from looking at him might indeed be dark ones, and may portend a dark 2005.
Oh, and for the conservatives who are so, so, offended, here's a substitute Man of the Year for you.
posted by Green Voicemail 12/20/2004 05:19:00 PM
Sunday, December 19, 2004
The F-Scale
Is it in you?
Swiped shamelessly from Anesi.com. This was a test given in the 1950s to attempt to see how receptive you were to "authoritarian personality" thinking.
My score? 2.933. Which puts me at "liberal airhead".
posted by Green Voicemail 12/19/2004 05:20:00 PM
Presidential Odds 2008
From Tradesports -- all conversions made by myself (Tradesports does not represent share trading in the fashion below)....
DEMOCRATS
H. Clinton--EVEN
Bayh--2 to 1
Warner--3 to 1
Richardson--7 to 2
Edwards--7 to 2
Biden--7 to 2
Dodd--7 to 2
Kerry--4 to 1
Gore--9 to 2
Vilsack--5 to 1
Rendell--5 to 1
Dean--6 to 1
Obama--6 to 1
Clark--10 to 1
Leahy--30 to 1
Lieberman--50 to 1
Ford--50 to 1
Powell--50 to 1
REPUBLICANS
Giuliani--EVEN
McCain--9 to 8
Owens--7 to 4
Frist--3 to 2
J. Bush--2 to 1
Romney--2 to 1
Allen--3 to 1
Powell--5 to 1
Rice--5 to 1
Hagel--6 to 1
Franks--9 to 1
Pataki--11 to 1
Schwarzenegger--12 to 1
Barbour--12 to 1
Ridge--20 to 1
Cheney--20 to 1
Thompson--20 to 1
Santorum--20 to 1
E. Dole--40 to 1
Bloomberg--40 to 1
Graham--40 to 1
posted by Green Voicemail 12/19/2004 05:09:00 PM
Dear [Mother of Dead Soldier]....
Can sign dozens of condolence letters a day!!
From Reuters :
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not personally sign his name on letters of condolence to families of troops killed in Iraq but instead had it done by a machine, an action lawmakers said on Sunday showed insensitivity and was inappropriate for leadership during war.
Rumsfeld acknowledged that he had not signed the letters to family members of more than 1,000 U.S. troops killed in action and in a statement said he would now sign them in his own hand. "This issue of the secretary of Defense not personally signing the letters is just astounding to me and it does reflect how out of touch they are and how dismissive they are," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"I have no confidence in Rumsfeld," Hagel added.
Join the club.
posted by Green Voicemail 12/19/2004 03:05:00 PM
