The Republicans are milking more political "capital" from the Pope's passing, as this amusing Jon Stewart piece reminds us. Why aren't Democrats doing the same?
Consider: The Republican core voters are the evangelicals, and they were motivated in 2004, to a large degree, by the Apocalypse porn allegedly "co-written" by Tim LaHaye. LaHaye has actually spoken at Republican conventions.
And he's one of the staunchest Catholic-bashers in this nation's history. LaHaye may downplay his religious bigotry nowadays, but in the 1970s and the 1980s he never stopped shouting his belief that the Pope (whoever the Pope happened to be at the moment) was the AntiChrist.
The G.O.P. won the Catholic vote in the last election. With that party so closely tied to bigots like LaHaye, how could this happen?
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Is DOOM mere months away?
The (and I mean the) hippest piece available right now on our impending economic catastrophe (as well as our upcoming war with Iran) can be found here.
Gannon: Big shtick
Digby has a hilarious observation about Jeff Gannon's appearance at the National Press Club:
(Hmm. I'm not quite sure how to phrase the rest of that sentence. Maybe I should just leave the thought unvoiced.)
According to this precis of the occasion, Gannon/Guckert told the assembled reporters that his sad predicament means "no one is safe." (That's true, if the phrase "no-one" is limited to prostitutes posing as fake journalists.) He also insisted that Bloggers are EVIL.
Oh, Jeff, Jeff. Bloggers are (in the words of Mike Myers) the margarine of evil. If you want to get a gander at the real thing, take a look at a certain mysteriously well-funded fake news publication...
Gannon has quite the schtick going for him. I don't know if it's a natural gift or if he has had help, but he handled it all quite deftly, I thought. He makes absolutely no sense, wanders off into unrelated subjects, claims victimhood at every turn, avoids questions like a pro and appears to me to be incredibly stupid, arrogant and deluded all at the same time. A clown that nobody in their right mind could take seriously. In others words, meet the next GOP nominee for President of the United States...Reports agree that Wonkette was the true star of the evening. Apparently, the lady knows how to kick ass as well as...
I think Gannon's assertion that FOXNews is not conservative was his "Christ, he changed mah heart moment." I expect that he's on his way to a comeback. The right takes care of its own, even if they sell out the country to the Russian mob or advertise their prositution services with pictures of themselves pissing on the internet. It's all good.
Matt Yglesias was just great and I especially enjoyed his incredulous amusement at Gannon's nonsense. It is always difficult to argue with aliens from other planets, but I thought that Matt did it very well.
(Hmm. I'm not quite sure how to phrase the rest of that sentence. Maybe I should just leave the thought unvoiced.)
According to this precis of the occasion, Gannon/Guckert told the assembled reporters that his sad predicament means "no one is safe." (That's true, if the phrase "no-one" is limited to prostitutes posing as fake journalists.) He also insisted that Bloggers are EVIL.
Oh, Jeff, Jeff. Bloggers are (in the words of Mike Myers) the margarine of evil. If you want to get a gander at the real thing, take a look at a certain mysteriously well-funded fake news publication...
Clint Curtis update
If you haven't read Bradblog today, check out the latest on the Clint Curtis tale. It seems that the whistleblower who claims that he cobbled together prototype vote-rigging software has passed a polygraph exam.
A story published the St. Petersburg Times, written by Lucy Morgan, tends to make light of all this. I imagine that the polygraph results would have been treated more respectfully had the conclusions gone in the opposite direction. Morgan does, however, offer one fascinating revelation -- which makes an appearance so fleeting as to be practically subliminal:
JFK assassination researchers may recognize Walsh, who once worked for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. In that capacity, he interviewed CIA operative David Atlee Phillips, who told him: "My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including rogue American intelligence people."
Some people may find themselves sighing at this point. The Curtis story, not to mention the larger vote fraud story, cannot benefit from any association, however tenuous, with the JFK controversy. Any such linkage will only make it easier for mainstream pundits to wax snide.
But Walsh earns a living as a general-purpose gumshoe, and he appears to have a good rep. No-one (that I know of) has cast aspersions on his JFK work, and he doesn't seem to mind taking a hard look at some of the iffier claims -- for example, see here.
Incidentally, according to that afore-linked story, Walsh was asked to conduct an investigation by James Lesar of the Assassination Archives and Research Center in D.C. Do we have here a clue as to who asked Walsh to look into vote fraud? I doubt that the AARC considers the 2004 vote within their purview...
A story published the St. Petersburg Times, written by Lucy Morgan, tends to make light of all this. I imagine that the polygraph results would have been treated more respectfully had the conclusions gone in the opposite direction. Morgan does, however, offer one fascinating revelation -- which makes an appearance so fleeting as to be practically subliminal:
The polygraph test Curtis passed was paid for by Kevin Walsh, a private investigator from Washington, D.C., who says he has been hired to prove election fraud. Walsh refused to identify the client.(Emphasis added by me.)
JFK assassination researchers may recognize Walsh, who once worked for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. In that capacity, he interviewed CIA operative David Atlee Phillips, who told him: "My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including rogue American intelligence people."
Some people may find themselves sighing at this point. The Curtis story, not to mention the larger vote fraud story, cannot benefit from any association, however tenuous, with the JFK controversy. Any such linkage will only make it easier for mainstream pundits to wax snide.
But Walsh earns a living as a general-purpose gumshoe, and he appears to have a good rep. No-one (that I know of) has cast aspersions on his JFK work, and he doesn't seem to mind taking a hard look at some of the iffier claims -- for example, see here.
Incidentally, according to that afore-linked story, Walsh was asked to conduct an investigation by James Lesar of the Assassination Archives and Research Center in D.C. Do we have here a clue as to who asked Walsh to look into vote fraud? I doubt that the AARC considers the 2004 vote within their purview...
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Thank you, Reverend Moon!
A reader sent me the link to this amazing story from last year. No, this is not an April Fool's day hoax. On a site apparently devoted to communication between members of Reverend Moon's Unification Church, we read the following (and keep in mind that the "True Parents" are Moon and his wife):
Whenever you read this nonsense, think about Bush the elder and Bush the younger, both of whom do business with Moon. Think of the Washington Times. Think of Regnery publishing. Think of all the conservative causes lubricated by Moon money.
On April 10th, True Parents made special condition to liberate Arch Angelic World through striped bass fishing. 3 boats went out for fishing and each boat had 12 people to fish. Father instructed to release first 12 keep size striped bass to each 3 boat. That was the condition for the liberation. We left at the marina 7:30 am and Father's boat finished by 8:25am, less than an hour!You can even see a video record of this liberation exercise/fishing trip.
Whenever you read this nonsense, think about Bush the elder and Bush the younger, both of whom do business with Moon. Think of the Washington Times. Think of Regnery publishing. Think of all the conservative causes lubricated by Moon money.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Do we have a mole next to Bin Laden?
Xymphora directs our attention to this story from Dissident Voice, which indicates that CIA has a mole near Bin Laden. Moreover:
PDB = Phony Documents from Bush?
...the October 2002 Die Zeit story by Oliver Schroem indicates that the key August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing document was originally ten pages longer than the version released with much fanfare to the public. Was Schroem correctly informed? Consider: He published the date, subject matter, and title of a highly classified piece of paper intended for the President's eyes only. As far as I have been able to determine, Schroem published these details before anyone else got wind of the story.
You don't pull off a trick like that unless you have a really good source...
One usenet commentator has offered the interesting suggestion that Schroem's source made a typo when he relayed information about the PDB to the German journalist: 1 and 1/2 pages accidentally came out as 11 1/2 pages. I would not discount the notion out of hand, but the weight of the available evidence is against this theory.
Look again at Schroem's wording:
So does this AP story of November 15, 2003 (available, god help us, on the execrable Newsmax site). In the piece, one 9/11 committee member -- former Representative Tim Roemer, of Indiana -- makes this possibly confirmatory claim:
The piece goes on to quote Philip Zelikow (Condoleeza Rice's former writing partner, appointed by Bush as executive director of the Commission) as saying that "None of those articles are being edited. We're seeing everything we asked to see." But to take this statement at face value would be to presume as a given the very point we hope to establish. Obviously, if Roemer saw only two paragraphs of a document which we now know contains at least a page and a half, then some editing must have taken place; the question is how much. Until the public or the commission sees those missing ten pages (presuming those pages exist) we should not presume that they discuss subjects other than Al Qaeda.
Now let's look once again at Schroem's paragraph. We have just begun to squeeze the juice out of it. Everything comes down to one question: Who was the writer's source?
I've written to Schroem care of Die Zeit but have yet to receive an answer. For now, let us note something extraordinary about this passage: It offers details about a highly sensitive meeting between George W. Bush and the Director of Central Intelligence. The passage implies but does not state that the two men were alone. Perhaps other administration staff members were present; even so, we can presume that the famously secretive Bush folks did not leak this material.
So how did it end up in the pages of a German periodical? Deduction: Tenet must have talked to someone.
". . . according to one former CIA employee, 'It is entirely likely that Tenet told Bush about the mole at that August meeting at the ranch, if the president didn't already know. Why else would he suddenly race off to Texas on a weekend? Not just to talk about what (Condoleezza) Rice told the 9/11 Commission was something that the administration thought of as an historical recounting of old information. It doesn't make sense.'This refers to the infamous Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001. What this writer neglects to address is the possibility that this brief was once much longer. I would like to re-post excerpts of something I wrote back on April 18, 2004 (when only a handful of friends read this blog). Some of what follows is now outdated, but the evidence of a longer PDB is still worth pursuing. Obviously, if the current tale is true and CIA does have an "inside man" close to Bin Laden, then we can more easily guess what information might have appeared in those missing pages:
A second former intelligence officer said he harbored the same suspicions after news of the Tenet trip and the contents of the PDB became known publicly. 'The DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) simply doesn't interrupt the president's vacation to chat about a relatively innocuous, two or three page report unless there was something extremely sensitive the president needed to know that Tenet didn't want put on paper.'"
PDB = Phony Documents from Bush?
...the October 2002 Die Zeit story by Oliver Schroem indicates that the key August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing document was originally ten pages longer than the version released with much fanfare to the public. Was Schroem correctly informed? Consider: He published the date, subject matter, and title of a highly classified piece of paper intended for the President's eyes only. As far as I have been able to determine, Schroem published these details before anyone else got wind of the story.
You don't pull off a trick like that unless you have a really good source...
One usenet commentator has offered the interesting suggestion that Schroem's source made a typo when he relayed information about the PDB to the German journalist: 1 and 1/2 pages accidentally came out as 11 1/2 pages. I would not discount the notion out of hand, but the weight of the available evidence is against this theory.
Look again at Schroem's wording:
In the PDB, as it's called in CIA jargon, a senior CIA official presents the President with a summary of the security situation. On this morning the CIA Director personally briefs the President. Instead of the usual two or three pages, today's briefing paper consists of eleven and a half printed page and carries the title "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.". The CIA chief argued that Al Qaeda was now also attempting to carry out attacks inside the US, and there were probably already members of the terror organization located in the US for some time. It's not clear whether or not the CIA Director told the President about statements made by Al Qaeda members who were already in custody. According to their statements, the terror organization had long thought about hijacking airplanes in order to use them as missiles.The context clearly indicates that DCI George Tenet made the proverbial "big stink" about this briefing, which was substantially longer than usual. (At this point, many will not resist the urge to crack a joke about W's short attention span. I shall refrain.) This fact argues against the "typo" theory.
So does this AP story of November 15, 2003 (available, god help us, on the execrable Newsmax site). In the piece, one 9/11 committee member -- former Representative Tim Roemer, of Indiana -- makes this possibly confirmatory claim:
"We should be requesting the entire PDB, not an article from the PDB," said former Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind. "How can you get the context of how al-Qaida or Afghanistan is being prioritized in 10 or 12 pages when you only are seeing two paragraphs?"The story does not specify that Roemer's statement refers to the August 6, 2001 PDB, but that would seem to be the safest bet. At the time of this article, only a brief snippet of the PDB in question had passed before the eyes of panel members.
The piece goes on to quote Philip Zelikow (Condoleeza Rice's former writing partner, appointed by Bush as executive director of the Commission) as saying that "None of those articles are being edited. We're seeing everything we asked to see." But to take this statement at face value would be to presume as a given the very point we hope to establish. Obviously, if Roemer saw only two paragraphs of a document which we now know contains at least a page and a half, then some editing must have taken place; the question is how much. Until the public or the commission sees those missing ten pages (presuming those pages exist) we should not presume that they discuss subjects other than Al Qaeda.
Now let's look once again at Schroem's paragraph. We have just begun to squeeze the juice out of it. Everything comes down to one question: Who was the writer's source?
I've written to Schroem care of Die Zeit but have yet to receive an answer. For now, let us note something extraordinary about this passage: It offers details about a highly sensitive meeting between George W. Bush and the Director of Central Intelligence. The passage implies but does not state that the two men were alone. Perhaps other administration staff members were present; even so, we can presume that the famously secretive Bush folks did not leak this material.
So how did it end up in the pages of a German periodical? Deduction: Tenet must have talked to someone.
Gosch-2-Gannon, again
Here's the story Blogger didn't want you to see! (In other words, the interface conked out when I tried to post yesterday...)
Remember the odd theory that kidnapped paperboy Johnny Gosch grew up to be he-hooker-turned-newsfaker "Jeff Gannon," also known as Jim Guckert? I've attacked this notion in previous columns, mostly because I have little reason to trust its promoters. Researchers at the Democratic Underground and elsewhere have have uncovered plenty of counter-evidence, including Guckert's high school yearbook photos.
Nevertheless, some people continue to find this notion fascinating. For the most complete overview yet -- including an interview with Johnny's mother, Noreen Gosch -- check out this Des Moines Online article.
Maybe I'm just being ornery, but to my eyes, the evidence favoring this particular conspiracy theory remains thinner than onionskin. What, in the end, does it all come down to? Simply this: Former FBI man Ted Gunderson, tireless exposer of massive Satanic conspiracies, claims to have received "confirmation" of the Gosch-to-Gannon tale from a trusted, but unnamed source. The afore-linked story indicates (but does not state) that this source is yet another claimed former victim of this same child-snatching conspiracy. Gunderson videotaped an interview with this person, and Noreen, upon viewing the tape, found it persuasive but not wholly convincing.
Alas, Gunderson has a history of believing what he hears. There are a lot of troubled people out there claiming to be victims of conspiracies involving Satanism, mind control, cults, secret societies, and so forth. Uncritical acceptance of such stories is dangerous. (Read, for example, the sad but instructive tale of Lauren Stratford.)
On the other hand, we may have a situation here in which someone is trying to spread the Gosch/Gannon rumor. But why? Personal motives, or something deeper?
For more earthbound news on the Gannon front, check out Soundbitten.
This just in... Readers may recall my original posts about the Gannon/Guckert story, in which I brought up the last time someone mentioned male prostitution in connection with the White House. That was in 1989-90. I just peeked at my in-box, and spotted a missive -- apparently a rather angry one -- from none other than former Reagan staffer Todd Blodgett, who was mentioned in the news accounts stemming from that period. Blodgett has gone on to have a rather odd history.
Having dealt with a bit of unpleasantness in my personal life earlier this day, I'll hold off on reading that letter for now. Later, I'll let you know what Mr. Blodgett has to say...
Remember the odd theory that kidnapped paperboy Johnny Gosch grew up to be he-hooker-turned-newsfaker "Jeff Gannon," also known as Jim Guckert? I've attacked this notion in previous columns, mostly because I have little reason to trust its promoters. Researchers at the Democratic Underground and elsewhere have have uncovered plenty of counter-evidence, including Guckert's high school yearbook photos.
Nevertheless, some people continue to find this notion fascinating. For the most complete overview yet -- including an interview with Johnny's mother, Noreen Gosch -- check out this Des Moines Online article.
Maybe I'm just being ornery, but to my eyes, the evidence favoring this particular conspiracy theory remains thinner than onionskin. What, in the end, does it all come down to? Simply this: Former FBI man Ted Gunderson, tireless exposer of massive Satanic conspiracies, claims to have received "confirmation" of the Gosch-to-Gannon tale from a trusted, but unnamed source. The afore-linked story indicates (but does not state) that this source is yet another claimed former victim of this same child-snatching conspiracy. Gunderson videotaped an interview with this person, and Noreen, upon viewing the tape, found it persuasive but not wholly convincing.
But what about her gut feeling? Her maternal instinct?Any other evidence? Well, Paul Bonacci has said that Johnny Gosch has recently shaved his head; how Bonacci would know this detail, I cannot say. Johnny had a birthmark which may correspond to one allegedly visible on one photo.
"Honestly, it changes," she says. "Sometimes I think, 'oh, yeah, that looks like him,' and other times the jump is too much to think about. When you factor in the facts, it's hard to believe. I've spent a lot of sleepless nights over this. I really wish I could say for sure."
Alas, Gunderson has a history of believing what he hears. There are a lot of troubled people out there claiming to be victims of conspiracies involving Satanism, mind control, cults, secret societies, and so forth. Uncritical acceptance of such stories is dangerous. (Read, for example, the sad but instructive tale of Lauren Stratford.)
On the other hand, we may have a situation here in which someone is trying to spread the Gosch/Gannon rumor. But why? Personal motives, or something deeper?
For more earthbound news on the Gannon front, check out Soundbitten.
This just in... Readers may recall my original posts about the Gannon/Guckert story, in which I brought up the last time someone mentioned male prostitution in connection with the White House. That was in 1989-90. I just peeked at my in-box, and spotted a missive -- apparently a rather angry one -- from none other than former Reagan staffer Todd Blodgett, who was mentioned in the news accounts stemming from that period. Blodgett has gone on to have a rather odd history.
Having dealt with a bit of unpleasantness in my personal life earlier this day, I'll hold off on reading that letter for now. Later, I'll let you know what Mr. Blodgett has to say...
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Vote Fraud study makes the big time! (He said facetiously)
I am happy to announce that the all-important US Count Votes study -- a scientific analysis proving that the exit poll/actual discontinuity indicates vote fraud -- has received an additional mention in a "real" press organ.
By "real" I mean Africa's Mathaba.net. They reprint the Akron Beacon story mentioned in an earlier post.
Wow! We're really making headway now! Good thing the media is so dang liberal...
By "real" I mean Africa's Mathaba.net. They reprint the Akron Beacon story mentioned in an earlier post.
Wow! We're really making headway now! Good thing the media is so dang liberal...
Bankruptcy
Perhaps foolishly, I've stayed away from a discussion of the Republican bankruptcy bill atrocity. I haven't much to add to what others have said -- except to note that I know of one person who votes Republican even though he literally would have ended up on skid row if not for the leeway built into the old bankruptcy laws.
What gets into guys like that? Why do they vote against their interests? Come to think of it, why is it in Republican interest to put guys like that on skid row, instead of letting them have a chance to regain their financial footing and add to the overall economy?
I suppose the main reason I've stayed away from this matter has to do with the fact that the cause seems so hopeless. But sometimes we lose part of our souls if we do not fight even when the odds seem impossible.
That's why I urge readers to learn the facts from Raw Story, and then go to the Debt Slavery web site to learn what you can do. The proverbial fat lady ain't done with her aria yet, folks.
The last-mentioned site is terrific. One of the differences between Republicans and Democrats is the fact that they have sites of that sort up and running well before a major campaign begins.
What gets into guys like that? Why do they vote against their interests? Come to think of it, why is it in Republican interest to put guys like that on skid row, instead of letting them have a chance to regain their financial footing and add to the overall economy?
I suppose the main reason I've stayed away from this matter has to do with the fact that the cause seems so hopeless. But sometimes we lose part of our souls if we do not fight even when the odds seem impossible.
That's why I urge readers to learn the facts from Raw Story, and then go to the Debt Slavery web site to learn what you can do. The proverbial fat lady ain't done with her aria yet, folks.
The last-mentioned site is terrific. One of the differences between Republicans and Democrats is the fact that they have sites of that sort up and running well before a major campaign begins.
Yowling
The comments section appended to the post immediately preceding this one is quite interesting. I don't hold with the anti-Kerry jibes -- I've always liked him, starting from his appearance on the Cavitt show, which I saw when quite young.
One reader said that our elections have always been crooked; reference was made to the 1960 election. I'm sure most of you have read Slate's take on that vote.
Just recently, I saw a Herblock editorial cartoon (which perhaps I should reproduce) from December of 1960. The cartoon depicted a howling cat standing in the doorway of a house. The tabby, labeled "GOP vote steal charges," tells the annoyed homeowner: "I don't want to come in or out -- I just want to stand here and yowl."
The implication being that if the cat came in, he'd have to offer evidence. If he stayed outside, his cries would go unheard.
And that, my friends, is the major difference between 1960 and today. We want in. We would love to make our evidence known to a wider public. We're sick of yowling on the doorstep.
One reader said that our elections have always been crooked; reference was made to the 1960 election. I'm sure most of you have read Slate's take on that vote.
Just recently, I saw a Herblock editorial cartoon (which perhaps I should reproduce) from December of 1960. The cartoon depicted a howling cat standing in the doorway of a house. The tabby, labeled "GOP vote steal charges," tells the annoyed homeowner: "I don't want to come in or out -- I just want to stand here and yowl."
The implication being that if the cat came in, he'd have to offer evidence. If he stayed outside, his cries would go unheard.
And that, my friends, is the major difference between 1960 and today. We want in. We would love to make our evidence known to a wider public. We're sick of yowling on the doorstep.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Vote fraud: The invisible story
I haven't much time to write, but I did want to jot down a few addenda regarding the recent scientific study proving that the exit poll discrepancy indicates vote fraud.
First and foremost: The press still refuses to discuss this study! I suspect that you won't see The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times acknowledge it until they can quote dismissive commentary from "experts" on the other side. (Of course, they did not treat Mitofsky's volley in that fashion.) Which means we may have to wait quite a while -- the facts are pretty damned hard to dismiss.
When talk turns to the exit poll discrepancy, many still parrot the "chatty Dem" theory, which holds that NEP pollsters received greater feedback from Kerry supporters in 2004. But no pundit has tried to reconcile that allegation with the fact that the same respondents said that, in 2000, they had voted for Bush over Gore, 43% to 37%. (Gore, as I never tire of repeating, actually won the popular vote.) Neither do the pundits address the fact that the discrepancy was at its widest in Bush strongholds. These two facts prove that Bush supporters, not Kerry supporters, were over-represented by the NEP poll.
Mention these inconvenient pieces of evidence to any conservative and watch how quickly they switch the subject: "Your qvestions haff become tiresome. Now is ze time on Shprockets ven ve dahnce!"
What troubles me is that even the really liberal media -- Salon, the Nation, American Prospect and so forth -- refuse to mention this report. They won't acknowledge it even to snarl at it. (To be fair, Salon just now got around to mentioning the Gannon-Gosch rumor, which most bloggers -- or at least this blogger -- laughed out of court weeks ago. By the way, Cannonfire was mentioned in a Des Moines Register article on the Gosch-2-Gannon conspiracy theory.)
Why does the very idea of vote fraud make so many people -- even Kerry supporters -- feel so uncomfortable? Perhaps because the ramifications are too frightening. If our democracy is a sham, the ghosts of our forefathers urge us to take action. But who wants to do that? As one British respondent put it:
Just for the record, here are some contributors to the study in question:
Josh Mitteldorf, PhD - Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics (ret) University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor, School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Paul F. Velleman, PhD - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, PhD - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, PhD - Prof. Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Jonathan Simon, J.D., National Ballot Integrity Project
Ron Paul Baiman, PhD. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago
Not enough PhDs for you? Apparently, the New York Times considers the brainpower behind this report insufficiently hefty.
What the hell can we do to make sure more people read the work of these scientists? Not to mention the previous studies indicating that vote fraud is no mere theory?
I'm open to suggestions! If dancing in my underwear on an overpass overlooking the Hollywood freeway will help generate publicity, I'll dig out my cool black Calvin Klein briefs.
By the way: In previous posts I neglected to mention that this study was conducted pursuant to the National Election Data Archive Project.
First and foremost: The press still refuses to discuss this study! I suspect that you won't see The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times acknowledge it until they can quote dismissive commentary from "experts" on the other side. (Of course, they did not treat Mitofsky's volley in that fashion.) Which means we may have to wait quite a while -- the facts are pretty damned hard to dismiss.
When talk turns to the exit poll discrepancy, many still parrot the "chatty Dem" theory, which holds that NEP pollsters received greater feedback from Kerry supporters in 2004. But no pundit has tried to reconcile that allegation with the fact that the same respondents said that, in 2000, they had voted for Bush over Gore, 43% to 37%. (Gore, as I never tire of repeating, actually won the popular vote.) Neither do the pundits address the fact that the discrepancy was at its widest in Bush strongholds. These two facts prove that Bush supporters, not Kerry supporters, were over-represented by the NEP poll.
Mention these inconvenient pieces of evidence to any conservative and watch how quickly they switch the subject: "Your qvestions haff become tiresome. Now is ze time on Shprockets ven ve dahnce!"
What troubles me is that even the really liberal media -- Salon, the Nation, American Prospect and so forth -- refuse to mention this report. They won't acknowledge it even to snarl at it. (To be fair, Salon just now got around to mentioning the Gannon-Gosch rumor, which most bloggers -- or at least this blogger -- laughed out of court weeks ago. By the way, Cannonfire was mentioned in a Des Moines Register article on the Gosch-2-Gannon conspiracy theory.)
Why does the very idea of vote fraud make so many people -- even Kerry supporters -- feel so uncomfortable? Perhaps because the ramifications are too frightening. If our democracy is a sham, the ghosts of our forefathers urge us to take action. But who wants to do that? As one British respondent put it:
So what are you going to do? Live with it. You can't do otherwise. You don't have half the character that other countries have when their elections go bad.And so we become a nation of Hamlets, convinced that the times demand rebellion but unwilling to play the rebel.
Grab your remote, a bag of fat snacks, a case of beer or some drug laced diet pop, and a cryin' towel and watch the soaps like all Americans do. Get back to real livin'.
Just for the record, here are some contributors to the study in question:
Josh Mitteldorf, PhD - Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics (ret) University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor, School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Paul F. Velleman, PhD - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, PhD - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, PhD - Prof. Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Jonathan Simon, J.D., National Ballot Integrity Project
Ron Paul Baiman, PhD. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago
Not enough PhDs for you? Apparently, the New York Times considers the brainpower behind this report insufficiently hefty.
What the hell can we do to make sure more people read the work of these scientists? Not to mention the previous studies indicating that vote fraud is no mere theory?
I'm open to suggestions! If dancing in my underwear on an overpass overlooking the Hollywood freeway will help generate publicity, I'll dig out my cool black Calvin Klein briefs.
By the way: In previous posts I neglected to mention that this study was conducted pursuant to the National Election Data Archive Project.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Where's the coverage?
The scientific analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancy, conducted by ten academics for a group called US Count Votes, is the, and I mean THE most important story out there right now. Yes, even more important than John Paul II, who is still dead.
And even if JPII were to wake up and sing 76 Trombones, the US Count Votes study would still be the most significant news development.
Yet if you go to Google news right now and type in the words "US Count Votes" -- what pops up? About five stories. The top-most one is my own post, as relayed via Bellacio. (Some of the responses over there are amusing.) Google also directs you to Brad Friedman's fine work.
But as for mainstream news reportage -- forget it. The Akron Beacon Journal remains the only paper in the country to cover this issue.
Folks, this story is far too important to be left in the hands of Brad or myself. Any blogger is still considered to be "just a blogger."
When Mitofsky issued his half-truths, the papers gave him tons of coverage. Some "liberal" media!
And even if JPII were to wake up and sing 76 Trombones, the US Count Votes study would still be the most significant news development.
Yet if you go to Google news right now and type in the words "US Count Votes" -- what pops up? About five stories. The top-most one is my own post, as relayed via Bellacio. (Some of the responses over there are amusing.) Google also directs you to Brad Friedman's fine work.
But as for mainstream news reportage -- forget it. The Akron Beacon Journal remains the only paper in the country to cover this issue.
Folks, this story is far too important to be left in the hands of Brad or myself. Any blogger is still considered to be "just a blogger."
When Mitofsky issued his half-truths, the papers gave him tons of coverage. Some "liberal" media!
Who threw the Curveball?
Everyone now seems to be talking about "Curveball," the code-name given to an Iraqi defector in German hands. His real name remains mysterious, although we know that he is related to an aide to Ahmed Chalabi. Curveball's yarns about biological weaponry hidden in mobile labs were unverified nonsense. Somehow, though, these fabrications became the cornerstone of Dubya's case for war.
We've discussed this business before. So far, however, we have paid insufficient attention to an important question: Just who threw us this "Curveball"?
One parapolitically-minded radio host blames Germany (scroll down to 502a and b, then click) -- after all, CB (if I may be allowed the familiarity) was in the hands of that country's intel service, known as the BND.
I'm doubtful of that theory. Germany did not support our invasion of Iraq. As the Los Angeles Times (which has done fine work on this story) and other media voices have reported, the Germans tried to warn American intelligence that CB was an alcoholic and unreliable. From an April 1, 2005 LAT story:
We learn more from an infamous Feb. 4, 2003 email from a CIA expert on Iraq:
Does the matter go deeper than that? Who first came up with the idea of foisting this man's lies upon the world? Do we blame the Germans -- or someone else?
As I've mulled over this matter, I've focused on the mystery of the cyptonym. Who came up with the code-name "Curveball" -- a name resonant with deception?
The L.A. Times has indicated that the Germans came up with that odd monicker. Although many Germans know English, they are not baseball fans, and are therefore unlikely to use slang terms arising from that game.
Justin Raimondo has parsed some of the reports coming out of the intelligence committees that looked into this strange affair. Although I don't agree with all of Raimondo's views, I do think he is correct in linking the Curveball imbroglio with Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans, a neo-con unit within the Department of Defense. The OSP had a bad habit (among its many other sins) of channeling "massaged" data through the American intelligence community and "stovepiping" said data directly into the White House. Moreover, the OSP worked so closely with Mossad that one cannot always easily distinguish between the two agencies.
Whoever gave Curveball the map to the BND's door was probably the one who came up with that ever-so-cute nickname.
We may thus work toward a provisional theory:
True, the OSP could feed lies directly into the Oval Office -- but they needed more. They needed to find a way to make the CIA bestow its imprimatur onto this silliness. Thus, the neocons somehow arranged for Curveball to be routed through German intelligence -- we don't yet know how it happened, but it happened. Why give this alky German minders? If the CIA had dealt with Curveball directly, they would have seen through his deceptions rather easily. But since the information came by way of the BND, the CIA tended to trust it. By the time the agency decided to take a closer look at the sourcing, war was already a done deal.
This little scheme offered a bonus: Since Tenet and McLaughlin had bought into the BND's information, when the shit finally hit the fan, responsibility could be laid to rest at the feet of the CIA. Not the OSP, not the INC, not the BND, not Mossad, not the neocon ideologues.
Once again, we see use of a bold tactic: The use of a foreign spy shop as a go-between, in order to legitimize and circulate bogus (but ideologically useful) data within the U.S. intelligence community. A similar history beset the yellowcake scandal and the infamous "sixteen words."
If there is a label for this technique within spy argot, I don't know it. But if the tactic does not yet have a name, I'd like to suggest one: "Curveballing."
We've discussed this business before. So far, however, we have paid insufficient attention to an important question: Just who threw us this "Curveball"?
One parapolitically-minded radio host blames Germany (scroll down to 502a and b, then click) -- after all, CB (if I may be allowed the familiarity) was in the hands of that country's intel service, known as the BND.
I'm doubtful of that theory. Germany did not support our invasion of Iraq. As the Los Angeles Times (which has done fine work on this story) and other media voices have reported, the Germans tried to warn American intelligence that CB was an alcoholic and unreliable. From an April 1, 2005 LAT story:
Before Powell's presentation, the CIA pressed for permission to speak directly with Curveball. The head of one of the agency's divisions arranged a lunch with a German intelligence official.(Incidentally, John McLaughlin -- Tenet's number two at CIA, and briefly the head of the agency -- has disputed assertions that he was briefed on the problems with Curveball.)
The German official discouraged the idea, saying, "You don't want to see him because he's crazy," according to the commission report. The German went on to suggest that Curveball had suffered a nervous breakdown, that speaking with him would be "a waste of time," and that he might be a "fabricator."
We learn more from an infamous Feb. 4, 2003 email from a CIA expert on Iraq:
As I said last night, let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about.So far, the story is simple. The Germans somehow got hold of this fellow (who was originally linked to Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress), and they relayed his info on to the Americans. As war loomed, the BND told the United States that the data was unreliable. But the Americans wanted a war, and embraced the defector's information, reliable or no.
Does the matter go deeper than that? Who first came up with the idea of foisting this man's lies upon the world? Do we blame the Germans -- or someone else?
As I've mulled over this matter, I've focused on the mystery of the cyptonym. Who came up with the code-name "Curveball" -- a name resonant with deception?
The L.A. Times has indicated that the Germans came up with that odd monicker. Although many Germans know English, they are not baseball fans, and are therefore unlikely to use slang terms arising from that game.
Justin Raimondo has parsed some of the reports coming out of the intelligence committees that looked into this strange affair. Although I don't agree with all of Raimondo's views, I do think he is correct in linking the Curveball imbroglio with Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans, a neo-con unit within the Department of Defense. The OSP had a bad habit (among its many other sins) of channeling "massaged" data through the American intelligence community and "stovepiping" said data directly into the White House. Moreover, the OSP worked so closely with Mossad that one cannot always easily distinguish between the two agencies.
Whoever gave Curveball the map to the BND's door was probably the one who came up with that ever-so-cute nickname.
We may thus work toward a provisional theory:
True, the OSP could feed lies directly into the Oval Office -- but they needed more. They needed to find a way to make the CIA bestow its imprimatur onto this silliness. Thus, the neocons somehow arranged for Curveball to be routed through German intelligence -- we don't yet know how it happened, but it happened. Why give this alky German minders? If the CIA had dealt with Curveball directly, they would have seen through his deceptions rather easily. But since the information came by way of the BND, the CIA tended to trust it. By the time the agency decided to take a closer look at the sourcing, war was already a done deal.
This little scheme offered a bonus: Since Tenet and McLaughlin had bought into the BND's information, when the shit finally hit the fan, responsibility could be laid to rest at the feet of the CIA. Not the OSP, not the INC, not the BND, not Mossad, not the neocon ideologues.
Once again, we see use of a bold tactic: The use of a foreign spy shop as a go-between, in order to legitimize and circulate bogus (but ideologically useful) data within the U.S. intelligence community. A similar history beset the yellowcake scandal and the infamous "sixteen words."
If there is a label for this technique within spy argot, I don't know it. But if the tactic does not yet have a name, I'd like to suggest one: "Curveballing."
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Science proves that vote fraud is real! (Plus: Keeping out the "riff raff")
The day of the Fool is over, and I must return to serious subjects.
Vote fraud confirmed: US Count Votes has come out with a remarkable paper authored by a committee of twelve, most of them highly-qualified mathematicians and statisticians from major universities. This study highlights the serious ramifications of the exit poll discrepancy while demolishing the "chatty Dem" theory (more properly known as the "reluctant responder" theory), which remains the official explanation for that incongruity.
The only possibility left is vote alteration.
Alas, this important scientific study has yet to make an impact. The media, distracted by the Pope's death, hasn't noticed that Uncle Sam is also facing the Reaper. The only significant coverage of this report has appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal.
For those of you who are paying attention, the full analysis is here. An "executive summary" is here.
And if you'd like an ultra-brief summary of the summary:
The exit poll discrepancy in the 2004 American presidential election was the largest in the poll's history -- about five-and-a-half percent. The odds against the polls being so wrong are roughly one in a million. The "chatty Dem" theory is nonsense: Responses to the pollsters were higher in Republican strongholds -- where the exit poll discrepancies were widest.
Answer that, Mr. Mitofsky.
I suppose the only (weak) counter-argument he might offer would be along these lines: For some reason, Kerry supporters in Bush strongholds -- but not in Democratic precincts -- were remarkably eager to push all others aside and commandeer the pollsters. Not only is this scenario counterintuitive, it goes against all previous experience. It also goes against Mitofski's own data.
Once again, I would remind readers of another oddity besetting these troubling exit polls: On November 2, 2004, pollsters did not restrict inquiries to the votes cast on that date. They also asked voters about the 2000 election. 43% of the respondents said they had chosen Bush on that previous occasion, while 37% reported having cast a ballot for Al Gore. But Gore WON the popular vote. This simple fact -- which even math illiterates should be able to comprehend easily -- proves that the exit pollsters favored Republicans, not Democrats.
Author Josh Mitteldorff, in the executive summary of the US Count Votes report, does not favor the theory that touch screen voting had greater error rates than did punch cards. However, on page 18 of the report proper, we see data suggesting that mechanical voting machines had a significantly higher error rate than did paper ballots.
How to resolve this seeming contradiction? I remind readers that punch cards are run through a computerized central tabulator -- the "mother machine," as Teresa Heinz-Kerry once put it. Absentee ballots and provisionals must be counted by hand.
The issue of touch screen vs. non-touch screen voting reminds me of another important study -- the Leto-Hoffman study of Snohomish County, Washington. This investigation revealed that the ultra-close gubernatorial contest in that state would have been won more decisively if the vote were cleaner. Unfortunately, machine-counted votes had many more problems (to put the matter delicately) than did absentee and provisional ballots. Also see this account in the January 26-February 1 Seattle Weekly:
Returning our attention to the new US Count Votes report:
So far, the best analysis of this analysis comes from Newsclip Autopsy. Highly recommend reading.
Here's an important excerpt:
Once more, the Republicans assail Reason itself.
Please do everything you can to publicize the work of US Count Votes. This important scientific analysis should be leading all other headlines on Buzzflash, Bush Watch, Air America, Daily Kos...not to mention the New York Times, CBS, ABC and the rest of the mainstream media. Alas, even the wonderful blog by John Conyers has not yet covered this report.
Let's make sure the riff-raff can't vote: Conyers' blog does direct our attention to important developments in Georgia, Indiana, and other states. In order to combat the alleged epidemic of non-existent registered voters (a "spin point" the G.O.P. has pushed for many months), Georgia will now tighten identification requirements. The result, of course, will be depressed turn-out among minorities and the elderly.
As we have noted earlier: Anyone can send in a fake registration form. If such acts have indeed taken place (the ACVR cites unofficial reports of registration forms bearing flagrantly bogus names), the listed party affiliation does not necessarily tell us who to blame. No evidence indicates that a single "fake" voter ever cast a ballot for Kerry; the exit poll discrepancy offers a profound argument against this notion.
We thus come to that famous question: Cui bono? Who benefits?
A Democratic registration form bearing a ridiculous "joke" name can only buttress the arguments of Republicans who favor the enforcement of strict photo ID requirements at the polls. Such requirements will make participation difficult for the poorest sectors of our electorate. Many poor people have expired driver's licenses, or no licenses at all -- and many may not relish the prospect of acrimonious interaction with cops at the poll booth.
(By way of comparison: My local library switched from a policy of allowing anyone access to the internet to a system which allows only official library card holders to surf the web. The result: Drastically reduced usage of the computers. Since cards go only to those with addresses and photo ID, the homeless lost much-needed access to email accounts and websites helpful to the poor.)
By asking "cui bono?," we can see the outlines of the scheme. Through the simple expedient of filling out a few bogus registration forms, far-sighted Republican operatives will now be able to fulfill their long-held goal of keeping the "riff-raff" away from the engines of democracy.
Vote fraud confirmed: US Count Votes has come out with a remarkable paper authored by a committee of twelve, most of them highly-qualified mathematicians and statisticians from major universities. This study highlights the serious ramifications of the exit poll discrepancy while demolishing the "chatty Dem" theory (more properly known as the "reluctant responder" theory), which remains the official explanation for that incongruity.
The only possibility left is vote alteration.
Alas, this important scientific study has yet to make an impact. The media, distracted by the Pope's death, hasn't noticed that Uncle Sam is also facing the Reaper. The only significant coverage of this report has appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal.
For those of you who are paying attention, the full analysis is here. An "executive summary" is here.
And if you'd like an ultra-brief summary of the summary:
The exit poll discrepancy in the 2004 American presidential election was the largest in the poll's history -- about five-and-a-half percent. The odds against the polls being so wrong are roughly one in a million. The "chatty Dem" theory is nonsense: Responses to the pollsters were higher in Republican strongholds -- where the exit poll discrepancies were widest.
Answer that, Mr. Mitofsky.
I suppose the only (weak) counter-argument he might offer would be along these lines: For some reason, Kerry supporters in Bush strongholds -- but not in Democratic precincts -- were remarkably eager to push all others aside and commandeer the pollsters. Not only is this scenario counterintuitive, it goes against all previous experience. It also goes against Mitofski's own data.
Once again, I would remind readers of another oddity besetting these troubling exit polls: On November 2, 2004, pollsters did not restrict inquiries to the votes cast on that date. They also asked voters about the 2000 election. 43% of the respondents said they had chosen Bush on that previous occasion, while 37% reported having cast a ballot for Al Gore. But Gore WON the popular vote. This simple fact -- which even math illiterates should be able to comprehend easily -- proves that the exit pollsters favored Republicans, not Democrats.
Author Josh Mitteldorff, in the executive summary of the US Count Votes report, does not favor the theory that touch screen voting had greater error rates than did punch cards. However, on page 18 of the report proper, we see data suggesting that mechanical voting machines had a significantly higher error rate than did paper ballots.
How to resolve this seeming contradiction? I remind readers that punch cards are run through a computerized central tabulator -- the "mother machine," as Teresa Heinz-Kerry once put it. Absentee ballots and provisionals must be counted by hand.
The issue of touch screen vs. non-touch screen voting reminds me of another important study -- the Leto-Hoffman study of Snohomish County, Washington. This investigation revealed that the ultra-close gubernatorial contest in that state would have been won more decisively if the vote were cleaner. Unfortunately, machine-counted votes had many more problems (to put the matter delicately) than did absentee and provisional ballots. Also see this account in the January 26-February 1 Seattle Weekly:
Their study findings, issued in December, got lost among the recount chaos. "I personally am surprised that the Republicans are shouting fraud from the rooftops," Lehto [sic] says, "and yet the Lehto and Hoffman study is non-news for the mainstream media."This report, if read carefully, is damning. I was particularly intrigued by their investigation of Diebold's strange insistence that the power cords for the voting machines be "daisy chained." Most people don't realize that data can be transmitted over power lines.
Returning our attention to the new US Count Votes report:
So far, the best analysis of this analysis comes from Newsclip Autopsy. Highly recommend reading.
Here's an important excerpt:
The exit polls for the 2004 election not only tabulated views from the Presidential election. It also received information about the voters intentions for the U.S. Senate races. Guess what?! Yup. Strangely enough, the exit polls were far more accurate at determining who would win for Senator. As history shows us, there is no precedent for widespread "ticket-splitting" in other elections. That is, if you vote democratic for President, there is an overwhelming probability that you would vote democratic for the Senator. US Vote Counts summarizes this peculiarity this way:And how did Ken Blackwell, the corrupt Ohio Secretary of State, respond to all this?
"There is no logic to account for non-responders or missed voters when discussing the
difference in the accuracy of results for the Senate versus the presidential races in the same exit poll."
No logic, indeed. Unless this is a nation where "multiple personality disorder" is present in epidemic proportions!!! To allay that particular fear, this report confirmed another startling finding which was observed in a previous report by the same group. Exit polling accuracy was dependent on whether the election ballots were hand-counted or not!! This is a highly significant finding, considering that, in Ohio, only a non-random 3% of the ballots were hand recounted. Many of these instances had recounts which were different from the machine counts.
"What are you going to do except laugh at it?" said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, who's responsible for administering Ohio's elections and is a Republican candidate for governor. "We're not particularly interested in (the report's findings)."There you have it: Laughter directed at science. Laughter directed at ten PhDs. As though placing the topic behind a curtain of guffaws replaces the need for a counter-argument.
Once more, the Republicans assail Reason itself.
Please do everything you can to publicize the work of US Count Votes. This important scientific analysis should be leading all other headlines on Buzzflash, Bush Watch, Air America, Daily Kos...not to mention the New York Times, CBS, ABC and the rest of the mainstream media. Alas, even the wonderful blog by John Conyers has not yet covered this report.
Let's make sure the riff-raff can't vote: Conyers' blog does direct our attention to important developments in Georgia, Indiana, and other states. In order to combat the alleged epidemic of non-existent registered voters (a "spin point" the G.O.P. has pushed for many months), Georgia will now tighten identification requirements. The result, of course, will be depressed turn-out among minorities and the elderly.
-- Georgia would be the first state not to permit an alternative to a photo ID, such as a signed affidavit.Readers of Cannonfire will recall that I've been predicting this very development. Indeed, the whole point of the American Center for Voting Rights -- the now-notorious "non-partisan" Republican front group -- has been to whip up hysteria over the misleading issue of false registrations.
-- another provision of the bill, supposedly designed to prevent voter fraud, would totally eliminate the requirement that a voter seeking an absentee ballot state a reason for wanting it, even though there is far greater concern about the use of absentee ballots for fraudulent purposes. If measures like this pass, it becomes all the more imperative to enact voting reform legislation that I and others have introduced to protect voting rights.
-- "Neither Georgia's secretary of state nor the secretary of state of Indiana, where a voter identification measure has been under consideration, could point to an allegation of voter identification fraud."
-- The AARP has observed that more than a third of Georgians over 75 lack a valid driver's license.
-- The bill would have a disproportionate impact on rural voters, given that Georgia's 159 counties have only 53 driver's license offices, and ten of them are in metropolitan Atlanta.
As we have noted earlier: Anyone can send in a fake registration form. If such acts have indeed taken place (the ACVR cites unofficial reports of registration forms bearing flagrantly bogus names), the listed party affiliation does not necessarily tell us who to blame. No evidence indicates that a single "fake" voter ever cast a ballot for Kerry; the exit poll discrepancy offers a profound argument against this notion.
We thus come to that famous question: Cui bono? Who benefits?
A Democratic registration form bearing a ridiculous "joke" name can only buttress the arguments of Republicans who favor the enforcement of strict photo ID requirements at the polls. Such requirements will make participation difficult for the poorest sectors of our electorate. Many poor people have expired driver's licenses, or no licenses at all -- and many may not relish the prospect of acrimonious interaction with cops at the poll booth.
(By way of comparison: My local library switched from a policy of allowing anyone access to the internet to a system which allows only official library card holders to surf the web. The result: Drastically reduced usage of the computers. Since cards go only to those with addresses and photo ID, the homeless lost much-needed access to email accounts and websites helpful to the poor.)
By asking "cui bono?," we can see the outlines of the scheme. Through the simple expedient of filling out a few bogus registration forms, far-sighted Republican operatives will now be able to fulfill their long-held goal of keeping the "riff-raff" away from the engines of democracy.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Godfried Danneels? Godfrey Daniels!
No, this isn't an April Fool's Day joke. One of the names being bandied about when folks talk about the next pope is Godfried Danneels.
(Younger folk may not know that "Godfrey Daniels" was an expression associated with W.C. Fields. I hope I don't have to explain who Fields was...)
By Catholic standards, the Belgian cardinal is a liberal -- which, times being what they are, may explain why the odds in his favor are worsening. Too bad, because this is a guy who might carry the church into the 21st century -- well, maybe the 20th century -- well, maybe the late 19th century -- on issues of sexuality.
Believe it or not, Danneels has come out in favor of using condoms to fight AIDS. DUUUDE!!
He even has a (fan-made) web page, which features this slogan:
If Danneels gets the nod...well. I won't rejoin the church of my birth, but I promise not to make fun of it quite so often. On the other hand, if Dionigi Tettamanzi dons the big hat, watch out. (He's the Opus DIE candidate.)
(Younger folk may not know that "Godfrey Daniels" was an expression associated with W.C. Fields. I hope I don't have to explain who Fields was...)
By Catholic standards, the Belgian cardinal is a liberal -- which, times being what they are, may explain why the odds in his favor are worsening. Too bad, because this is a guy who might carry the church into the 21st century -- well, maybe the 20th century -- well, maybe the late 19th century -- on issues of sexuality.
Believe it or not, Danneels has come out in favor of using condoms to fight AIDS. DUUUDE!!
He even has a (fan-made) web page, which features this slogan:
The Fight for the Papacy is ON! Let's get ready to RUM-BLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!People say he's got a good sense of humor, although I haven't yet discovered any witty quotes attributable to him.
If Danneels gets the nod...well. I won't rejoin the church of my birth, but I promise not to make fun of it quite so often. On the other hand, if Dionigi Tettamanzi dons the big hat, watch out. (He's the Opus DIE candidate.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)