The World’s Shortest Blog has an awesome bounty going. They have a collection (currently at $1220) which goes to the first person to ask George W. Bush, in a public forum, one simple question: “How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?”
I do so hope that someone does this, on film.
[Via BoingBoing]

Garrison Keillor asks, “How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?” Read his excellent essay.
[Via BEB]

“Actually going into the voting booth and ralphing is no great pleasure, compared to the remorse you’ll feel if Mr. Bush is elected and fresh horrors begin to unfold and the nadir is reached and the Bushies keep going down, down, down.”

I really do love Garrison Keillor.

Just in case you were wondering, or rather, just in case you were a moron who actually contemplated who Jesus would vote for. Yes, Jesus. You know, the 2000+ year old son of god? Personally, I’d like to think he would be above the fray of American politics, but you know. Appartenly, there is a panel to debate such, um, crap.
[Via my wife, Kristyna!]

We all know there’s plenty of them, but here’s a rundown from the American Progress Action Fund.

I guess I’m a cynic, because I had the feeling this was true all along, however, Julius has posted a chart that shows:

1. Whenever Bush’s approval ratings fall in the polls, there is a new terror alert.
2. A new terror alert results in a slight uptick in his approval.
3. Terror alerts frequently follow a rash of unfavorable headlines.
4. As the election approached, the number and frequency of terror alerts is increasing dramatically.

Now, as noted on the page with the chart, certainly not all terror alerts are motivated by politics. However, you have to give pause when you consider that the latest round of alerts: immediately followed the Democratic National Convention; were based, apparently, on old data, possibly as old as three years; and, even resulted in Tom Ridge giving a follow-up press conference to specifically deny the alerts were politically motivated.

Again, I would like to believe better, but my gut tells me these are the administration’s attempts to fear monger and try to dupe the American public into thinking they are somehow doing a good job of keeping America safe, while at the same time always making voters too afraid to change administrations.

“Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror …” -FDR, 1933

I’m sure you’ve probably already seen it, but if not, you need to visit JibJab and watch the This Land parody. It’s quite funny.

What isn’t funny is the reaction of Ludlow Music, the copyright owner of Woody Guthrie’s song. They want the parody taken down. How ironic, since Boing Boing points out that one of Guthrie’s frequently used copyright statements was:

“This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.” 

It just goes to show how perverted copyright has become in our country. What started as a means to protect the artist who created, it’s now the means to protect the company that takes control of the creation when the artist dies (Disney, anyone?). And just in case you thought the original This Land was just a cheesy feel-good song, it might be a good idea to re-read the last two stanzas, which are often left out when people sing the tune:

As I was walkin’ – I saw a sign there
And that sign said – no tress passin’
But on the other side …. it didn’t say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

In the squares of the city – In the shadwow of the steeple
Near the relief office – I see my people
And some are grumblin’ and some are wonderin’
If this land’s still made for you and me.

Dennis Kennedy has an interesting post today about Dave Winer and thoughts on the Kerry campaign, the DNC, and their use of Internet technology in this election.

As usual, Dave has his panties in a bunch over the DNC reliance on television ads. He’s under the impression they are “clueless”:

"Joe Trippi, get a clue. Geez Louise. He thinks the role of the Internet in politics is to raise money so they can run ads on TV. Look at how much good all those TV ads did for Howard Dean. You think he would have figured it out by now. The election will happen here, not there. Probably not the Presidential election of 2004. Perhaps one of our goals for the DNC is to smoke out innovative uses of the Internet by Democrats, where they're doing more than raise money for TV ads. Put that one on the list for sure."

As they say on one of my favorite radio programs, let’s do the numbers:

• There are 248 *million* television sets in U.S. Households
• 98.2% of all households with at least one television
• The average number of TVs per home in 2001: 2.4
   
• 54 million households have computers
• 51% of households have one or more computers
• 41.5% of households with computers have Internet access

Hmmm… yes, what on earth is Joe Trippi smoking?! The DNC definitely needs to pander more to the self-important blog community. The revolution will not be televised, it will be blogged.

Now, let me preface this by saying I’m not a political analyst. But common sense sure tells me that advertising where the greatest number of people will see my message sure makes sense. The Internet is proving to be a very valuable fund raising tool, in spite of the fact that Winer thinks that’s a poor use of the net. However, in June the Kerry campaign raised $34M with about $3M of that being on-line. Impressive use of the net, if you ask me, but it also demonstrates again that the majority of the money and most likely the votes are not coming from on-line.
Is the Kerry campaign making the best use of the net that they can? Probably not. Will the net be more influential in future elections? To put it in terms even Winer can understand, “Duh”. Of course as the net grows in popularity, and as the general populous becomes more comfortable there will be a rise in the influence of the Internet on campaigns. But honestly, stop putting the cart before the horse. The democrats aren’t doing a horrible job on-line; they are raising good money via the web, and they are keeping people informed of campaign info on-line. That’s pretty good for the present state of politics and the present state of the web. They’re even trying some interesting things, such as the custom “Kerry Campaign” newsreader Dennis mentions. (Although, I think that is mis-guided. Why in the hell would I want a Kerry only RSS reader? Answer: I wouldn’t.) But they are trying.

What it really boils down to is that Winer disagrees with anyone who he doesn’t feel is using the net and blogs the way he sees fit. Disagree with him, and you need to “get a clue”. What’s that? You’re raising millions of dollars on the net not doing it his way? Apparently, that still makes you a chump in his book. Whatever. Hey Dave, put your money where your mouth is, run a successful, all Internet political campaign. I dare you.

“En route to Iraq for a surprise visit Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him that administration lawyers oppose releasing the photos on grounds that would violate a Geneva Convention stricture against presenting images of prisoners that could be construed as degrading.”

Okay, so, let me understand this… the “Rumsfeld” Pentagon apparently either 1) doesn’t have enough authority to stop troops from torturing prisoners or 2) orders troops to torture prisoners. And now, after violating all kinds of human rights and the Geneva Convention, Rumsfeld is suddenly concerned about not violating it by releasing photos of our atrocities? Wow, am I the only American that sees through this bullshit? I doubt it.
And Rumsfeld has the gall to say he’d only resign if he were “no longer able to be effective”?

So… the Red Cross warned the Pentagon and Bush administration about “abuses” (read: torture) in January. But the President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense didn’t learn about these “abuses” until 60 Minutes II released the photos? 60 Minutes II!! Question: How much more ineffective as Secretary of Defense can you be?!

I think it’s about time the American public handed Bush Rumsfeld and Myers asses on a platter. Maybe Wolfowitz can snap some photos.

P.S. I think it’s somehow fitting that my spell checker wants to replace “Wolfowitz” with “Halfwit”. 🙂