Since my last post ("Double those efforts!"), I've more than doubled my own work hours, so blogging has been more than just light -- it's been nonexistent. I've skipped lots of important topics, but it's time to get back to this work.

Let's start with that rat bastard Ralph Nader. I used to have some respect the guy, but in light of his unrepentant attitude after the 2000 US presidential election -- and especially his recent decision to participate in the 2004 election -- it's time to give him a virtual boot to the head.

While he wasn't necessarily to blame for the outcome of that election, it should be pretty clear to Nader that without him, there wouldn't have been the controversy which led to the Supreme Court putting a sub-primate in the White House.

I'd usually agree that voting is a choice between tweedledum and tweedledee, but when choosing between a Democrat and a Republican, it's more akin to choosing between your friendly neighborhood pot-smoker and someone like Jeffrey Dahmer to babysit your kids.

Let's see just how Nad-boy is being a real asshole this time around. Nader had a web site asking people's opinions about whether he should run this time around. I, for one, wrote an uncharacteristically nice-toned letter pleading with him not to run citing a need for some semblance of democracy to return before he gets involved in the process again.

What did that get me and others who did the same? We're being accused of "censorship"! According to this article, neither Nader nor Dick Meyer understand either democracy or censorship:

Nader says the "liberal intelligentsia touts itself as the most tolerant voice in America." But with their rabid demand for him not to run, "They're crossing from opposition to censorship." He understands some of this. "They are desperate to replace Bush, " he said. But he is mystified as to why their opposition is so, well, rabid. He is particularly dumbstruck by an open letter in the Nation magazine, supposedly the leading voice of dissent and civil liberties in the leftie world, commanding him to not run. There's a Web site devoted to keeping him out of the race. A Stanford law professor and blogger named Lawrence Lessig likens Nader to the tobacco and auto executives he's famous for attacking. He's being vilified. [Emphasis mine]

And so he should be. Nobody has tried to pass a law forbidding him from running. The Nation didn't "command" him not to run, despite printing yet another article titled "Ralph, Don't Run." (I suppose Dick Meyer thinks they're Nader's commanding officer.) Nad-boy is apparently ignoring all those people who sent their opinions to him his web site begging him not to run in an exercise of democracy. Ignoring these pleas, he shouldn't be surprised when people break out their choicest 4-letter words and their "evil" web sites. The rat bastard has obviously had his brain extracted by the right.

Here's what DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe had to say in a letter to Nader:

The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of standing up for people traditionally without access to the corridors of power. We are a Party based on the ideals of worker rights, consumer rights, civil rights and individual freedoms. With a Democratic administration, those rights will be advanced and those without access to the corridors of power will have an advocate and voice in their own government.

But we can not defeat this President; we can not fend off his millions of dollars and powerful allies, if we are divided.

As you consider whether to enter the race for President this year, I ask you to keep the best interest of the country -- -and the issues for which you have been an articulate, effective and passionate advocate -- in mind. I ask you to stand united with the millions of Americans who yearn for change, who yearn to have their government and their country back.

That's far too nicely worded to express how I feel today. "Begging," "pleading," and "requesting" are all words that could be used to describe McAuliffe's letter. "Rabid," "censor[ing]," and "commanding" are not.

If Nader had only said he'd stay out of it this time, he might have gotten a huge increase in his support by 2008. I think he'll ruin what little reputation he had left. That's actually the worst thing that could happen. This time around, if Nader gets 0.5% of the vote, I'll be shocked. If he gets more than 1%, I'll be angry. If he gets enough to upset the balance that would knock Bush on his ass, I can only assume complicity and put Nader in the same category as that idiot son of an asshole who's been fucking up the world like Godzilla on PCP for the past 3 years.

The CIA is "just trying to get the word as broadly publicized as possible" by putting a notice on its website to be on the lookout for "recently made [chemical or biological weapons, missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles or their components]."

Doubling the amount of money (referred to on TV by CNN as "doubling their efforts") for the "Iraqi Rewards Program," as it is known, sounds like a suggestion from those neocon "geniuses" Donald "We Know Where They Are" Rumsfeld, Paul "Human Error" Wolfowitz, and Dick "James Bond-like" Cheney themselves. Or perhaps "Idiot Son of an Asshole" Bush mentioned it to CIA Director George Tenet during one of their daily nursery school sessions in which George T. failed to beat it into George W's thick skull that "urgent" and "grave and gathering" carry the same meaning as "imminent."

Wow! Calpundit has unearthed the untorn version of the "torn document" he referenced just 4 days earlier. Does it put Bush in the clear? Hardly! He still has some explainin' to do about what led to the disciplinary action of being assigned to a paper unit in Denver's ARF.

"ARF"? "Paper unit"? Go visit Calpundit and increase your vocabulary along with me.

After Bush's rambling, inarticulate taped interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, the DNC gives the appearance that they have their shit together or something with this special report called "Meet the Truth" which charts Bush's claims versus the facts. The Center for American Progress also has an annotated transcript of the interview plus a magnificent analysis available via Atrios.

Of equal interest are the items posted on National Review Online (via Calpundit) trashing Bush's performance, including such treats as this (posted by Kathryn Jean Lopez, quoting a "pundit-type" she had spoken with): "If he loses this year, this will be the day he lost it." Well, it might cause a sharper drop in his poll numbers, but I think Bush first lost it back in November of 2000, rode the wave of illusion after September 11, 2001 for about a month, and has been dropping almost constantly since that time (save for a couple of other illusory experiences).

The Bush Files, which provided the background for Ron Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty, are being placed online in "An Experiment in Transparency." Some of the 19,000 documents provided by former Treasury Secretary and National Security Council member Paul O'Neill -- including additional material not used in the book -- will be available to the public via the Internet.

Other documents recently finding their way into public view include the crucial "torn document" which supposedly clears up the "lost year-and-a-half" in Bush's military service record. It has been so kindly made available by Calpundit in a post which is "chock full o'links." The Daily Howler also has some great analysis on the media complicity in Bush's lies.

Josh Marshall also has some good info about the leakers who revealed the name of Joseph Wilson's wife to traitor Robert Novak. Is it frog-marching time yet?

[A "correction" to this post -- marked with an asterisk -- has been made below, but other than the addition of the asterisk, the content remains the same, as do the premises of the post. INDIAC regrets being fooled by the mainstream media. Shame on me for not paying close enough attention to the "man behind the curtain"!]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has received mail suspected of containing ricin. [Frightening profile here.] Well, not exactly.

You see, the envelope* containing the "suspicious white powder" was found in the Dirksen Senate Office Building adjacent to the Capitol. Frist "normally uses his Capitol majority leader's office instead of the Dirksen office." So if it were actually mailed to him, he wouldn't have been in any danger from it. (Smart!)

It's also rather suspicious that in March 2002, Frist wrote a book called When Every Moment Counts: What You Need to Know About Bioterrorism from the Senate's Only Doctor. The book:

"... provides basic information on the most likely bioterrorism agents, such as anthrax, smallpox, plague and botulism. Frist clearly and knowledgeably explains the symptoms, incubation period and available treatments for each agent, providing specific details, like the definition of "weaponized" anthrax and the government plan for containing a smallpox outbreak."

Now, perhaps it's merely coincidental that Bush is currently discussing an inquiry into "intelligence failures" (double entendre) which is likely to occur only after the November presidential election. Naaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Can you say "weapons of mass distraction"?

UPDATE: Since this story broke, the reporting of the details has changed. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article linked above* [on the words "suspicious white powder"] has a headline reading "Mail sent to Frist office contains ricin," hence my use of the word "envelope." It's not until paragraph 24 that the article says:

Frist and police chief Gainer said investigators were still uncertain which, if any, piece of mail the ricin had come from. Gainer said officials had not yet found any "visible threat," such as a menacing letter. The ricin was found on a device that opens mail, authorities said.

Subsequent reporting says:

About a tablespoon of powdery ricin was found on a countertop in Frist's mailroom Monday afternoon. An intern had noticed it and alerted the police.

This doesn't necessarily clarify the previous report, but perhaps even contradicts it. Was the ricin "on a [machine]" or was it "on a countertop"? Was Frist unclear, or did the reporters on the scene fail to ask enough questions?

Modernizing Mecca

In the wake of this year's 251 deaths (not a unique occurrence) during Hajj, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd says that Mecca will be modernized over the next 20 years. Here's what he can do, and it should take no more than 20 minutes. Put up a sign saying "The Jamarat Al Aqaba is not Satan. It is a stone; therefore, it cannot be killed. (BTW, Satan is merely a human literary creation, anyway.)"

All religions can then follow suit by posting similar signs on churches, cathedrals, chapels, mosques, tabernacles, synagogues, temples, shrines, and private altars reading: "My invisible cloud being is just as imaginary as your invisible cloud being (which is redundant)," and then people could start looking at things a bit more clearly, like...

Moral hypocrisy

While some people are concerned about real issues -- like making the world a worse place by going to war under false pretenses -- others are focused on the evil of breasts:

Do the kids of America need to see Janet's breast? Is there any way for me as a father to protect my five daughters from images of women inviting their own sexual exploitation just to appear in tomorrow's tabloids?

By allowing such disgusting spectacles, the NFL degrades every athlete who took thousands of body blows though the long football season to reach the Super Bowl. This is their moment. It dare not be stolen away by Neanderthalic music miscreants. [Emphasis mine]

Pardonnez-moi, but I'd consider football (which an e-mailer calls a "Blatant Glorification of Violence") to be quite a bit more "Neanderthalic" than pop music. Did anyone "need" to see that (B.G.V.)? I consider that to be a more valid question. "By allowing such disgusting spectacles, the NFL degrades every athlete who took thousands of body blows..."?! How's that for "exploitation"?