Out of My Mind

From FAIR:

Media Advisory

Too Many Liberals?
Olbermann says MSNBC bosses upset by liberal guests

10/27/05

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann recently revealed that network bosses were upset when he had two liberal guests too close together on his show in September 2003.

Speaking on October 25 to comedian and talk show host Al Franken, Olbermann said the following:

You were good enough to come on this newscast with me late in the summer of 2003. It was August or September. And by coincidence, either the next day or the day before, Janeane Garofalo had been a guest on the newscast. And I got called into a vice president‘s office here and told, "Hey, we don't mind you interviewing these guys, but should you really have put liberals on, on consecutive nights?"


Olbermann added, "Al, can you believe that the country was actually at that point that recently?" Later he would answer his own question, saying, "Thank goodness we have steered out of that time."

Franken was interviewed on September 2, and Garofalo on September 4. Apparently having them both on over three days--a period of time in which Olbermann's show interviewed a total of 9 guests--was grounds for being called on the carpet at MSNBC.

This incident is consistent with the phobia MSNBC executives have displayed about hosts featuring too many left-of-center views. Phil Donahue's talkshow was cancelled in February 2003--despite being the channel's highest-rated show at the time--explicitly for his left-of-center political views. An internal management memo worried that his program could become "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda" (All Your TV, 2/25/03).

As FAIR founder Jeff Cohen--who went on to be a senior producer on MSNBC's Donahue show--explained to the American Journalism Review (12/04-1/05): "In the last months of Donahue, we were ordered to book more right-wing guests than left-wing, more pro-war than antiwar to balance the liberalism of host Phil Donahue." Cohen added that orders that Donahue's guestlist favor conservatives were stated repeatedly to the show's staff.

Cohen also noted that such dictates for counterbalance did not seem to apply to every MSNBC show: "Joe Scarborough is a current MSNBC right-wing host, and there are no orders from management demanding that his guest list favor the left wing."

But has MSNBC truly "steered out of that time," as Olbermann suggests? If MSNBC management were genuinely worried about ideological balance, then the fact that the channel currently has two one-hour programs hosted by well-known conservatives (Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough) and none hosted by liberals would be of considerable concern. Or MSNBC could fret over Hardball's right-leaning panel discussion after a 2004 election debate (FAIR Action Alert, 10/12/04), or the Hardball "town meeting" on the Iraq war that skewed heavily towards the pro-war side (FAIR Action Alert, 6/29/05). The group Media Matters for America (10/21/05) recently documented that Hardball's discussions of the Plame Wilson leak case frequently skewed to the right, citing nine examples of panels that included only conservatives, or conservatives "balanced" by centrists; the group found only one case where a panel similarly leaned to the left.

Having too many conservatives on, it seems, doesn't bother anyone in power at MSNBC.

(Read the Olbermann transcript at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9827774/)

Student's deployment brings home Iraq war to Bowdoin College campus
news@TimesRecord.Com
10/25/2005
By Priya Sridhar, Times Record Contributor

BRUNSWICK — On Dec. 1, Alex Cornell du Houx, a 21-year-old Bowdoin College senior from Solon will head to Iraq for approximately 10 months as part of the Alpha 1st Company Battalion of the Marines.

Instead of staying up late to finish off college papers and cram for finals, Cornell du Houx will use his training and experience as a 0351 Assault Man to shoot rockets, deal with demolitions and work the Javelin Missile System.

"I am not nervous whatsoever. We are well trained and we're ready to go," Cornell du Houx said about the news of his unit's impending deployment to Iraq.

His mother and family are supportive of his plans as well.

"I feel for every mom who has a son or daughter who has been deployed, for the innocent Iraqi families that have lost their loved ones, and for the families of 1,966 soldiers who never came home," said Ramona du Houx, Alex's mother. "But the overwhelming reality of how unjust this war is only truly hits home when it is your son or daughter who is going into harm's way."

The senior is most well known on the Bowdoin College campus in his role as development director for the College Democrats of America and as co-president of the Maine College Democrats. Under his leadership, the organization in Maine has grown from two chapters to 23.

While Cornell du Houx has actively rallied against many of President Bush's policies, he feels that his involvement in the Marines is not a conflict of interest.

"Regardless of my opinions regarding the war in Iraq, it is my duty as a U.S. Marine to serve and I am ready and willing to do my job to its fullest extent," he said.

Others on campus, particularly his political opponents in the Bowdoin College Republicans, feel differently about his service. Daniel Schuberth, a leader of the Bowdoin College Republicans and College Republican national secretary, said, "I applaud Mr. Houx for his service, just as I applaud any other soldier who is brave enough to take up arms in defense of his country. I find it troubling, however, that one of the most vocal opponents of our president, our country and our mission in Iraq has chosen to fight for a cause he claims is wrong. Mr. Houx's rhetoric against the war on terror places him in agreement with the most radical fringes of the Democratic Party, and I am left to question his logic and motivation."

Duty, honor, country
Paul Franco, one of Cornell du Houx's government and legal studies professors, disagrees.

"He exemplifies democratic citizenship at its best," Franco said of Cornell du Houx. "Though he opposes Bush's war policies, he still feels obligated to fulfill his duty. ... This is the exact opposite of what is done by those supporters of the war who would never dream of fighting in it themselves or sending their own children to fight in it."

The relationships and friendships Cornell du Houx has forged as a result of his participation in the Marines have affected his politics, as well.

"I have always felt comfortable expressing my political beliefs. In the Marines, we debate politics all the time in a lively manner. It's very interesting and eye-opening to be able to see both perspectives — where you are in the majority politically at Bowdoin College and in the minority politically in the Marines."

Cornell du Houx joined the Marines Reserves while in high school.

"The places you go, the people you meet, and the perspective you learn is something you don't experience anywhere else," he said.

Ever since he was young, Cornell du Houx was fascinated with service and athletics. These two interests drew him to investigate enlisting in either the Army, Navy or Marines. The Marines, he felt, was the most intense and challenging branch and the base in Topsham was a convenient commute from Brunswick.

Weekend drills
Every month, Cornell du Houx trains with the Marines for a weekend, drilling and practicing on the rifle ranges. In addition, every year he participates in a two-week retreat that explores more skill-related war tactics, including scuba diving

After his freshman year at Bowdoin College, he was called to active duty by the Marines and flew to South Carolina to participate in 13 weeks of recruit training and boot camp. He then attended the School of Infantry at Camp Lejeune, N.C., during what was supposed to be his sophomore fall semester.

At Camp Lejeune, he learned everything from platoon formations to patrol techniques. He also received eight weeks of intensive training on his specialization of rocket launchers and assault.

His participation in the Marines has inevitably affected his college life. Because of his training at Camp Lejeune and now another interrupted college semester, Cornell du Houx is a year to a year and a half behind his original entering class at Bowdoin.

"Although, the Marines have extended my Bowdoin education for a couple more years, at the same time I'm learning a lot in the Marines that I couldn't learn in the classroom," he said.

A government and legal studies major, Cornell du Houx is also involved in a variety of activities at Bowdoin. Aside from his work with the Democrats, he is the co-president of Community Service Council, an active volunteer for Habitat for Humanity and the Young Alumni Leadership Program, and a tutor at local schools in the America Counts Tutor Program. He also works at the youth think tank — Youth Empowerment Program.

As a freshman, Cornell du Houx was not particularly active in politics. He was more involved in his community service organizations.

"After coming back from my Marines training sophomore year, I began to see more of a connection between community service and political service. ... I realized that one must become politically involved to create long-term tangible results that make a real difference in people's lives," he said.

Politics put on 'hold'
Until he received word that his unit will be deployed to Iraq, Cornell du Houx planned to run for the District 7 seat on the Brunswick Town Council.

"As a native of Maine, a Marine, president of the Maine College Democrats and founder of the Bowdoin Community Service Council, I've learned that the most important issues are local, which is why I also decided to run for town council," he explained.

Last week, Cornell du Houx withdrew from the race because of the deployment.

Cornell du Houx is still not certain as to what he wants to do when he graduates from Bowdoin College. He is required to spend two years on call for the Marines after his six years in the reserves.

But first, Iraq awaits him, a fact that has friends on campus wishing him luck and hoping for his safe return.

"Alex is a great guy with a big heart. He is a committed community member, Marine and American," said Bree Dallinga, co-president of the Maine College Democrats.

http://www.timesrecord.com/website/main.nsf/news.nsf/0/B4F8E5AB7DF904FA052570A50056F681?Opendocument

Iraq
National (In)Security
Fiscal irresponsibility
"Plamegate" (also gets back to national security in that it puts covert operatives on notice that their own government is willing to expose them for political, partisan reasons)
Abramoff
First
DeLay
Cronyism
Miers

This administration cares about you not at all.

Someone else said it but it's succinct and I think historically accurate:

Worst. Administration. ever.

As you may know, The Onion is under White House attack for misusing the Seal of the President of the United States for satirical purposes. (Obviously, if they're picking on The Onion, they haven't discovered whiteho-- never mind.)

Once upon a time, the First Amendment would have offered pretty good protection. But that was in the days where an administration would respect the fact of being part of a system of law but the current administration looks to corrupt banana republics and oligarchies as models of ideal government.

I digress.

Enjoy and use the following for creative endeavors. I know I will.

Those who forget history are doomed yada yada yada. Those who don't bother to learn from history are just plain dopes. So here, a simple lesson to keep things in perspective:

The Pentagon Papers and Watergate: leakers used to reveal government misdeeds (to say the least).

"Plamegate:" Leakers used journalists to spread lies about, well, about other government lies, to keep the truth hidden from the citizenry.

Anyone who can't see a difference has a problem -- and that means we have a problem.

Well worth clicking on:

Of course, if I had known of the 1993 speech, I would have opined that Harry Miers was in fact DOA. Appear pro-abortion (or not anti- enough) just once and that's it for the wingnuts.

As for the official story, we all remember how the very, very similar situation with John Roberts tanked his nomination :)

And Harry was, in an apple and oranges way, no less qualified that Justice Clarence Thomas.

I'm not alone anymore:

http://observer.com/media_themidaswatch.asp

I vaguely recollect stories how this administration was so against leaks. Obviously, the MSM got it wrong -- or maybe the story from the White House jut wasn't so clear: This administration isn't against leaking, it just really, really want to control the leaking. And putting every undercover op in fear of being outed with all of the adverse repercussions (I say that, you know, euphemistically): that's control.

Anyone really think W. can't get 51 senators to sign off on Miers? The 26 October front page story in the Times had a number of GOP senators appearing to diss the nominee but actually establishing wiggle room for a flipflop. You know, a lot of "I don't know now, I'm disinclined, but we'll see...." Yeah, we'll see them step into line with party orders.

Pathetic. Not them, us, for having such corrupt -- moral and otherwise -- leadership.

The cliche is that the military establishment -- any military, not necessarily ours -- prepares for the (unknown) next war by preparing after the fact for the last war. So with Vietnam still the relevant example for the point I'm trying to make, our Pentagon, at some point, should have not just prepared to fight an insurgency but also how to win the natives' hearts and minds -- to learn how to turn them to our point of view, so to speak.

well, let's jump ahead for a second; anyone think we show any sign of understanding ho to fight an insurgency, how to win over hearts and minds of hostiles -- I refer, of course, to Iraq.

And of course there are more mistakes: Expecting a military slamdunk so therefor rely on a grossly excessive number of reservists for one. (Well, the regular military is too tied up on the empire's huge network of overseas bases.)

And of course there was that troublesome disconnect, the lack of planning for the post-victory years, the years of conquest and colonialization. But why should there have been planning? The goal was always the control of oil and that required an operative fiction to support an invasion. Operative is the word of course; the lack of one repeatedly required the administration to keep coming up with new reasons, none of which held water.

So we'll be ending up with a long-term presence, mostly an Islamic republic, gladdening our allies no end, and some degree of an independent Kurdistan, gladdening at least Turkey no end -- not.

And the irony: W's pappy was certain to leave what one could call a tar baby of a nightmare to his successor, Slick Willy (like Ike left the Bay of Pigs to JFK). And here's W, doing all he can to be the opposite of his pappy -- but he's leaving the tar baby disaster for himself. At least vis a vis Iraq, doesn't matter who wins in 08; it's an insoluble problem (well, actually there is that single solution of cutting bait, but how is the big problem).

And to finish with a tangential digression: Query when enough the electorate stops and understands the reality -- all these problems came from an unchecked, radical rightwing party. Maybe a little balance might be in order....

Once upon a time, The New York Times was whatcha may call the house organ of the Establishment. Some time in the 60s or so it decided to become a truly first-rate paper -- actually investigate and report accurately and, more important truthfully. This was sometime after James Reston's water carrying for the JFK administration by being a good soldier and sitting on the then-incipient Bay of Pigs fiasco-to-be. As he later noted, if he did the right thing -- as a true journalist -- and blew the whistle, as it were, the invasion would not have happened as well as other gratuitously nasty other stuff. Count one major disservice by the water carrier.

Then sometime thereafter, the golden age of journalism at the Times began, the biggest stories (as I recollect) Vietnam (eventually and intermittently) and Watergate.

And all of a sudden the incipient radical right-wingers started deriding the paper as "liberal," for partisan reasons conflating objective with biased -- this during the heyday of the National Review.

And that meme, of the "liberal" Times, continues to this second.

So, as few others are doing, let's look at a few major examples of a "liberal" paper at work:

Wen Ho Lee.

Whitewater.

Weapons of mass destruction.

Election 2004, wherein the primary correspondent covering the incumbent was a hagiographer while the correspondent covering the challenger was, well, let's say overly, often gratuitously critical. Very fair, very balanced. The Times has yet to this day justified this issue. (I wrote the then-Public Editor a few times. He said that he was going to address the issue after the election -- you know, when it was well after the fact. He did eventually address it but not in any clear, meaningful. I should say he did essentially addressed the subject but did not address it with even a fraction of the depth it warranted.)

And, of course, defending a reporter (who the editors cannot control or whose work they cannot verify) jailed for refusing to identify an apparatchik using her to deliberately -- and willingly, gladly -- disseminate lies.

The Times' star journalist-martyr, the Pinch-buddy reporter that required absolutely no editorial supervision (like Jayson Blair but much more so) and ignord it if she so deigned, provides the ultimate quote for this whole sordid affair:

“WMD—I got it totally wrong. The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them—we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong.”

So absolutely dead wrong. It was all out there for the least competent journalist to find. Tens of millions knew that the administration and its fellow travellers -- and water carriers in the media -- knew there were no WMDs. All there for a competent journalist to find -- if, of course, she wasn't more interested in being a water carrier for the administration.

WHY THIS WHOLE SORDID MESS MATTERS: There's a lesson to be learned (by those who are able to). The Times was dead wrong in backing Miller up and worse, doing it neither what they were defending or why.

A generation ago, the Timesman would be in the slammer protecting a source of info necessary for the commonweal. Judy went to jail to protect a government apparatchik using her to spread government lies to start an unnecessary war.

Can you discern the difference? Can you appreciate the difference? Our leaders at the Times obviously couldn't. And theres no reason to think they can.

Ideally, Pinch and Keller should go, but that touches on an issue for another time....

From Salon's War Room, 16 October 2005 -- they wade through the muck so we don't have to. Just amazing how the Times giddily descended to the level of the Cheney/Rove/Bush administration. Wotta bunch of mendicants....

"But Miller says that she told Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the leak, that Libby was not her source for Plame's identity, and that she cannot recall who the source was."

Only one word: Amazing, just amazing. Well, incredible and unbelieveable, too.

"'It is also difficult, more than two years later, to parse the meaning and context of phrases, of underlining and of parentheses' contained in the notebooks, Miller writes. 'As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where ["Valerie Flame"] came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.'"

Please. Maybe Judy also misremembered about the WMDs, that she was actually told there weren't any but, you know, in her excitement she misrecalled what she had been told.

"Miller recounts three interviews she conducted with Libby around the time Wilson began questioning the accuracy of the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein once sought uranium from Niger. The first of these interviews occurred on June 23, 2003, a few weeks before Wilson published his account of his trip to Africa, while the second and third took place in the days after Wilson went public. In these interviews, Libby, whom Miller calls 'a good-faith source who was usually straight with me,' defended Cheney from charges that he'd cooked up pre-war intelligence, and attempted to smear Wilson and his wife, whom Libby told Miller worked at the CIA."

Can Judy really believe this utter crap? "Good faith source??" An apparatchnik using an overly ambitious reporter for his own ends, not to, God forbid, get the truth to the public would, in a paper of record, be more accurate. I man, of course, a real newspaper of record, not the Schulzberger/Keller parody of one (BTW, Okrent established that the Times never claimed to be th newspaper of record, hence allowing Judy's water carrying for the administration.)

"At one point, Libby asked her to attribute any information that he gave her on Wilson to a 'former Hill staffer.' But if Libby told her anything about the White House, she was to identify Libby as a 'senior administration official.' Miller says she recognized why Libby wanted this arrangement: 'I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.' Amazingly, she agreed to the arrangement -- a move that clearly violates a cardinal rule of journalistic ethics (correctly identifying your sources and their motives), and calls into question the high-minded rhetoric Miller has been spouting for more than a year.

But really, what's the problem how Libby's IDed? Whatever the ID, it's all lies.

"There is, indeed, much here to disappoint people who've long defended Miller as a martyr to press freedoms. Miller operated with unusual autonomy at the paper, essentially doing whatever she wanted on whatever story she chose, and keeping her editors in the dark about her actions. Though Miller told Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Keller, the paper's publisher and its executive editor, that her source was Libby, she gave them no indication of what he'd said to her. The paper reports: 'They did not review Ms. Miller's notes. Mr. Keller said he learned about the 'Valerie Flame' notation only this month. Mr. Sulzberger was told about it by Times reporters on Thursday.'"

Amzaing. Really, Pinch and Keller are simply unbelievable idiots. Certainly completely untrustworthy with the responsibility of producing quality journalism.

"Sulzberger says of Miller, 'This car had her hand on the wheel because she was the one at risk.'"

So Pinch put the Times at risk too. Suggestion: Now that Judy's all defended, how about, well, maybe her tint at the Times should, you know, end. I'm sure Fox News would hire her in a second, such a big name water carrier for the administration.

"For now, though, it's this statement from Sulzberger that we find most telling. The Times' reports make clear that Miller's hands weren't entirely clean in this affair; while she was not -- as some of her fiercest critics suggest -- the source of Plame's identity, she was certainly willing to curry favor with Wilson's critics in a way that does not speak well of her journalistic ethics."

Or the Times' competence or anything about the Times. Pinch's sole qualification when he took over was being his daddy's son and after all these years, that's still his only qualification. Like W., he's had disaster after disaster without a single success.

"That higher-ups at the Times were willing to let Miller dictate how the paper should handle its run-in with the prosecutor -- and, consequently, to let her affect how the paper covered Washington's biggest scandal in years -- suggest a profound misstep. The decision may ultimately have damaged the paper's reputation more deeply than the Jayson Blair affair."

This has not been an example of a need for a shield law.

Again, the Times is the most complete journalistic publication around. Factually trustworthy, it's not any longer. And yes, I guess I'd say Judy's more an example of that than the Jayson Blair farce. But both show the modern trend of just not editing any more, not supervising reporters whether supervision's needed or not.

And the consumers lose.

Of course, in Judy's case, the Times' approval was a big help in going into iraq -- another Shiite Islamic republic is desperately needed in the Middle East, especially one that, unlike Iran, is a true center for terrorists.

And this is what Pinch and Keller so desperately need to blindly -- blindly -- defend.

Did I say "amazing" yet?

And sad.

And the consumers are the biggest losers in this. Well, us and the Iraqis.

But I'm sure Pinch and Keller still don't get it.

From Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, an interesting point:

Interesting question. TPM Reader JO checks in ...

In his NYT op-ed, former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully writes, "It is true that Harriet Miers, in everything she does, gives high attention to detail. And the trait came in handy with drafts of presidential speeches, in which she routinely exposed weak arguments, bogus statistics and claims inconsistent with previous remarks long forgotten by the rest of us. If one speech declared X "our most urgent domestic priority," and another speech seven months earlier had said it was Y, it would be Harriet Miers alone who noted the contradiction."
So does that mean she OK'd the 2003 SOTU reference to Saddam's attempts to get yellowcake from Africa, notwithstanding the fact that it had been deleted from another speech months before? Seems like a fair question for her confirmation hearing.

Sounds worth asking to me too.

http://www.cronyjobs.com/

Anyone surprised by this? From Atrios' Eschaton (one of the most important blogs you can spend time at):

Silly Celebrity Blogging

Oh the horror:

Tom Cruise’s new lady love has reportedly said that she wants to remain a virgin until she gets married.

A 2003 profile of Katie Holmes in the Sunday Mirror of London discusses how “she went to cheerleading practice, got straight A grades, and made a pledge that she would remain a virgin until marriage.”

But...

Tom Cruise's fiancée, Katie Holmes, is pregnant with the couple's child, Cruise's spokesperson, Lee Anne DeVette, tells PEOPLE exclusively.

"Tom and Katie are very excited, and the entire family is very excited," says DeVette.

Found through patriotboy.blogger.com:

So I get this article referred to me by my cousin, a student at CSU. Speaking for myself, I don't feel all that well supported by Mr. Chapman. There aren't enough of us here to do all the missions we need to do to keep from loosing this thing. You'll notice I didn't say 'win this thing.' 17 years of military experience tells me that we cannot win in Iraq in any way that Americans are used to thinking of the term 'winning.' I was against this war from the beginning because it was a stupid, pointless mission that had no legal or moral justification.
So, to those who say that a person cannot support the troops without supporting the president and the mission, I say, f--k you. I do it every day of my life. And on a personal note to Mr. Chapman--please join up. We're very short handed right now, and I'd prefer you took my place on the next Iraq rotation since you believe in it and I don't. Otherwise, shut your pie-hole.


Michael Galletly
Staff Sergeant, Army National Guard
Oklahoma

Apropos this piece of young people's dementia:

Correcting Liberal Lies

By Ryan Chapman
October 05, 2005

In the past few weeks nearly everything I believe has been challenged. I have been told that my Christian and Republican affiliations don't mesh. I have been told that if I support the war in Iraq but am not enlisted in the military then I am a hypocrite. And I have even heard rumors that the Collegian has revoked my ability to write inflammatory columns. Today I will tell you why all of these things are utterly false.

First off, Christian values and Republican ideals often go very well together. This is especially true when it comes to opposing institutions such as abortion and homosexual marriage, which are strictly forbidden by the Bible. When it comes to war, which I might remind you is not forbidden by the Bible, Republicans do what is best for the country and its citizens. Every one of us recognized the need for war after 9/11, but liberals have since faded in their conviction.

What doesn't make sense to me is not the term Christian conservative but rather the term Christian Democrat. People who could be categorized as those claim to be Christian, yet somehow find a way to support the killing of babies (and in Bill Clinton's case adultery, perjury and sexual perversion as well). And while I am on the topic, people who attack conservatives for opposing abortion and supporting capital punishment make me sick. Drug tests should be mandatory for those whacks that think unborn babies and violent murderers and rapists have the same right to life.

The second lie liberals have been spouting lately is that conservatives, most notably the College Republicans, are being hypocritical for supporting the war in Iraq/on terror and the troops serving in those wars without enlisting themselves. This is ludicrous. Supporting the troops means letting them do their jobs and praying for their safety, NOT saying you support them and then holding a rally damning the cause they are fighting for. Also, where exactly do the people spreading this garbage think the military gets their officers and best leaders if not from the ranks of college graduates?

What I don't understand is how liberals can claim conservatives are not really supporting the troops while they sit around refusing to support anything to do with the United States. Liberals pray more to their pagan gods for the wellbeing of the U.N. and prisoners of the luxurious Gautanamo Bay than they ever would for the men and women who give them their freedom.

Lastly, I would like to address the rumors that I can no longer write about politics. I hope it is obvious by what you just read that I can still write anything I please, and I won't be getting fired anytime soon.

I hope today's column helps all of you dig your way out of the huge pile of lies and accusations that this opinion page has been inundated with recently. If it doesn't, sorry, ask some of your Christian conservative friends to clear up any other questions you may have.

Ryan Chapman is senior marketing major. His column runs every Wednesday.
http://www.collegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/05/434354108b029

This generation is so clueless. I know, it's my generation's failure; it's how we raised 'em.

Funny, yet not funny. You know, the choices are laugh, suicide or commit a massive act of criminal violence:

http://www.cronyjobs.com/

When do we stop this insanity?

Just asking....

From the 24 October 2005 issue of The Nation (click on the image to enlarge):