So apparently the 12-year-old girl who was being sued by the RIAA has already settled. I hope that this doesn't go away despite the settlement, and the story lingers for awhile just to show what cold-blooded fuckers the RIAA is.

More horrific happenings in Israel.

At this point, I think the only way "to put an end to the killing" would be for aliens from outer space to show up and obliterate the region. Anything short of that, and all the hatred and killing isn't going to stop.

Here's another view on the whole abstinence issue, but forth in a much more coherent and professional manner than I'm capable of. This once again comes from our friends across the pond, where they seem to have a much healthier, more realistic, and ultimately more compassionate way of approaching teenage sexuality.

Dude, I'm a leg man myself, but knock that shit off.

So on my way to work today, I drove past a guy whose license plate read "LOLYS." And I'm thinking to myself, you know, having a lolita complex is one thing, but is it a good idea to be announcing it on the license place of your fucking car? It was a guy driving, so clearly, this couldn't be anything but a lolicon reference.

So apparently Paramount has realized that the fans care so little about Enterprise that they're adding the words "Star Trek" to the official title for the third season. Yeah, you fucks, that's why no one was watching: because they didn't realize it's supposed to be Star Trek. It has nothing to do with the fact that the show sucks, and that you should quit raping Roddenberry's corpse already.

Hey, and just as we were discussing the degredation of civil liberties to bolster the illusion of security. As an added bonus, you won't even know if you're part of the test next year. There is so much comforting information in that article that it just boggles the mind.

Here's yet another example as to why the RIAA is a buch of fucking assholes. This is just more evidence as to how all these lawsuits are nothing but a McCarthyistic witch hunt. The amnesty program is further support of this, since it's not available to those already being sued, and obviously not to those who have already settled. Why wasn't the amnesty program available to them at the time? Because the RIAA hadn't announced it yet - they had to make an example of those other people first.

Also, in case you're wondering why I was reading Fox News, I wasn't. This was originally linked off of Assdot, and I figured I already took the time to read one story about the ridiculousness of suing a 12 year old girl and that there was no sense in reading another and just getting more pissed. Speaking of this 12 year old and the early lesson she's getting in her "Why America Sucks" education, what's next for her? Having Ashcroft show up at her house and forcefully take her to a Silver Ring Thing meeting?

If they actually go forward with this bullshit, it will be yet another example as to why I'm pissed at this place.

So it's been over six years since I graduated high school, but I don't seem to remember my history classes being particularly unfair to America.

I'm sure most of the people who come here think I hate America. Well, I don't. Sorta. You see, America and I have a complicated relationship. I love the ideals that this country was founded upon. Freedom, equality, religious tolerance - just to name a few. Granted, that looks a little weak, considering it was laid down by a bunch of white, slave-holding land owners. Whether the founding fathers were hypocritical or not (and they were), I think the principles that were supposed to define this country are able to stand on their own merits.

Oh, and I will make a definite stand that I hate our leaders. The Bush Administration, the weak-ass democrats - they all fucking suck. I think my opinion on Washington is already well known, however.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that I hate what we, as a country, have become. I think we are running down a dangerous path that is causing us to stray more and more from those founding ideals. We've become a nation where civil liberties are curttailed in the name of (the illusion of) safety. We have a good number of people who think government promotion of Christianity is OK. We have a populace that is still afraid of things like homosexuality. We have a culture of corporate greed that every one of us feeds off of and feeds into. We run around the world cramming our religion and our system down people's throats. There's obviously plenty of other shit we do, too. All in all, I think we're squandering a whole lot of potential. America is becoming the tall, attractive, smart, funny guy who ends up marrying the worst human being possible. Few things piss me off more than unrealized or discarded potential.

America isn't alone, and we're not the only country who does some or all of the things I've mentioned. Since I live here, though, it makes it easier for me to see what we're up to, and puts me in a better position to criticize.

Yes, of course, I'm only mentioning the bad things, just like this report is accusing the educational system of doing. But you know what? I've always viewed that as my job. It's easy to look at the good side of things. If we just looked at the good and not the bad, we'd never work on any of the bad stuff and make any progress. Also, the uglier elements of American history cannot be ignored. I'm hearing a call for "balance," but I'm severely doubtful in this day and age as to just how much balance they want.

If you're worried about kids not being patriotic enough, tell that to our government first. Tell them to start acting more patriotic. No, I mean real patriotism, not wearing an American flag lapel pin just in case you're photographed, while you pass legislation cynically titled the PATRIOT act.

One thing I definitely agree with is the call for more study of non-democratic societies. A lot of kids will be able to better appreciate what we have in our society just by seeing it juxtaposed with societies that don't have the freedoms that we do have. Well, the freedoms that we have for the time being, at least. Lots of them will be able to draw their own conclusions and develop their own sense of what America is to them without having it preached to them. Yes, they're not all going to fall in line with some people's ideals of what an American citizen should be, but that's what happens in a free society where people are allowed to be free thinkers (I'm pretty sure we have a few of those left). You know what? That's a good thing, that idea of people forming their own diverse opinions.

Oh, and for Christ's sake, let's see a little more study of people who aren't white.

The reason why I'm so pissed at this country is because I know we can do better. Okay, at this point I've gotten really skeptical as to whether or not we can pull it off, but I think we definitely should be trying harder and doing better. You wanna know what helped me develop this opinion? Amongst other things, my history classes when I was back in school. Despite showing our darker moments, they showed me that the United States has accomplished some truly remarkable things. I want to see more of that now and in the future, and I'm not afraid to look on our often ugly past and increasingly ugly present as a motivational tool.

Here's an interesting idea.

So my FHM subscription hasn't run out, unfortunately. On the cover of this month's issue, they're announcing "Jenny McCarthy - She's back!" And all I can say is, fuck. I hate Jenny McCarthy.

I used to have this huge thing for Jenny McCarthy when she was first in Playboy. Ohhhhh yeahhhhh, the October '93 issue. She was fucking hot back then. I did quite a bit of practicing my hand/eye coordination with that issue. But you know that thing where she started talking? That didn't work out so well. I'm not saying all pretty women should keep quiet, just the ones who are stupid and obnoxious. I'm not saying I wouldn't have still had sex with her, but her attractiveness waned over the years, due in part to the fact that I couldn't stand her.

So there we go. I busted out the issue. Still looks the same, would still have sex with her as long as she kept her trap shut. You know, the trap that words come out of. Again, not as hot as the good ol' days, but not bad considering that she must be like 80 years old now.

Speaking of Playboy, the one area where I've seen fit to give them some money and not feel too stupid about it is with their Special Editions. Like tonight, they got another chunk of change out of me for all the issues I've missed in the past several months, with the exception of "Voluptuous Vixens," which is just pluto-sized silicone tits extravaganza. I hate that issue with a passion. "We don't care if they're pretty - they have huge breasts!" I could go on about this country's big tit obsession, but we'll leave that rant for another time. Anyway, the rest of the SEs usually have a good number of hot women (some fake, of course, others natural), and few words to bother with. It's not that I dislike reading, it's just that it's Playboy. If you're really reading Playboy for the articles, let's face it - you're an asshole.

Ahhh, who am I kidding? Hotties or not, I'm such a tool.

Well then, tell your son to quit being so fucking stupid. Of course, at that point in the conversation, it's not clear as to whether or not he's still talking about negative things said about Dubya. "And he'll do OK." "Just OK? Gee, thanks for the rousing vote of confidence, Dad!"

What the fuck is up with Paula Zahn asking such stupid fucking questions? No, I mean besides the fact that she's a fucking idiot. Oh, wait, there's my answer. "Are you able, at a point in your life now, where you can read a piece that's negative and just say, "I'm not going to finish that"?" I know the man is 79 years old now, but he used to be fucking President. I think he's pretty well able to decide whether or not he's going to finish reading something that's pissing him off.

You know, I've gained more and more respect for Elder Bush as time has gone by. Mainly, the time that has passed and allowed me to see what a shitty president his son is. At least H.W. seems to have a decent sense of humor.

Hey, check it out. I just came up with a great new euphemism. The next time you get sick and vomit, don't use such unpleasant language as "vomit" or "throw up." Instead, just say your food was "recalled."

Another new linker today. Say 'hi' to Robert and his 'blog, XSet.

Okay, so I've been mulling over my abstinence post from earlier, and realized a couple of things.

I sort of undercut my points about low self-esteem when I said I'd make it a goal to sleep with teenage girls (again, all within legal bounds) if it were actually a realizable goal. Ending up with me, whether I was their age or my age now, would most definitely leave them with feelings of low self-worth. Then again, I suppose that supports another point I made - it doesn't always work out well, but that's one of the risks. Plus, it's not like I'm going to have the opportunity to lower the self worth of anyone younger, my age, or older, so it remains a non-issue.

The other thing I realized is that if these kids are stupid enough to buy into this abstinence bullshit, then we really are better with them not having sex. This feeds into my desire to see some people remain chaste to keep stupid people from having children. Hell, maybe I'll start my own abstinence campaign, the "People stupid enough to listen" campaign. Yeah, maybe. But I still hate this collective sense of dirtiness and wrongness, a lot of which, again, stems from when we're younger and fed a bunch of nonsense.

You know, I might get in line with the abstinence people if they were working off a platform of trying to keep stupid people from breeding. But oh no, it has to be this stupid Christian bullshit. I'm not going to make any bones about it and simply say "religious"; it's those fucking Christians.

I've got all sorts of random commentary on this one. The topic is too irritating to put together a coherent, focused rant. Much like every other post I've made.

The reason why preaching abstinence pisses me off is two-fold. First of all, it is completely unrealistic. Your teen years are all about those "raging hormones," and if kids really want to fuck, they're gonna fuck. Even the kids who get into this whole abstinence thing eventually fall off the wagon, from the sounds of it. If the kids are going to have sex, for god's sake, let's just hope they do it in the safest manner possible. It'd be nice if they had some guidance in knowing ways to make it safer. Aren't we supposed to be a pragmatic people?

The other reason why the abstinence brigade infuriates me is because their cause leads to nothing but unhealthy attitudes about sex. It just perpetuates this bullshit, puritan notion that sex is dirty and bad. It leads to unnecessary feelings of guilt and low self-worth. Yeah, sometimes you do fuck up and have a legitimate reson to feel bad about a sexual encounter. But you shouldn't feel bad just because you think sex is always bad, because it isn't. In many cases, if you lose "your self-respect, and arrive at the altar at some unspecified future date as damaged goods," it's only a matter of perception. You view yourself as not worthy of respect for having sex, or you view yourself as damaged goods just because you've bought into the bullshit and you perceive yourself as such. Furthermore, you're going to feel that way if other idiots have bought into the bullshit as well. Don't listen to them; we just established that they're idiots. I know, easier said than done.

Okay, that was marginally coherent. Things break down from here on out.

Virginity is this stupid, nearly arbitrary bullshit notion that we put waaaaaaaaaay too much emphasis on. People act like losing your virginity is like getting a lobotomy - suddenly, you're a different person. Well, you shouldn't be different just because you've had sex. There may be some physiological differences, but there shouldn't really be a psychological difference. Now you're the same fucking person, who's been introduced to the wonderful world of fucking.

"No sex before marriage" is a completely arbitrary line in the sand which does nothing but try and push the Christian view of marriage on everyone. Think about it: if you end up with someone, there's at least a chance that you're going to be having a decent amount of sex in the future. If so, your first time is not going to matter all that much. It may be a nice, special memory (but maybe not), but it isn't going to have that much of an impact on anything once you've had sex enough times. And why should it? It was just one time. Stop living in the past.

Well, having a decent amount of sex with your partner unless, of course, you're a cold, frigid person who still thinks sex is bad. And I can't imagine why someone would still have a bad attitide about sex, even after marriage. I doubt it's something they developed as a teenager.

Look, if you want to wait until marriage, that's fine. I'm not saying everyone should be having sex just for the sake of having sex. Just don't hold back because someone told you Jesus is going to get mad, or because someone told you it's "bad" without any real justification. Disease and pregnancy are just excuses; they don't care about any of those issues. They just want to you be "pure" and "Christian" and "boring" just like them. Now that I think about things, why is Jesus watching anyway, that fucking pervert?

Yes, sex can complicate things. Yes, sex can lead to pregnancy and disease. Yes, sex can ruin relationships. And yes, sex is not always a happy and fun thing. But you know what? Under the right circumstances, sex is fun. It's a great thing to share with someone you care about, or, hell, someone you don't care about. As long as the other person is having fun too, or if nothing else, at least there willingly (gotta account for the fact that, well, some people just don't perform well).

It's always laughable to hear teenage boys saying they've committed themselves to abstinence. No, you fucking loser, you're not having sex because no one will fuck you. I should know; we can smell our own. You're pretending to have control in a situation where you really have little, if any control. Unless of course if you want to pay for it, but I don't wanna and a lot of teen boys probably just don't have the money.

If I weren't such a worthless, unattractive, uninteresting loser, I would make it my goal to have safe sex with as many teenage girls as possible, providing it was all legal.

It's real nice to see all these smart parents pushing the topic of sex on their 12 year-olds. That girl might not have cared for awhile, but now she's well on her way towards developing an unhealthy attitude about sex.

I promise you, the best gift you can give your wife insofar as she's concerned is something with a big sparkly diamond in it. "Gee, thanks honey, your virginity. I feel so much luckier than Jack's wife and her new 3-carat pendant."

I only wish there was some sort of "epidemic" of oral sex, or if there is, that I could somehow get caught up in it.

Also, if I see any unmarried girls wearing this silver ring, I'm going to... I'm going to... Nevermind.

You know, with all the vile shit that must go into the food McDonald's sells, you think you'd see more of this.

Yeah, pretty much.

So it looks like the Brits are getting nervous, as British defence secretary Geoff Poon is sending more troops. I'm not sure what the exact number is - some say 1,000 more, others 1,200, up to 3,000.

I guess my assertion that the 20,000 non-US troops were "mostly British" was somewhat misleading. Their numbers are in the 10-11,000 range. I thought I had read somewhere that the numbers were closer to 20,000, but apparently my memory sucks. Still, the British are the second largest contingency over there in Iraq. I seem to remember the next biggest groups being 2,000 or so Australians (again, could be wrong, memory sucks), and don't forget those Polish commandos.

It has arrived: the greatest day ever. The culmination of over two decades of collecting. The Gadgetmobile is in the motherfucking house.

The thing that always irked me was that I was just dying to know how the toy was going to work. Actually, if it was going to work at all. I wasn't sure how they were going to pull off the conversion from car to van, and actually make it look good. Now, after amost exactly 20 years (the prototypes are dated 1983), I have the answer.

I had completely forgotten about the fact that the Clawmobile was also supposed to be made, because I was more interested in the Gadgetmobile back then. As it turns out, the Clawmobile is fucking sweet, too.

You'd think that people might clean up the shit they're hawking on eBay, but I guess that's because most people aren't me. A sponge and some soapy water helped; but I'm not sure if there's any way to get rid of that "Twenty year-old toy" smell. It may be time for something lemon fresh.

Anyway, I'll post some pics later on, because these things really are fucking cool. It's neat that I have them now, and got to pay a bunch of money for them, but these would have been a blast back in the 80s. I can just picture myself running around my grandparents' house playing with 'em.

I think it's official: I am the fucking best at finding shit. It might take 20 years, but if it's out there, somewhere, I'll find it. Whether or not it found its way to store shelves is apparently not an issue.

So fucking what? This is so bloody important that it makes the front page of CNN's website, just because of Alonzo Mourning co-owning the place?

CNN really sucks ass. Yeah, I know I link to them all the time, but it's not because of stellar reporting. Basically, just to get an idea out there as to what the fuck is going on. Jesus, are we going to hear about everything bad that happens that's vaguely related to an NBA star thanks to this Kobe shit?

Okay everyone, extremely long post here. I ended up not seeing or hearing Bush's address, but I did read through the transcript provided by the White House to CNN. It's repeated here, with running color commentary by me. Christ, I hope someone reads this, because this took over three hours.

Good evening. I have asked for this time to keep you informed of America's actions in the war on terror.

I'm real sure Bush went and asked "Please, please Mr. Cheney, can I go out and bullshit the American people for awhile? Also, why do I have the feeling I'm not going to feel very informed by the time I'm done with this?

Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism. These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve, and great progress.

Systematic? By systematic, you mean going into one nation after another with no plan as to what the fuck we're going to do when we get there?

What new responisbilities? What new sacrifices? Going to the mall and spending more? National resolve? Where the fuck is that at? Oh, you mean our resolve to not sacrifice or to not take on new reponsibilities?

September 11th reference count: 1

America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan, by destroying the training camps of terror, and removing the regime that harbored al Qaeda. In a series of raids and actions around the world, nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed, and we continue on al Qaeda's trail. We have exposed terrorist front groups, seized terrorist accounts, taken new measures to protect our homeland, and uncovered sleeper cells inside the United States. And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council. Our coalition enforced these international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history.

If I hear the word "coalition" paired with the word "broad" ever again to describe our work in Iraq, I'm going to throw up.

1. "the former regime sponsored terror" - Has this been proven? Definitely not to the extent that Saddam and Osama were lovers.
   
2. "possessed and used weapons of mass destruction" - Yes, back in the 80s when your dad was busy funding him.
   
3. "for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council" - yeah, but considering that Saddam didn't appear to have those nasty weapons, it looks like he was doing it just to be a cranky bitch.

Also, the word "humane" does not belong anywhere near the words "military campaign." No matter what, war is barbaric. Sometimes necessary, although not in this case.

For a generation leading up to September 11, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak. And they grew bolder, believing that history was on their side. Since America put out the fires of September 11, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power.

The thing that makes terrorism so insidious and hard to stop is that it has no heart of power, you idiot. The rest of this is just bullshit macho posturing.

September 11th reference count: 3

This work continues. In Iraq, we are helping the longsuffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly - yet worthy of our country, and critical to our security.

My guess here is that the implication is that everything we've done in Iraq was and is vital to our security. Well, now it's vital to our security, thanks to how well we're fucking things up over there.

Also, saying that the task is "worthy" of our country and pointing out how we're helping those "longsuffering people" is just sanctimonious bullshit trying to make us look all noble. The administration, and a good deal of the American people, don't give a shit about the people of Iraq. We're over there for purely selfish reasons, so knock it off already.

The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and on the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall, and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror, and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom takes hold, terror will retreat.

Blah, blah, blah. Aren't Iraq and Afghanistan supposed to be free now? Then why in the hell are all these "terrorists" in Iraq who weren't there before? And why is Afghanistan such a mess? From what I understand, warlords and the Taliban still have a decent grip on that country.

Right now, my money is on "an exporter of violence and terror."

The terrorists thrive on hatred of the infidels and money that comes from oil. End of story.

Our enemies understand this. They know that a free Iraq will be free of them -- free of assassins, and torturers, and secret police. They know that as democracy rises in Iraq, all of their hateful ambitions will fall like the statues of the former dictator. And that is why, five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos.

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, I thought I had heard the last of that goddamn statue. That's our whole claim to fame over there - we knocked over a statue. Good for the fucking tuna. Get over it.

Democracy isn't the antimatter to hateful ambitions. Even if we do manage to set up democracy over there, the success of which I am far from convinced of, it's not going to magically make the people who hate us not hate us anymore.

Also, I think we were the ones who threw that country into chaos when we fucking invaded and started shooting people. I'm not saying the people aren't better without Saddam, but give credit where credit is due. Plus, we haven't exactly done a stellar job thus far in containing the chaos.

Some of the attackers are former members of the old Saddam regime, who fled the battlefield and now fight in the shadows. Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. We cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together. We do know they have a common goal -- reclaiming Iraq for tyranny.

Yeah... ?

Most, but not all, of these killers operate in one area of the country. The attacks you have heard and read about in the last few weeks have occurred predominantly in the central region of Iraq, between Baghdad and Tikrit -- Saddam Hussein's former stronghold. The North of Iraq is generally stable and is moving forward with reconstruction and self-government. The same trends are evident in the South, despite recent attacks by terrorist groups.

"Predominantly"? Well, if that's the case, it shouldn't be all that bad, right? Oh, wait? The south too? Fuck.

"Generally stable" and "moving forward. Wow, that's not vague.

Though their attacks are localized, the terrorists and Saddam loyalists have done great harm. They have ambushed American and British service members -- who stand for freedom and order. They have killed civilian aid workers of the United Nations -- who represent the compassion and generosity of the world. They have bombed the Jordanian embassy -- the symbol of a peaceful Arab country. And last week they murdered a respected cleric and over a hundred Muslims at prayer -- bombing a holy shrine and a symbol of Islam's peaceful teachings.

"Great harm"? Doesn't sound like it matters that they're "predominantly" in one area or another or if things are "generally stable," does it?

I didn't know we stand for freedom and order. Did you know that? I'm glad they told me, because I didn't know. Okay, well, I'm still confused on the order part.

The bad guys are going after things that "stand for" and "represent" and are a "symbol of." Geez, they must be mad or something.

This violence is directed, not only against our coalition, but against anyone in Iraq who stands for decency, and freedom, and progress.

No, they're directed against our coalition, and by our coalition, I mean the United States.

There is more at work in these attacks than blind rage. The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken.

Wow, "blind rage" and "strategic goal." They have one up on us with that goal part.

Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This will take time, and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make our own nation more secure.

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Sorry to do this again, but let's say it together, children: the neoconservatives planned long, long ago to depose Saddam Hussein. It's more than evident thanks to the Project for a New American Century.

Iraq now has plenty to do with the war on terror, but only because of the self-fulfilling prophesy of invading Iraq and causing all these terrorists to stream into the country.

I feel more secure already.

September 11th reference count: 4 (although kind of a stretch on this one)

America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping the Iraqi people in the same spirit -- for their sake, and our own.

Oh, yes, yes, yes! I have so been waiting for someone big to bring up Japan and Germany after World War II! Time for a little history lesson.

I continually hear it brought up how people said that we could never bring democracy to Germany and Japan after World War II. We succeeded, and if we did it then, we can do it now in Iraq. This is a complete fallacy. Post-WWII Germany and Japan were so different from Iraq that the comparison is invalid.

Why is it a fallacy? Oh, I don't know, maybe because Germany and Japan had experience with democracy prior to WWII.

Hitler was involved in a democratic election that led to his post of chancellor in Germany. The people wanted Hitler in power. They wanted a strong leader who would right the wrongs of Versailles. Yes, Germany descended into a fascist nightmare, but it came out of a crumbled democracy.

Japan lived in feudalism until 1868, but by 1890 they had their shit together and a constitution and parliament were in place. Their parliament was limited in power, and the electorate was somewhat small (only males who paid over a certain amount of taxes were allowed to vote). Still, they were a capitalist, constitutional nation. Yes, Japan descended into a militarist nightmare, but it came out of a crumbled democracy.

Even though we were rebuilding nations that were definitely not democratic at the time, the people of both Germany and Japan had experience with democracy in the years prior to WWII. I don't know about in Germany, but in Japan a lot of the politicians and bureacrats from before the war became part of the new democracy after the war. There are really no seeds for democracy in Iraq right now, and the people don't have much of a concept of living under a democratic system.

Quit fucking using Japan and Germany as an example, OK?

The only place where the comparison might be valid is with the bad stuff. We did commit years and resources. Like how the official occupation of Japan lasted seven years, and over half a century later we still have a strong military presence there.

Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives -- destroying the terrorists -- enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq -- and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.

Strategy? Do you think they just put this together last night? Because this is the first I've heard of a strategy, and I'm not hearing many specifics on how these goals are going to be met.

First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We are staying on the offensive, with a series of precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by intelligence given to us by Iraqi citizens. Since the end of major combat operations, we have conducted raids seizing many caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition, and we have captured or killed hundreds of Saddam loyalists and terrorists. So far, of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders, 42 are dead or in custody. We are sending a clear message: Anyone who seeks to harm our soldiers can know that our soldiers are hunting for them.

Well, the surest way to prevent future attacks on our soldiers would have been to not get involved in the first place, but that's a moot point no matter how many times I bring it up (and say it's a moot point).

Stop trying to imply that things are so much easier over there now. The phrase "end of major combat operations" doesn't mean shit when there's still a lot of combat going on.

More bullshit posturing.

Second, we are committed to expanding international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq, just as we are in Afghanistan. Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops -- nearly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are joined by over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries. Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.

Yeah, we're real commited to international cooperation, now that we have no fucking choice. Which is yet another reason why the international community is just falling all over themselves to help us out.

Those 20,000 joining us: almost entirely British. You know you have a weak coalition when the #3 guy is Poland. Look, nothing against Poland, but they're not really a military powerhouse these days. And it is just a handful of them, at that.

Some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, led by America.

"Some countries have requested..." Oh, so we're listening to others now?

No, from what it sounds like, it'd be a group of additional targets being bossed around by the Americans.

I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to enforce the Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties. Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized
world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity, and the responsibility, to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.

Bush, you don't recognize shit.

Our "friends"? You mean the "cheese eaters" and the "chocolate makers" and the "scheisse film producers"? Real nice talk about your friends.

The security council resolutions said nothing about removing Saddam from power, and we made no secret that was our intention.

It would be nice if we had let this be a cause for the civilized world, and not a cause for America and America alone. God fucking damn it, will you fucking pricks get it through your heads that you fucked up big time in the diplomatic ring by pissing everyone off, and that's why no one wants to help us?!

Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own Governing Council, comprised of 25 leaders representing Iraq's diverse people. The Governing Council recently appointed cabinet ministers to run government departments. Already more than 90 percent of towns and cities have functioning local governments, which are restoring basic services. We are helping to train civil defense forces to keep order -- and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law -- and a facilities protection service -- and Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders -- and a new Iraqi army. In all these roles, there are now some 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, defending the security of their own country -- and we are accelerating the training of more.

Oooohhhh, sovereignty! That's such a big, grown-up word, Georgie! (He pronounced it right in his speech, didn't he?)

More bullshit about the coalition of the imiginary.

From what I hear, the governing council isn't exactly a real effective governing body.

Restoring basic services? This shit is still going on? Shouldn't this have been taken care of long ago? As our friend Kazami-sensei from Onegai Teacher would say, saiyu senji koyo!. Priority fucking one, assholes!

Oh, wait, maybe they're restoring them after all of the fucking sabotage that's been going on. You know, because things are "generally stable."

Speaking of Onegai Teacher, apparently we're "accelerating" something! This is going to be a great summer! Sex with the hot teacher for everyone!

Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution, and for free elections. From the outset, I have expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty.

Again, it's irrelevant now, but the timetable and all that really should have been worked out beforehand. "Now they must rise," because we left them with little fucking choice.

Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, which we expect will cost 66 billion dollars over the next year. This budget request will support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement. We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads, and medical clinics. This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore to our own security. Now and in the future, we will support our troops and we will keep our word to the more than 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Thorough"? Somehow I doubt it. But $87 billion, hey, that's great. Should go nice with the already expanding deficit. And what exactly is that $87 billion going to pay for? I guess we'll see.

"This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore to our own security." It is also essential to Halliburton.

What, were we considering ending our support of the troops? "Sorry guys, you're on your own over there." Oh yeah, supporting them by keeping them over there indefinitely until they come home to the land of slashed veterans benefits.

The "keeping our word" to the people of Afghanistan would have me rolling on the floor if it wasn't for the fact that it's not funny. That is just being a stunningly huge asshole right there.

Later this month, Secretary Powell will meet with representatives of many nations to discuss their financial contributions to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Next month, he will hold a similar funding conference for the reconstruction of Iraq. Europe, Japan, and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom in these two countries, and they should contribute to that success.

Again, quit making vague demands from other nations to pitch in. The rest of the world isn't going to ask "how high?" when we say "jump!", unless of course they're Tony Blair.

The people of Iraq are emerging from a long trial. For them, there will be no going back to the days of the dictator -- to the miseries and humiliation he inflicted on that good country. For the Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear -- when a brutal and aggressive tyrant possessed terrible weapons. And for America, there will be no going back to the era before September 11th, 2001 -- to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength -- they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.

The trials are far from over. Yes, Saddam was a fuck. But just because he's gone doesn't mean that it's magically better over there. Of course, no one needs to be reminded of this, with the exception of Bush.

"For the Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear -- when a brutal and aggressive tyrant possessed terrible weapons." Wow. There is more bullshit packed into that sentence than I think I have ever seen in my entire life.

Considering what's going down in Israel, and the fact that Iran has nuclear ambitions (just to name two examples out of many), I think there will be plenty of fear for many, many years to come in the Middle East. Oh, yeah, and the rest of the world, too. I think there's some shit going on there as well. As if Saddam was the only threat to a Star Trek-like utopia.

Saddam was neither very aggressive (yeah, he did things like invade Kuwait, which were promptly put to a stop) nor did he possess terrible weapons. Well, he did possess weapons, but not at the time we were all up in arms about it (namely, six months ago).

No going back to the days of "false comfort"? I don't know about you, but to me, checking shoes and taking away nail clippers while doing cavity searches on 87 year old quadriplegics fucking redefines false comfort.

What is "terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength" supposed to mean? That doesn't make any sense. Or does it? Is Bush's speechwriter trying to imply that it wasn't the enforcement of American hegemony that led to al Qaeda attacking us? They attacked us because they perceived us as weak, and not because they were fucking pissed at our actions around the world? I'm not saying America had it coming, but to say that our continual meddling worldwide had nothing to do with bringing on September 11th is fucking ludicrous.

September 11th reference count (not including mine): 5

The heaviest burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of our armed forces and our intelligence services. They have removed gathering threats to America and our friends, and this nation takes great pride in their incredible achievements. We are grateful for their skill and courage, and for their acts of decency, which have shown America's character to the world. We honor the sacrifice of their families. And we mourn every American who has died so bravely, and so far from home.

Don't get me started on how well the intelligence services have beared their burdens.

The rest of this is just needless ass-kissing. "We support our troops!"

The Americans who assume great risks overseas understand the great cause they are in. Not long ago I received a letter from a captain in the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad. He wrote about his pride in serving a just cause, and about the deep desire of Iraqis for liberty. "I see it," he said, "in the eyes of a hungry people every day here. They are starved for freedom and opportunity." And he concluded, "I just thought you'd like a note from the 'front lines of freedom.'" That Army captain, and all of our men and women serving in the war on terror, are on the front lines of freedom. And I want each of them to know: Your country thanks you, and your country supports you.

Let's do a quick poll and see who really understands the "great cause" they're in.

Also, what the fuck else is the captain of the 3rd infantry going to say in a letter to the president?

"Dear President Fuckhead,

Thanks for getting us involved in this awful mess with no end in sight. We're enjoying being shot at and killed by these seekers of liberty. It's fucking hot here, so thanks for that too.

Fuck you,
Captain "Fuck George Bush in the ass" McSoldier"

Fellow citizens: We have been tested these past 24 months, and the dangers have not passed. Yet Americans are responding with courage and confidence. We accept the duties of our generation. We are active and resolute in our own defense. We are serving in freedom's cause -- and that is the cause of all mankind.

"We accept the duties of our generation" by making a mess for future generations to deal with. And more empty posturing and vague talk about freedom.

September 11th reference count: 6 (another vague one; this didn't get as bad as I had thought)

Thank you, and good night. And may God continue to bless America.

God doesn't give any more of a shit about America than he does about athletes and rap stars. If he did, we wouldn't be dealing with things like September 11th. Also, isn't it belief that God is on someone's side what got us into this mess in the first place?

Ahhh, yes, I feel so totally informed right now. We're right, the world is wrong, no one else can have any say, but please give us troops and money. The same bullshit, only now we have a price tag on just how much bullshit costs.

So the second anniversary of September 11th is this week. Great. I'm not trying to be snide or flippant about it. I really have a tough time whenever I see September 11th images like the ones of the twin towers ablaze. I didn't know anyone killed or injured in the attacks on the WTC or the Pentagon (remember how the Pentagon was attacked, too, but that always seems to get ignored?), so I can only imagine what it must be like for someone who did. I just get real tired of the news media cramming the images of September 11th down our throats to get their ratings up. Yes, I know it's what networks do to get ratings and to survive, but it's still fucking disgusting. It's also unnecessary - it's not as if we're going to fucking forget. As if I'm ever going to forget getting a call from my grandmother, telling me I need to turn on the TV because something awful had happened. As if I'm going to forget only able to think "this is bad" because at first that horrible understatement was all my mind could put together. Like I'll forget driving to class that day, continually saying to myself "Lower Manhattan is being evacuated. The Pentagon is on fire." And as if I'm going to forget how the world really did change with the shitstorm that has ensued.

Last year, I made it a goal to not watch any TV or read any news media on the 11th. I wasn't in denial or trying to bury thinking about it. September 11th has reshaped and redefined so many things that I couldn't live in denial even if I wanted to, which I don't. Again, I just don't need those images being replayed over and over again, because I can just conjure them up in my mind if I really want to make myself feel even shittier. I don't need all of the tributes/publicity stunts/ratings grabbers which totally bastardize the tragedy. And I don't need to be reminded how America was supposed to change, how America was supposed to better herself after September 11th, but didn't.

So I know I should really watch or listen to Bush's speech, but I have dinner plans and will probably miss it. Damn. Actually, I really cannot stand to watch or listen to Bush's speeches because he's A) full of shit and B) an awful, awful public speaker. It's really embarassing for America that we have a 'leader' who's less articulate than someone delivering a speech while being fucked by an eight-dicked walrus.

Quick side note before getting to the main rant: I'd really like for someone to poll 'ordinary Iraqis' and ask them if they're really living without the fear of being under a dictatorial regime anymore.

I realized that our efforts to get other nations involved in The War Against Terror (TWAT; I didn't make that up, I saw it on a page linked from Jay's 'blog) in general and Iraq in specific is laughable on another front. I remember after the attacks some people saying that the world didn't change on September 11th, America just joined it. What they meant was that other nations had been struggling with terrorism for years, and the US had been lucky enough up to that point to not have any immediate terrorist threats. As such, we weren't exactly bending over backwards to help others in their already existing war on terrorism. Now that it's necessary (since we've faced a large-scale attack) and politically convenient, we're all for fighting terrorism. So, Donny, maybe you can see why your assertion that more nations need to join in the global war on terror is going to fall on some deaf ears. It doesn't help that you're making this claim in Afghanistan, where we're fucking up just like we did after they drove the Soviets out.

Of course, our ignoring the global war on terror wasn't just the Bush Administration's fault; it had been going on for years. Was America obligated to help everyone else fight terror before we thought it was a serious issue? You can make a case either way. Yeah, it's the right thing to do. On the other hand, America, like all nations, tends to act in a self-important manner. Regardless, we really should know what to expect when we start 'challenging' other nations to throw money and troops at our causes. Especially when we've done nothing but foster an atmosphere of enmity with enemies and allies alike.

So I've found a great new way to do proofreading: let people searching for pornography do it for you. Apparently, someone did a web search for "miliatry porno," which flagged down a spelling error in an August 20th post. One less thing I have to worry about.