Thursday, July 29, 2004

The Political Poet Responds!

The Political Poet who sent me the email about supporting Kerry has responded to my letter, printed below. I thought, in fairness, I'd print his response. Then, because it's my blog, I print my response to his response. We probably ought to stop it there.

Let's see, I'll put his comments in Blue and mine in Red. Oh, wait, let me see what the CNN in headline is first. Oh, look at that: "Kerry Promises More Troops." Looks like I'm already ahead in points.

I should also note that Mr. Schiller, the poet, said he was not going to support Kerry until LAST NIGHT. I got the email this morning. That is seriously fast politickin'.

Here we go (you'll have to scroll down one item to find my original letter):

I agree with 99% of what you're saying, which is why I backed Howard Dean. Up until literally last night, I was going to campaign against Bush but not for Kerry. However, it dawned on me that Kerry did promise to rapidly end the war with international help- so the only way we can expect him to keep that promise is if those who want him to keep that promise support him in the election. If he were to win with only the support of people who either support the war or are neutral on it, then those of us who oppose the war would be in an even weaker position to expect him to keep the promise he made. I agree with all the criticism you're leveling at the DNC for soft-pedaling this issue, if Kerry were President he have no choice but to work with the Democrats in congress (unlike Bush who doesn't even acknowledge their existence). Although some Democrats voted for the war, they have consistently at the very least been divided on the issue. The republicans probably would not support most of Kerry's agenda, which means in order to accomplish anything at all, he would be forced to work with people like John Corzine, Bob Menendez, Barbara Boxer, among others, who both opposed the war and have been among Bush's biggest critics. At the moment, it is easy for the DNC to silence these people because everything being proposed in congress can pass with the support of just Republicans and a small percent of Democratic defectors. If the presidency was in the hands of Kerry, the republicans would revert to their obstructionist tactics as usual, which would make it a necessity for Kerry to work with the very members of congress who inititally backed Howard Dean and who want the war to end immediately. He would also be much more vulnerable to criticism from the liberal wing of the party if in office, and he would be less able to afford being criticized by those people, than Bush whose party base actually likes war. The chances of this war ending are thus much higher if kerry is elected. It's the only way to give the liberal wing of the congressional Democrats any voice at all, because it's the only scenario in which their votes on legislation would be needed by the administration in power.

Here's my response. Since I am also the debate judge on this site, I'm happy to say that I won!

I think I used to have that game, but I lost some of the pieces. The blue ones were pretty.

I have to say, that though I respect your opinion, that has to be the most uninspiring reasoning I've ever seen for voting for someone. And since you are a poet, whose facility with words is of a higher order than most, this leaves me a bit sad.

If one wades through your chain of reasoning, it is probably sound...I really don't know. I really have no insider knowledge of how laws get made in Washington, though I fear that it is a far less rational process than you envision. I do worry that Kerry will simply continue his "bold" move to distance himself from liberals by allying with moderate and even more conservative Republicans, who will still have a pretty large number of Representatives and Senators even if they lose some ground. He also has proven to me quite clearly that he is so mired in fear over what the rightwing might say about him or accuse him of, that the Bill O'Reilly's and Rush Limbaughs will have as much influence over him as Barbara Boxer or whoever.

No, I think Kerry and the current state of the Democrats is best summed up by two images. The first is a wire cage fitting a mere 1000 people designated as a "free speech zone" in Boston during the Convention. Please don't go blaming the local government for that absolute travesty. I understand there are a few very prominent Democrats from Massachussetts that could have nipped that in the bud. In the future, when analyses are written about exactly how America drifted into fascism, the picture of that cage will serve as the symbol of the Democratic Party's cowardly retreat.

The second image, clearly tragi-comic in nature, is that of former Green Party Senatorial Candidate Medea Benjamin being led out of the convention in handcuffs. You see, Medea was one of the prominent Greens who worked so hard to prevent Ralph Nader from challenging Kerry for votes. Her crime? Unfurling an obscenity free sign condemning the war in Iraq. This image will be the one they use to illustrate the analyses of why a legitimate third party became an absolute necessity in American politics. Or, alternately, how the lack of one allowed the aformentioned fascism to take hold.

Actually, I'd have to add another image, one that had to be painful for you, which was Dean, taking his greatest line of the campaign and twisting it: "We ALL represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." I hope you were not made physically ill, as I was, by this complete abandonment of every principle his campaign stood for. I would also add, as an aside and an unproven theory, that Dean did not simply screw up his campaign. The DLC and the conservative, business oriented Dems did him in. Clinton et al know what they are doing. I've even heard that their support for Clark was merely a way to get votes from Dean till Kerry could emerge in all his unglory. That is speculation, of course. But I can think of no other reason for Deans sudden fall. (I also have to say that I didn't completely buy his sudden conversion to populist/progressive, but I liked what he had to say.)

Kerry will win or lose regardless of my vote. I am in a "safe state" for Bush. In fact, I predict that more people will vote for Kerry than for Bush, though we know that has very little to do with who gets to be President.

I'm going to leave you with this quote:

"The Administration’s Iraq policy has failed – militarily, politically, diplomatically, and with relation to our own people.

"We condemn the Administration’s breach of faith with the American people respecting our heavy involvement in Iraq…. The Administration’s failure to honor its own words has led millions of Americans to question its credibility….

"We pledge to adopt a strategy relevant to the real problems of the war, concentrating on the security of the population, on developing a greater sense of nationhood, and on strengthening the local forces….

"We pledge a program for peace in Iraq – neither peace at any price nor a camouflaged surrender of legitimate United States or allied interests – but a positive program that will offer a fair and equitable settlement to all, based on a principle of self-determination, our national interests and the cause of long-range world peace."

This, of course, is not from the Democratic platform of '04 but from the Republican platform of '68. See all the wiggle room? See where it led?

I appreciate your involvement in the political process. We'll work together on the next one!

Ha Ha, Medea

The Dems are not content confining protesters to free speech cages (FSC's). No, no, no! They want to show that they are truly not "soft on free speech" a label that Republicans have been pinning on the Dems since the ACLU was founded. To prove they have the cajones to keep (in this case) anti-war rhetoric down, they had former Green Party Senatorial Candidate Medea Benjamin thrown out of the convention in handcuffs for unfurling a very generic U.S. out of Iraq sign.

The punch line, of course, is that Medea is one of the "prominent activists" who publically signed onto a "Don't Run Ralph" open letter. "We must support the Democrats in these perilous times," she whined. Then they had her arrested.

Ha ha ha Medea. Thanks for proving my point.

Kerry Spam and My Response

I received a solicitation to give money to the Kerry campaign from someone named Mike Schiller. I don't know how I got on his list. He is a poet and former Dean supporter, but I've never heard of him.

(These lists are always mysterious. For example, and I kid you not, I recently received a photograph of Laura and George Bush thanking me for being a grassroots leader for their cause. It was a crappy photo.)

Anyway, here is my response. Nothing new here for readers of this site, but I thought I'd put it up anyway. I hope you are all writing similar responses to such solicitations that may clutter your own inboxes.

Hello Mike,

I don't know you, but I received this solication for John Kerry in my email inbox. I know it was a mass emailing by someone, though I don't know how they got my email address.

I wanted to write back to you personally to explain why I cannot, in good conscience, vote for John Kerry. I don't think this will do much good, but it needs to be said often, so I'll add my voice to this choir.

Here's the main idea: If I vote for Kerry for President and he wins, then I will have to stop opposing this immoral, disastrous, insane war in Iraq. Let me explain.

Kerry voted for this war and enthusiastically defended its dubious premises in the media. John Edwards, on the Senate Intelligence Committee, did the same. Neither one backed off this position until much later in the process, and the retreat was minimal. Because I expected the Republicans, especially the neo-cons, to push the war agenda, I have no disappointment with them. But it is the Democrats whose duty it was to stand against this war. It was the Democrats whose job it was to expose the truth. And as Senators, Kerry and Edwards were in the best position to do this, and yet they chose not to.

He can make excuses all he wants. Bush deceived him? Surely they expected no less and would be ready to pounce on those lies. The intelligence was faulty? Does neither of these men possess a computer? Because they could have found enough information to seriously call the "intelligence" into question by surfing the internet. The truth would have been revealed before they'd finished their second cup of morning coffee. Go ask Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector who was screaming his head off about how untrue these claims were. He certainly wasn't hard to find, as he was speaking all over the country.

Kerry and Edwards also had to be aware of the "Office of Special Plans", the (in the words of the Guardian, UK) " shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force." Again, 3 minutes on the internet would reveal this, assuming that somehow, despite being US Senators, there is some way they could not have known.

No. There are only three possibilities. One, is that Kerry and Edwards seriously believed that Saddam Hussein, after a devastating military defeat and 12 years of genocidal sanctions (for what else can you call sanctions that, as agreed to by former Sec. of State Madeline Albright, caused half a million child deaths a year in Iraq?)was somehow a threat to the U.S. Come on! How many lies had to be exposed. The aluminum tubes? Lie. Uranium from Niger? Lie. In fact, more than a lie, an actual forgery. The "Praque meeting" between Iraq and Al-Qaida? Lie. I reject the possibility that Kerry believed in all these lies. Certainly, he could not have after they were exposed as such.

The second possibility is that hey went along out of cowardice and political expediency. Didn't want to be called unpatriotic. Didn't want to seem soft on terrorism. I don't remember which realm of Dante's hells is reserved for this sort of nonaction in the face of evil, but I'm pretty sure it was one of the least pleasant ones.

The third possibility is that the overall agenda of US dominance over world resources is one that they agree with. The US, goes this line of thinking, has a right to control whatever happens in areas of the world that our part of our "vital interests," like, you know, oil producing countries. This, I assume, is the truth of the matter. It is an old and bipartisan story.

But Kerry has seen the writing on the wall. He knows American support for the war has dropped and a majority now consider it a "mistake." So he'll be making an unequivocal denunciation of that war and coming up with a plan to pull the troops out as soon as is logistically possible, right? I mean, it should be politically safe, if not downright advantageous for even the most cowardly Democrat to say the war is wrong and that we must withdraw and not ask some 19 year old kid to be the "last man to die for a mistake". Nope. Even know, Kerry is missing the boat and the DNC is rejecting anti-war language for the party platform

Yes, he's backpedaled on the war a little bit, but he has pledged to increase the troops! By 40,000! (I haven't been including links to all these things as they are so well known by now, but this one seems to have fallen through the memory hole, so just in case, here's one of many references to his pledge to increase troops by 40,000. ) Kerry has said that if the Generals want more troops, all they have to do is ask. His basic promise is to prosecute the war more "efficiently." Gee, thanks. More dead Iraqi civilians. More hatred of the U.S. And by the way, they will not hate us any less if we have NATO troops come in and do some of that killing. Everyone knows who's running the show.

So, here is the moral dilemma. You see, I plan to go on opposing this war, whether it is Bush or Kerry in office. And, (now this is the tricky bit, so hang on!) since Kerry has promised to increase troops in Iraq, as well as embrace the illegal idea of "preemptive wars", I would be forfeiting my right to oppose his actions. You see, you really can't protest when the man you vote for does EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS HE WILL DO!

No, don't sign me up for that. I imagine myself going to Iraq and facing the family of an Iraqi child killed in indiscriminate bombing and answering their questions: "Why did you support the continued killing of my people?"

What can I tell them? At least Kerry is killing you more efficiently?

No thanks.

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Common Dreams Gets Hacked

As of right now, the Common Dreams websitehas been "hacked." Rather than liberal/progressive news stories, it simply contains the message: "r00ted Team .. The new generation .. .. .. .. .. .. .." The use of the annoying numbers for letters makes this looks like a typical "script kiddie" hack, but you never know. I also notice that a notice has been placed on whatreallyhappened explaining that email containing a virus is being sent out as if from that site. I also received a notice from my anti-virus software company that the mydoom virus is spreading. My doom actually managed to shut down Google for a bit.

I mention in the post below that controlling or disrupting an internet would be a near term goal for those seeking to prevent real opposition in this country. I swear, however, that I did not hack this site to prove my point!

And now, to be fair, a brief note on the term "hacker." The term goes way back to the beginnings of computers to anyone who had superior skills and could work with software and hardware to get it to go above and beyond its normal expectations. Yes, practical jokes were sometimes part of the fun, but overt maliciousness was not at all a part of this culture. The term has come to mean those virus writers and website defacers we know and hate. I used the term "hack" in that sense to get my meaning across in the first line, and I apologize to the true hackers of the world.

Now continue reading the section I wrotebelow about getting ready for IT, that is whatever is coming in the next couple of months, and then see if any local peace/anti-fascist groups you might work with need to examine their computer security and perhaps over reliance on the internet to communicate with members and supporters.

Interesting times, indeed.

The Calm Before....

I've not posted much and not many folks are stopping by here these days. Truth is, I've said all I can think of to say, until it happens. What is "it"? Well, I don't know for sure. Is IT the cancelling (aka "postponing") of elections due to a threatened terrorist attack? Is IT an actual terrorist attack, real or staged? Is IT an electronically stolen election? Is IT an electronically stolen election or attempt to postpone elections that is opposed by the U.S. military which then assumes control of the country?

All of these ITs have received more virtual ink in closer to mainstream sources than I actually imagined they would. Even Buzzflash has run articles about impending fake terror attacks. (Well, to be fair, I don't think Maureen Farrell said they would be staged, only that rightwing pols and pundits were certain it would happen. But if they are THAT certain....)

Whatever IT is, assuming IT is not an attack on the Democratic convention, will happen in October. Until then, people, even aware people, are going on as if the elections will happen and will be real. I haven't seen much of a movement for organized electoral monitoring, though I did note with interest that the Congressional Black Caucus called for UN observers. Not sure where that stands right now, thought it would certainly support those rightwing theories that the UN is secretly taking over the US rather than the reverse.

I suppose that, depending on who the actual players are who decide these things, that Kerry might even be put in office. He doesn't threaten much of the "progress" the Bushistas have made and pledges to out-Bush Bush, in some ways.

In actuality, a Kerry win would could be one of the worst scenarios. If he keeps his campaign pledge to increase troops in Iraq (and how he would do that without a draft, I don't know) where will all the anti-war folks be who got co-opted into the "unity" and "anybody but Bush" schools of thought? In some ways, they have abdicated the right to complain. It would be one thing if Kerry said he opposed the war and then increased US commitment there, but if the man says he's going to get us further entrenched and likewise pledges to engage in pre-emptive attacks when "necessary" then how can you complain when he goes and does it? I mean, at least he's keeping his campaign promises!

Let me repeat this: You can't protest against a President you supported when he went and did exactly what he said he was going to do when you voted for him.

That will take a big bite out of what is left of the anti-war movement, though surely much of the core of the movement is not made of Democrats.

So with Kerry we'd get much of the same but with a new legitimacy, at home and maybe even abroad. After all, it is the Dems who are responsible for the "free speech cage" in Boston. If you haven't seen it, it is unfuckingbelievable. It is a wire cage that fits 1000 people under a bridge with one entrance and one exit, patrolled by armed guards.. This is the only place near the convention people have a right to protest. I do have to respect this policy as a taxpayer, however, because to have protesters demonstrate from within a pre-fab jail saves money should you decide to arrest any of them. You just have to shut the door!

I say the Dems are responsible, because whether or not they approved of this free speech cage, I've heard none of them protesting vigorously against it. And I'm guessing some of those folks have enough clout to get it changed if they wanted. There are some prominent Democrats from Massachussets, I hear.

And I actually saw David "I'm not a CIA agent but I write for them" Corn of the Nation happily point out the lack of demonstrations at the convention. He saw this as a sign of "unity" among Democrats. Well, David, your own magazine points out the ludicrous nature of the free speech cage. No one is stupid enough to go in that thing. I'm just sorry that more activists in the Northeast aren't willing to risk arrest and protest closer to the convention. You can read more about the cage here but the bottom line is that David Corn is an idiot and the Democrats are just as fascist as the Republicans. Sorry.

But these are just games, little sideshows. This is merely the 5 minutes before you fire up the DVD when you are popping that microwave popcorn. The real show comes up in a couple of months. Wonder what'll be on?

Meanwhile, I guess we can all be thinking about what the nature of the resistance will be once the Big Show begins. For example, in the event of a "terorist attack" the internet will be greatly curtailed through a virus or official government control. After all, everyone knows that it is secret messages in porn sites that give the terrorists their instructions. Nevermind its the primary communications medium among opposition forces in this country. That has nothing to do with it.

We also know that the FBI is already investigating opposition groups, more likely to intimidate than anything else. seems to be posting these incidents as they become known. You see they've heard some "chatter" that a "Domestic organization" is going to disrupt the Democratic convention. Oh, good. I was afraid you were going to have too hard a time using the Patriot Act and other fascist methods against non-Muslim U.S. citizens. Glad you're getting on track with that. There will be LOTS more such chatter before the Republican convention. If you are an activist in any group that advocates any kind of nonviolent resistance, go ahead and call a lawyer. You're going to get a little visit soon.

And let's not forget the lessons of COINTELPRO. The FBI and others will also infiltrate groups. They send in two kinds of agents. First, the kind that just watch and gather information. You can't always spot these, but if you aren't doing anything illegal, you probably don't have much to worry about. In fact, in order to gather information, these agents tend to be the hardest workers, so take advantage of it!!! Often, these will be the ones who server on EVERY committee, even trying to chair those committees. They want to have access to mailing lists and they want access to financial data. If you don't suspect them or can't prove anything, there's not much you can do, least spread out leadership to limit any damage that could be done by a single individual.

The second kind is more disruptive. They might be provocateurs, encouraging folks to break laws. I was in an anti-war coalition in L.A. and found out that one member approached another to offer "guns or drugs." He actually said that. "Hey, if you need any guns or drugs or anything, let me know." Why don't you just wear a sign, dumb ass.

Sometimes the disruption comes from creating internecine conflicts, always creating division and dissension in order to keep the work from moving forward. Here in Nashville, I got involved with a peace group. There was a woman I was asked to work with on press. She ended up pissing off everyone and alienating allied elected officials. I'd seen her type before and confronted her directly with a long detailed email about the behaviors I witnessed that were divisive. I cc'ed the letter to leadership of the group. She disappeared for a little while, but came back and got involved again. The leader of the group said "Oh, she's doing much better now, really helping out." I can't say she's an agent, of course. She could just be psychotic. Whatever. I don't work with them anymore. I got way too much of that in L.A.

So when IT happens, you can expect:

Internet disruption

Increased FBI monitoring and disruption of legal political activities,

Free speech zones the size of One-Hour-Photo drive throughs

And possibly overt martial law.

So if you are in a group that is NOT actually lulled into the public opiate known as elections, you might want to plan for these contingencies. Ask:

How secure are your computer files if you depend on those for your work?

How much do you depend on the internet for communication?

Do you have an emergency phone tree for mobilizing people quickly?

Are your leaders aware of the COINTELPRO history and educated as to effective countermeasures (limited as these countermeasures might be)?

If you are in the forefront of opposition, do you have lawyers working with your group for when the agents come a knockin'?

Do you have legal observers at your demonstrations in case arrests ensue?

Is your organization overly centralized so that the arrest or harrassment of one member would significantly impair your work?

How will your group respond to fraudulent elections?

How will your group respond to postponed elections?

How might your group respond to a military takeover in they make a move should Bush monkey with the elections?

These are not the things I see peace groups debating just now. Right now the debate is all about Kerry vs. Nader. Again, whatever. It's just the popcorn folks. What are you going to do when the real show is on?

Sunday, July 11, 2004

In case you think I make this stuff up....

Bush to cancel elections following terrorist attack.

And here

Getting us ready, floating a trial balloon...whatever you want to call it, the Reichstag Fire is on the way....

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

CIA speaks

Here is the CIA's shot at Bush. It is supposed to be a documentary, but about two thirds of the interview subjects are former CIA. It will only be at this site until tomorrow. After that, I guess you'll have to go to truthuncovered. I don't know if the download at this address is the full video.

These CIA guys aren't saying anything startling, just that the war was not justified. However, because it is so chock full of "former" CIA agents, it seems to me an indication of an all-out attack on the Bush's by the CIA. Who to root for? Sigh.

What Things May Come

I admit, I feel like I'm just sitting around and waiting. I and 7 billion other bloggers have speculated about what might be coming in the very near future. Lots of hints, many of which are false or or deliberate misdirection.

I find it interesting that Bev Harris, who has so tirelessly been going after the whole electronic voting disaster is now VERY mainstream, featured, for example, in this CNN article. This, I'm afraid, is not inconsistent with the idea of the military seeking to prepare us for the fact that the elections are illegitimate and they'll need to save us. Thanks Guys!

I saw an article that I can't find right now, about some statistician's who are almost ALWAYS right about Presidential elections, who say the polls are irrelevant, Bush will win. Clearly this is preparing the way to justify election results that don't match what even the fakey fake polls are saying.

We also know that Bush dumped Tenet, and will no doubt be looking for someone who can get the CIA under better control. Does the CIA Director even have much real power or is the CIA such an entrenched institution that they have their own agenda regardless of who is appointed their head? Will the CIA and military be working together in the big counter coup? I dunno.

You've all seen the articles about how Internet Explorer is vulnerable and that a massive internet attack could be on the way. This makes great sense to me, as the internet is THE primary source of real news now. Folks who rely on the internet for their political organizing need to be sure to bring on some older activists who remember how it was done before the internet existed.
Seriously, they could shut it down, then claim that it was shut down as a terrorist attack. Two birds with one stone, eh?

(This blog, I assume, is pretty much off the radar, so who knows. If only major sites are attacked or shut down, maybe you and I can be helpful till they spot us. If the whole internet gets whacked for a while, I guess we'll have to find other ways to be useful.)

We've also been GUARANTEED by Condy Rice and others that there will be another terrorist attack. We've also been told by her and others that it will be an attack designed to influence the elections. Here's an op-ed by Maureen Farrel listing some of the other such predictions.

We are in the lull before the storm, for sure, and I really don't have enough insight to make specific predictions. It's gonna be ugly, and scary, although the scariest scenarios for me are the ones that are least noticeable, such as Bush winning without a fervent protest about election shenanigans, or Kerry winning and coninuing the immoral conquest of the Middle East. Don't count on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11: The Sequel while the killing continues on Kerry's watch.

Stay tuned...

Even More on Moore

Okay, I still haven't seen it yet, which I acknowledge, unlike many conservative commentators, excludes me from saying much about Fahrenheit 9/11. But I've been reading more about it and I am just waiting for a time my wife and I can go together. What I'm reading does make it clear that those who are angry about what the film doesn't say have a pretty good case. How do you leave out PNAC and the Neo-cons? What about Israel?

I think what's going on is not some subtle intelligence games here, though let me back up and say that there are always many, many different undercurrents which often swirl in the same or similar directions. For example, it wasn't solely to benefit Halliburton and other defense contractors that the war was fought, but they certainly benefitted, and Cheney's connection to Halliburton is undeniable. It wasn't just about the oil in Iraq, though certainly that was important. I think Moore does talk about those things. And truth to tell, while it may be a bit misleading to focus on Saudi Arabia, those business connections with Bush are clear. Moore thinks Bush didn't go after Saudi Arabia because the ruling family are his buddies. Many of us go further and think there was a partnership to create 9/11 all along. So while it goes further than what Moore is willing to say, I think that that angle is real also.

But what's really clear is who did back this film. Miramax with executive producer Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein is a big democrat. In fact I actually coordinated a protest with lots of Hollywood types in Beverly Hills, of all places, when Bush Senior came to L.A. Harvey and Paula Weinstein were central to that effort. I'll never forget the day I got a phone call from Angelica Houston which got me involved in the protest. In fact, I'm so much in the IN crowd, I'm not sure why I even TALK to you people.

The movie is Democrat propaganda. I don't think you need to go further than that. Anything that digs too deeply and sees that Democrats and Republicans alike are pretty much in sync when it comes to World Domination (though I do think Bush went too fast and too incompetently for the comfort level of segments of the powers that be), would NOT be very good propaganda for the Democrats.

So, no hard hitting expose on how much of the Patriot Act actually got its start under Clinton's anti-terrorism act. But lots of bad stuff on the Patriot Act itself. Nothing bad on Clinton's bombing of Yugoslav civilians, but lots on the bombing of Iraqi civilians. These are all consistent, though as I've said before, Moore's view is not particularly coherent politically. Even supporting the bombing of Afghanistan is a consistent Democratic position, because what Democrat would have had the guts to stand up against that after 9/11? (Well, Jim McDermott, for one...but there weren't many.)

This does not preclude some clever CIA guy from saying, "Hey, we need to dump Bush. I hear Moore is doing an anti-bush film...let's make sure it gets out there." My insider connections, in fact, tell me that...well, okay, I don't actually HAVE any insider connections, which is why I ramble on so.

So, I've lowered my expectations for the Moore film now that I know the obvious targets he chose to leave out. I'll say more when I FINALLY go see the thing!