Marissa & Falkor!

Courtney & Rocky!

You scratch mine....

Faster than lightning....

You've got pee mail!

And You Jump Like a Son of a Gun

I used to love to make mix tapes.

I'd spend hours choosing the songs, then mapping out the order... drawing the artwork for the sleeves... those were the salad days, my friends.

I'd give 'em to girlfriends; I'd give them to strangers at the bowling alley... but what I'd never do was tell anyone that each tape had a very special, very unique theme.

Any yahoo can make a "Songs to listen to in the dark" mix, or a "Bitch left me and took my Scorps T-shirt" mix... hell, I made two of those in 1986.... I'd like to think my themes were more... esoteric.

In 1991 I made the "Lead singers with at least one sibling with Cystic Fibrosis" tape. 1994 saw the arrival of "The sum of the numerical values of each band's drummer's name equals 103..." that was a good year. Of course 1996 gave us "Bands represented by Quakers."

Obviously, the day of the mix tape is gone... all but a memory, misty and water-colored.... I've tried to get into burning mix CDs... but it's just not the same. I actually miss sitting on the floor, surrounded by LPs and counting off BPM while gulping down Lucky Lagers. Maybe, God help me, I've outgrown mixing music... but I haven't outgrown amusing myself with stupidly-obscure themes or almost-impossible-to-grasp narrative threads, dammit!

To wit: you probably haven't noticed, but each day I post a bunch of items there's a common theme that unites them. Sometimes it's obvious (here's a popular theme: "Dubya is a dickwad!"), and sometimes it's not so obvious... like the time the theme of the day was "Women of 80's Bay Area Weathercasting." I'm pretty proud of that one.

So... wanna' play a game Dr. Falken? Whenever I post a bunch of stuff on any given day, try to figure out the day's theme! It'll be fun! Leave me your guesses in the comments... or maybe we'll post 'em in the forum... have you seen my forum? It's pretty much just me and Joe trading quips, but even that's a party! You should check it out! It's over there to the left... it reads "ENTER MY FORUM."

If anyone wants to play, I'll be happy to play along and announce previous days' themes a few days after the original post. We could even play for your favorite charity, if that makes it more appealing... 'cept you'd have to make the donations... but it's for the kids, right? So everybody wins!

So, now that I've revealed the existence of my little blog's countless, underlying, random themes... what do you think today's theme is? I defy anyone to uncover today's theme! HA! That's right: consider yourselves defied.

Good luck... and remember: the Dude abides.

Apache!

Everybody loves waffles!

Every Minute Charlie Squats in the Bush...

"Greetings to you, the lucky finder of this Golden Ticket, from Mr Willy Wonka! I shake you warmly by the hand! Tremendous things are in store for you! Many wonderful surprises await you! For now, I do invite you to come to my factory and be my guest for one whole day - you and all others who are lucky enough to find my Golden Tickets. I, Willy Wonka, will conduct you around the factory myself showing you everything that there is to see, and afterwards, when it is time to leave, you will be escorted home by a procession of large trucks. These trucks, I can promise you, will be loaded with enough delicious eatables to last you and your entire household for many years. If, at any time thereafter, you should run out of supplies, you have only to come back to the factory and show this Golden Ticket, and I shall be happy to refill your cupboard with whatever you want."
(signed) Willy Wonka

New World Risin' From the Shambles of the Old....

Okay... this is really starting to piss me off.

The Rovian Slaves have been busy establishing the two prongs of Karl Rove's defense during the last 24 hours. First, that he didn't mention Valerie Wilson/Plame "by name" and second that he didn't disclose classified information. The plain truth is this: the first of these two assertions is at least misleading, and entirely irrelevant... and, not surprisingly, the second is simply wrong.

According to Matt Cooper's now infamous email, Karl told Cooper that "Wilson's wife"--not "Valerie Plame," or "Valerie Wilson"-- worked at the CIA. But here's the thing: this distinction has absolutely no legal relevance here. Don't be fooled! Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (suddenly the most famous law that no one has ever heard of) a crime is committed when a government official "intentionally discloses any information identifying" an undercover intelligence officer. The act does not say a name must be disclosed. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's obvious to even me that by telling a reporter that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA officer, Rove was clearly disclosing "identifying" information. Armed with that knowledge and the magic of Google anyone could unearth... well, this. So, again: revealing the name isn't the crime; it's disclosing information that IDs the officer. The issue is identifying, not naming. Rove and his Neoconbots can't hide behind this ridiculous, parsed-to-death no-name claim. They'll try, sure... but it won't hold up in court.

But let's not stop there! This law also indicates that if Cooper's email is accurate then Karl did pass classified information to Cooper. Sure, It's possible that he did so without knowing... maybe, somehow, he didn't know Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was classified information. But come on! He can't say the information he slipped to Cooper wasn't classified.

You know why? Because the Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to identify "a covert agent" of the United States. The law defines a "covert agent," in part, as "a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information."

Since the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the Plame/CIA leak and the Justice Department affirmed the need for an investigation and then special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald pursued the matter, it's pretty damn reasonable to assume that Valerie Wilson fits the definition of a "covert agent," don't you think? That means she has a "classified relationship" with the government. It follows then, that by disclosing Valerie Wilson's relationship to the CIA, Karl was passing classified information to a reporter. That's illegal Catfish!

Still not convinced? Consider this: the "most basic personnel information of the CIA --the number of personnel, the salaries-- is classified. Anything more specific --like the identity of a NOC [an officer working under "nonofficial cover," as was Valerie Wilson] or the numbers and identities of officers working in a particular region of the world-- is classified." So says Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

So, like I said, it doesn't matter if Karl didn't mention Valerie Wilson by name, and it's not true that the information he passed to Cooper wasn't classified.

Leaking classified information is always, rightfully serious business. Dubya took an unusually-unambiguous stand on the leaking of classified information when he was asked on September 30, 2003, about Karl's possible role in the Plame/CIA leak. He stuttered: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

Well kids, now Bush knows.

Karl, according to the Cooper email, didn't leak a name but he did leak classified information.

Isn't it time for "appropriate action?"

Game Theory

Some are set up in the Somerset Maugham suite

Shoot that poison arrow.

Come sail away with me lads!

It's a beautiful world... for you.

"You're in a Bad Spot Here, Scott...."

This is how true blue a Democrat I am: part of me feels guilty I'm getting so much joy from this:

(what follows is a transcript of Scotty -"It's not a lie if you believe it"- McClellan's meet-n-greet with the White House Press Corp this morning, shortly after the news hounds found their balls and finally started asking questions about Karl Rove's connection to the outting of Valerie Plame, and the White House's position on employing lesser demons)


Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....

Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?

MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

Q: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.... And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions....


Q: There’s a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and that if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there’s an investigation or not.So are you saying that he’s not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And we’re just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.


Q: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what transpired inside the White House at the time?

MCCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor.

Q: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be optimal to release as much information and make it as open…

MCCLELLAN: It’s the same type of question. You’re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and I’m not going to do that.

Q: I’d like you to talk about the communications strategies just a little bit there.

MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that’s what he expects people in the White House to do.

Q: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with…

MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve already responded.

Q: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make a request of you specifically?

MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who’s involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing.

And then Scotty ran wee-wee-wee, all the way home.

Despite today's news, are you still bristling with patriotic irritation with our kowtowed media and the endlessly-arrogant Dubyaco? Well, check this out: a streaming broadcast of Top Secret: The Battle for the Pentagon Papers, (an entertaining “docudrama” about The Washington Post’s decision to publish The Pentagon Papers during the late 70's).

Originally released in the early 90's during the first Gulf war, you don’t need to listen very long before you notice the exact same struggle of the media to get the truth of some-less-than honest war justification out past a very secretive and controlling administration that you’re likely to run into today.

Maybe some day a story like this will just seem quaint and dated....

Lest We Forget

• The initially-proposed $15 million in aid for tsunami relief efforts
• Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame16 words (including "Niger" and "uranium")
• Richard Clarke and Condoleeza Rice's 9/11 memorandum
• The proposed modification of the Constitution to placate the religious right
• The proposed modification of the Constitution to placate the religious right
• Last month's Downing Street memo
• Paul O'Neill's account that the Iraq invasion was planned prior to 9/11
• L. Paul Bremer's warning that the U.S. had troop shortages in Iraq
• The war in Iraq

Communicable by Word of Mouth

William S Burroughs would sometimes take a razorblade to pages of written text and physically make edits that resulted in new words and stream of consciousness concepts. Pretty cool, huh?

This website -Language Is A Virus- is an index of on-line word hack toys that'll let you get your Beat on, without all the shooting-up and shooting of your wife and such and what not.

Poetry in motion.

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad word game.

And the Dreidel Will Rock

So, we all know Howard Stern is leaving terrestrial radio for Sirius Satellite radio in January '06. Anyone who wants to discuss Howard's genius, or martyrdom or "edgy" scatological humor is more than welcome to do so... let's just not waste time with that here, okay? We have badder fish to fry!

Here? Now? I'm here to tell you Kevin is a broadcasting genius! Nay, a broadcasting visionary! Imagine taking Alan Freed in one hand, and Brandon Tartikoff in the other, and slamming your hands together over a citrus juicer. Get all of that Freed/Tartikoff goo you can into the juicer, and take what filters down into the bowl and pour it into a blender. Ble-- no... frappe vigorously for at least three minutes. Ladle that mixture into a Kevin-shaped mold and voila! Genius!

Kevin laughed this idea of his off, but I'm here to tell you it could be the best thing to happen to radio since Dennis Erectus. Kevin told us that Infinity has signed their replacement for Howard Stern come January... none other than Diamond David Lee Roth.

Cool. I guess. He certainly has a face for radio these days.

Kevin's idea, though, is to partner Diamond Dave with none other than the ever-crossbowin', wangdangsweetpoontangin' Ted Nugent! GENIUS!

Can you imagine the fireworks? Diamond Dave's liberalism vs. Uncle Ted's brazen conservatism? Make sure each has a Katana and a twelve-gauge (respectively), and you're talkin' at least a 12-share! Get some 45-year old groupies in there to mud wrassle for Dave & the Nuge's soiled Depends and I tell you what! It'll be the renaissance of radio my friends!

I... seriously... it's an awesome idea, isn't it?

You know everybody wants some.

The owner of the Seattle Supersonic-ahs celebrates Hanukkah.

Amen to your Oy vey!

Or we shall say "knee" again!

Four fit.

You sank my Charley Horse!

Hillbilly smoke out.

A Lamp in the Street, Obscurity at Home

The Rio Grande... now there's a crazy river.

The Rio Grande just keeps flooding and changing course and messing-up all the maps... and there's this sign posted on its bank -right at the border- which reads: "WILD RIVER - REASONABLE MEN."

I guess it's just to remind people to be philisophical about the river; about how often the river moves, and property changes hands and Mexico becomes America and America, Mexico.

The sign that should be posted at the border is that old Mexican proverb:
"POBRE MÉJICO.
TAN LEJOS DE DIOS;
TAN CERCA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS."

You make me wanna cry....

Put your head on my shoulder....

Puzzlin' evidence.

Hey! Lookit!

Last Auction Hero

You know, sometimes I amaze even myself....

So Gary Kurtz is putting a buncha' one-of-a-kind Star Wars items up for bids soon at a ritzy Beverly Hills auction... I'm sorry. Excuse me. "Up for bids." Did anyone else just flash on Bob Barker? Have I mentioned my foolproof Plinko system? Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?

Yeah, well... they're saying Luke's Episode IV lightsaber could go for as much as 80k... and I find myself thinking "Well, that's a small price to pay... better hit the Coinstar!"

Go Go Power Rangers!

Ah, Sweet Mystery of Life!

You know, I'm glad that Paris Hilton decided to go with a smaller, more modest engagement ring.

Considering how much money she has and her undeniable need for attention, she could have easily gone with some gigantic, gaudy, garish thing with a diamond bigger than my colon... but God bless her, she didn't. Because Paris? She's classy. And classy women? They know that having the biggest diamond in the world on your finger is just plain tacky.

Oh, and according to Hello magazine, Paris wants to host her wedding ceremony in London at St Paul's Cathedral, Westminster Abbey or Windsor Castle, and she sees no reason why the royal family shouldn't let her. There is, though, the small matter that only British royals or heads of state can marry in the historical venues.

Our dauntless Paris remains undaunted though! "I'm the closest thing to American royalty anyway," she proudly proclaimed. Paris has written to Prince Charles, begging for permission to hold her dream day at one of the venues. Somebody should explain to Paris that walking around Los Angeles in a tiara doesn't automatically make you royalty. In fact, wearing a fake crown and pretending you're a princess actually makes you the opposite of royalty... at least that's what that homeless guy I saw in the Mission this morning jerking-off into a Dynomutt lunch box and wearing nothing but a tiara and 25-year old pair of Dingos taught me.

Birth of Donation

It's amazing how... draining it can get... shouting at the rain.

I watch the network news (less and less as time goes on), and I'm either sickened by what I see, or exasperated by what I don't see.

I still can't believe that Dubya was re-elected. Yes, I still think some kinda' fix was in, either plain ol' voter fraud or simply unprecedented vote suppression... but even I have to admit that the if either of those things were factors, they wouldn't have actually worked if the vote wasn't going to be close in the first place...which is its own kind of horrifying, you know? Either way, the sad fact is we're a nation of stupid, lazy sheep who either let a guy run away with two elections illegally... or left him in office 'cause the richest of us like our money better than global security, justice and the environment... and the most zealous of us like the idea of a White House that unabashedly supports a conservative, hypocritical, religious agenda that the majority of the country is against... while the rest of us just shrugged and said "Well, gee... things could be worse."

The middle class isn't shrinking... we're shriveling.

I've signed more petitions than I can count in the last year. I've sent innumerable e-mails to Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi. For the record, Barbara's come through each and every time... Dianne? Sucks. Please, any Democrat/Independent or pro-choice Republican reading this? Run for her Senate seat. I'll vote for you. I'll even make flyers... and brownies.

I'm not gonna' stop petitioning, emailing and blogging -you can look forward to plenty of angry rants in my blog's future- it's just that... man, it'd feel good to accomplish something... wouldn't it?

I'm hopeful for big changes in 2006... maybe get a check or a balance back... either would be nice. In the meantime though, I'm gonna' start looking to make changes a little closer to home. Maybe donate some more time... give some more clothes... walk some more walkathons... do more for my community.

The way things are going, I can't see myself not feeling angry, horrified or disgusted when it comes to what our government is doing to our nation, to our standing in the world, and to our future... but dammit, I can sure see myself feeling better about what I'm doing for those I love, for my neighbors and for an ever-increasing number of people who could use just a little help... and for whom help is growing harder and harder to come by.

That's right Billy... somehow, we'll get by... with a little help from our friends.

Because it's personal.

Because we look out for them.

Because "We're not looking for charity, we're looking for justice. We cannot fix every problem, but the ones we can, we must." ~Bono

Because.

Because there's so many ways to make a difference.

Safe? Insane!

Ooooooooo... aaahhhhhhhhhh....

Death by Fireworks Discharge odds: 1-in-615,488.

Watch your fingers!

Please be true, please be true, please be true.

Machéd in His Image

"There isn't a day in my life when I haven't felt like a fraud. I mean priests, doctors, I've talked to them all. I don't know anyone who hasn't felt that." ~Father Damien Karras, The Exorcist

Peace Sells... But Who's Buyin'?

"I and my brothers and my men are also lending the people money and grain. But let the exacting of usury stop!" ~Nehemiah 5:9-11

Mighty Mighty

"In building the temple, only blocks dressed at the quarry were used, and no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built." ~1 Kings 6:6-8

"I am the lord of the wastelands." ~KISS

Great Moments in Comic Book History!

Yeah... laugh while you can, monkey boy....