City Link

« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

June 30, 2006

I'm not much on bomb-throwing polemics...

When I blog about the crazies that are running this country (as a believer in fiscal conservatism and the avoidance of foreign entanglements -- two of the pillars of conservatism -- I refuse to call these people "conservatives"), it's usually couched in obviously jokey terms, like "Tom Delay is an evil-spewing scumbag" or "Budget Director Rob Portman Is a Tonton Macoute" or "Tony Snow: Douchebag of Liberty" or "Mayor Jim Naugle Is Marie Antoinette" or "Jeb Bush Is also Marie Antoinette" or, of course, the ever-popular "Ann Coulter Is Really a Liberal". I never really put a lot of stock in these things, and I don't take them deadly seriously. Well, except for the bit about Tom DeLay being an evil-spewing scumbag. And the one about Naugle. But I wouldn't necessarily say that President Bush is a War Criminal. Despite the seemingly obvious take that the Iraq War itself is a flagrant violation of the 1996 War Crimes Act. No, I'll let other people make the case for me.

In its blog on the recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court ruling, the Truth 2 Power Project presents a powerful case that our president is, in fact, guilty of war crimes. To quote the Project's analysis of the ruling:

In the Majority Opinion Justice Stevens stated:
"Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdan ’s commission trial are illegal. ... The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."

In his concurring opinion Justice Kennedy brought it home:
"Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,Aug. 12,1949, [1955 ] 6 U..S.T.3316,3318,T.I.A.S.No.3364. The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law. ... By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses,when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. ... There should be no doubt, then, that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war.

The core of the decision, as written by Stevens is here:
Hamdan is entitled to the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention until adjudged, in compliance with that treaty, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified as a prisoner of war, the military commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the UCMJ and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear.

The Court did not find that Hamdan or other detainees would have to be tried in civilian court, only that the Special Secret Tribunals that have been setup by President Bush are not authorized under current U.S. Law (the UCMJ) and also violate our treaty as a member of the Geneva Conventions."

nuke2.jpg
Approximate size of the bomb just dropped by the Supreme Court

Many thanks to the Truth 2 Power Project for this cogent analysis.


So, the Supreme Court -- the very one that Bush himself has packed with conservative judges -- seems to have essentially called President Bush a war criminal. If we had signed on to the International Criminal Court treaty -- and if we weren't the world's foremost superpower -- Lord knows where our president would be right now. Quite possibly, sitting in chains in the Hague. The Truth 2 Power Project wraps up its blog entry by remarking that Bush is likely to simply ignore the court's ruling and keep doing whatever he damn well pleases. That certainly seems in keeping with the man's character, and it's not without precedent.

When the court ruled against Democratic President Andrew Jackson, saying that Cherokee Indians had every right to stay in their homeland in Georgia, President Jackson famously said "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it." He then set up the Trail of Tears and merrily committed genocide.

Given that precedent, it shouldn't come as much of a shock if Bush decides to just keep denying Geneva rights to prisoners of war -- after all, what's a few war crimes between world leaders?

george_w_bush.jpg
President Bush, alleged war criminal

June 29, 2006

Still trying to get over the fact that Sleater-Kinney is breaking up

The word came down the pipe yesterday on the band's Web site. I quote:

"After eleven years as a band, Sleater-Kinney have decided to go on indefinite hiatus. The upcoming summer shows will be our last. As of now, there are no plans for future tours or recordings.
 
We feel lucky to have had the support of many wonderful people over the years. We want to thank everyone who has worked with us, written kind words about us, performed with us, and inspired us.
 
But mostly we want to extend our gratitude to our amazing fans. You have been a part of our story from the beginning. We could not have made our music without your enthusiasm, passion, and loyalty. It is you who have made the entire journey worthwhile.

With love and thanks,
Sleater-Kinney"


There realy isn't a whole lot else to say. For a little while there between 1996 and 2000, Sleater-Kinney was quite possibly the best band in the world. Seriously.

Over the course of S-K's decade-long recording career, it remained at a level of consistent high quality that few other bands can claim. The Beatles, sure. But not a whole lot of others. The band never came out with a single bad album, and off the top of my head, I can't even think of a single piece of filler on any of the albums.

The band will end its current tour in August, and I will then mark them down on my list of bands I should have seen while I had the chance. But though they will be gone, they will always serve as a reminder that you don't need a single set of balls to rock 'n' roll.

sk.jpg
Sleater-Kinney, allegedly the erstwhile Best Band on the Planet, in happier times


Latest Polling Shows Bush Losing Core Supporters

WASHINGTON June 15 - President Bush appears to be losing support among a key group of voters who until now have stood firmly with the president.

A new Gallup poll shows that Bush's approval rating has fallen below 50% and now stands at just 44% among total fucking morons. This represents a dramatic drop compared to a poll taken just last December when 62% of total fucking morons expressed support for the president and his policies.

The current poll, conducted by phone with 1,409 total fucking morons between June 4 and June 8, reveals that only 44% of those polled believe the president is doing a good job, while 27% believe he is doing a poor job, and 29% don't understand the question.

Faltering approval ratings for the president among a group once thought to be a reliable source of loyal support makes Republicans nervous about the upcoming mid-term elections.

"We've got a big problem if we can't depend on the support of total fucking morons," says Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), "Total fucking morons are a key factor in our electoral strategy, and an important part of today's Republican coalition."

"We've taken the total fucking moron vote for granted," says Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), "and now we're paying for it." Feeney says the poll is a dire warning for Republicans. "This should send a signal that we have to regain control of the debate if we want the support of our key constituencies in the coming election and beyond. We need to bring public discourse back into the realm of stupidity and vacuity. We should be talking about homosexual illegal immigrants burning flags. We should be talking about the power of pride. We should be talking about freedom fries. These are the issues th at resonate with total fucking morons."

But some total fucking morons say it's too late. Bill Snarpel of Enid, Oklahoma is a total fucking moron who voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

But he says he won't be voting for Bush in 2008. "I don't like it that he was going to sell our ports to the Arabs. If the Arabs own the ports then that means they'll let all the Arabs in and then we'll all be riding camels and wearing towels on our heads. I don't want my children singing the Star Spangled Banner in Muslim."

Total fucking moron Kurt Meyer of Turlock, California also says his once solid support for Bush has collapsed. "He invaded Iraq and all those soldiers died, and for what? We destroyed all their WMDs, but now their new president is making fun of us and saying he's going to build nuclear bombs and that we can't stop him. Well, nuclear bombs are even worse than WMDs, so what did we accomplish?"

Laura McDonald, a total fucking moron from Chandler, Arizona, says she is disappointed that the president hasn't been a more forceful advocate of Christian values. "This country was founded on Christian values," she says, "but you'd never know it with all the Mexicans running around. I thought Bush was going to bring Jesus back into the government. Instead, Christians are persecuted worse than ever before in history because all these Mexicans come here and tell Christians that we have to respect their religious beliefs. So now it's illegal for children to pray in school. Soon it will be illegal for them to speak English."

Not all total fucking morons have turned their backs on the president. Jeb Larkin of Topeka, Kansas says he still fully supports Bush. "He is doing a great job. He is a great president. He is a great decider. I have a puppy. His tail sticks straight up and you can see his butthole."

And not all Republican law makers are concerned about the poll, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R- TN), for one. He agrees that the Republican party should not take total fucking morons for granted, but he says they "really don't have anywhere else to go. Just try having a conversation with one of them about global warming. They'll say, 'Oh, but Rush says volcanoes consume more ozone than humans do.' I mean, they're morons! Total fucking morons!"

"They've got nowhere else to go," Alexander reaffirms with a smile, "and they always vote."

moran.jpg
One of many total fucking morons that make up Bush's base


**NOTE: I did not write this. Had it sent to me over e-mail, and thought it was too good not to post. Unable to track down original author. If it's yours, please let me know and I'll provide a link, or take down the blog entry, at your discretion. Thanks**

June 26, 2006

More evidence that Ann Coulter is a liberal in disguise

For some time now, I've championed the hypothesis that Ann Coulter is really a liberal who is lampooning conservatives, much like Stephen Colbert does on The Colbert Report. I discussed the possibility somewhat in this post, and I've recently found strong evidence for it. Coulter is a Deadhead.

Let's face it, unless somebody ate so much acid that they completely warped their brains on a permanent level -- something I'm not convinced is possible, given the staggering amounts of acid gobbled by some people I know -- it's impossible to hold the views Coulter does while also espousing the Grateful Dead. The two are mutually exclusive. And yet, in this interview, Coulter claims just that. She's not just a conservative Deadhead (I'll allow for that possibility), but a far-right, batshit-insane Deadhead.

Apparently, it is true. The Coulter-friendly documentary Is It True What they Say About Ann? even has photographic evidence:

photo-dead.gif
Ann Coulter, alleged liberal hippie

It's obvious now that the woman's more Stephen Colbert than Joseph Goebbels. Why can't more people see it? Is it just me? Maybe so.

Seriously, though, the interviewer is a freaking genius, for the idea alone if nothing else. I rage with jealousy. Well played, sir. Well played.

And props to the South Florida Jams Web site, a posting at which turned me on to this story. The Web site is the home of South Florida Jams productions, which puts on the yearly Langerado Music Festival. On that note, here's a photo of me at this year's Langerado, just for shits 'n' giggles:

dan.jpg
Your humble blogger, alleged Space Cowboy

June 21, 2006

Jeb Bush -- Another example of Florida's Marie Antoinette politicians

I first brought Marie "Let Them Eat Cake" Antoinette into the realm of Florida politics in another blog entry, in which I discussed the aristocratic jackassery of Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle. But JEB!, our fearless, fearsome governor, deserves the Antoinette label just as much as Naugle.

After newspapers had a hard time getting ahold of state public records (that's public records, mind you, as in "available to the public"), the state congress -- dominated by Jeb's own party, it should be noted -- passed a law that "would have required agencies to 'respond to requests to inspect or copy records promptly and in good faith,'" according to a story in the Palm Beach Post. The senate passed the law 38-0, while the house passed it 117-1. This morning, Jeb vetoed it. Because, after all, we can't have the public looking at public records, can we?

Marie_Antoinette.gif
Governor Je-- oops. Did it again.


noelle.jpg
Govern-- oops. wrong again. That's his drug-addled daughter's mugshot


JebJr.jpg
Gov -- dammit! That's also wrong. That's his boozehound, arrest-resisting son's mugshot


Jeb.jpg
Yeah, there he is! Governor Jerky McLargehead, alleged aristocratic jackass

Ted Kennedy's yearly attempt to increase the minimum wage fails again

No surprise here, I suppose. Once again, the Senate has shot down Sen. Ted Kennedy's annual attempt at a raise for America's poorest workers. The plan would have increased the minimum wage over two years from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. And we can't have that can we?

By the way, the minimum wage hasn't been increased in 10 years. In that time, the Senate has voted pay raises for itself totaling $32,000. The bill needed 60 votes, but only garnered 52. As for the 46 senators who voted against it, they're heartless fucking scumbags. Every single one of them.

$5.15 an hour, even if one includes the whole amount as take-home pay (which, of course, it isn't) comes to just over $10,000 a year for a 40-hour work week. No one can live on that. These senators ought to try for even a month and see how they do. Miserable, scum-sucking, tyranical bastards.

The usual GOP talking point about not raising the minimum wage is that employers would not be able to afford it and would have to fire workers. Of course, this is abscene [see my previous post for this word's definition] on its face. First, corporations are currently enjoying record profits at which even the robber barons of the Gilded Age would blush. Second, this idea presupposes that corporations have scads of workers that they just hire out of the goodness of their hearts and could fire at a moment's notice if it would hurt profits. Ridiculous.

To quote Army attorney Joseph Welch's catigation of Joe McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

welch.jpg
Joseph Welch, utterer of perhaps America's most famous one-liner polemic

Know what the 46 who voted against it have in common? They're Republicans. Every single one of them. To whit:

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Remind people of this the next time they tell you there's no difference betwen the two parties.

Why do we, the American voters, put up with uncaring shit-eyed douchebags? I notice one of them, Mel Martinez, is from my own state. I'll be damned if he gets my vote. With a gun to my head and a right-wing Republican at the trigger, I would still not vote for Mel Martinez. Christ, what the hell is wrong with these mutants? And what the hell is wrong with us, that we continue to put bloodsucking greedheads like this into office, and then re-elect them again and again? ENOUGH! Tar and feather these people and catapult them into the Potomac. There is not a single good, decent thing about any of them, and I'm tired of trying to find it.

Ah well, Bobby. At least you tried.

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler takes care of D.C. business for Florida's District 19, which covers some of West Broward (Coral Springs, Margate) and South Palm Beach (Greenacre, Boca Raton) counties. Since the Supreme Court handed George Bush the presidency by fiat in 2000, Wexler has tirelessly advocated for verified voting. Yesterday, the courts decided that making sure every vote is counted doesn't matter.

wexler.jpg
Rep. Robert Wexler: as far as congressmen go, one of the kinda good ones

The Palm Beach Post covered the story pretty well. Basically, Wexler wanted to make sure that every electronic voting machine printed out a sort of receipt, so that all electronic votes could be hand counted if necessary. The courts decided that not having a paper ballot did not infringe on voting rights. Of course, given the distinct possibility that voters who use electronic voting have had their voting rights taken away already, the court's decision is abscene [my own word, a combination of absurd and obscene].

It's par for the course these days, when the very idea that we live in a democracy has been called into question again and again and again.

The point is not that the 2000 or 2004 elections were stolen by Republican candidates, their party, or some shadowy mix of the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission. The point is that elections with unverifiable electronic voting machines can be stolen. Even the possibility should be enough to cause immediate change in the rules that govern our elections. But for some reason, except for a few good men like Wexler, few people have taken up the burden of seeing this change through. Certainly, it's damn hard to find a Republican who demands verified voting trails. In fact, I can't think of a single one. Kinda funny, no?

Of course, that's explained by the fact that the party is now in power and doesn't want to rock the boat. They'll probably come around after they lose this year's election -- assuming they don't steal it, of course.

June 15, 2006

Well, since the news is STILL talking about her, I guess I should say something about Ann

I had about half a bottle of George Dickel last night. They call it the poor man's Jack Daniel's, but "they" only do that because it is, in fact, cheaper. A case could be made that Dickel is actually the superior of the two Tennessee whiskies that have survived since the 19th Century.

With the remote control lying across the room, and with a belly full of booze, I sat still, unable to help myself, as the best cable news show in the country, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, ended, and I crossed the border into Scarborough Country.

My eyes glazed over. It was almost as if I watched myself watching Joe Scarborough -- an out-of-body experience, like people who lie dying on operating-room tables. Somewhere in the middle of the hour, Joe went off on Ann Coulter. His guest, Coulter-clone Debbie Schlussel, defended Coulter's ideas while saying her words were a bit harsh. She then derided the left for not speaking out against Ward Churchill, as if a leftwing professor who was in the news for all of a couple weeks compares in any way to a woman who has had three No. 1 bestsellers and is considered one of the leading mouthpieces of the right.

I understand people like Scarborough and Bill O'Reilly distancing themselves from Ann Coulter. The most oft-quoted offending lines of Coulter's new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, regard the 9/11 widows. They are as follows: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arrazies. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much. ... And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?"

This is the sort of thing that even conservative talking heads find vaguely offensive, though a few of them, like Sean Hannity, rushed to Ann's defense. But, not wanting to invoke the ire of viewers and drive down precious market share, many conservative TV hosts disavowed Ann. I can understand that.

What I don't get is the outrage coming from the left. How in the world could the left be angry about Ann? This woman is the greatest satirist of conservative punditry in the history of the nation. Stephen Colbert only wishes he were Ann Coulter. I mean, come on! Does anything roast conservative hypocrisy more than Ann Coulter calling any other woman, much less 9/11 widows, "harpies"? Hilarious!

Ann, you're the best. Don't ever change.
coulter.jpg
Ann "Orexic" Coulter. For God's sake, somebody give this lady a cheeseburger

Of course, Ann Coulter being Ann Coulter wasn't the biggest news of last week. No, that went to terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom the U.S. took out with two 500-pound bombs (cue either OutKast's "B.O.B. (Bombs Over Baghdad)" or The Gap Band's "You Dropped a Bomb on Me"), depriving Ann Coulter of a possible mate.

Oh, sure. Either laugh or cringe at that joke. But you just know the two had a lot in common. Behold!
Ann:
anncoulter.jpg


Zarqawi:
zarqawi.jpg


Of course, that's not the whole case. If all you needed to be paired up with Coulter was a mutual love of firearms, I'd be next in line. But, when you couple that with Zarqawi and Coulter's shared views on things like women's rights and political discourse, it all starts to make sense. Now who's Ann supposed to date?

In any case, the death of Zarqawi brought out the usual claims from the left that this will solve little, followed by the usual claims from the right that the left loves terrorists because they're not greeting Zarqawi's death with the utterly credulous belief that this marks the end of the insurgency in Iraq. The problem with the right's view on this can be found in the person to whom they most compare the dead terrorist. The right is fond of comparing Zarqawi to this guy:
hitler.jpg
You know, Adolph Hitler -- that colossally evil dude with the funny moustache

When they should be comparing him to this guy:
pablo.jpg
Pablo "El Padrino" Escobar -- that other colossally evil dude with the funny moustache

One thing the left got right, which would have changed the war on terror entirely, had Al Gore been in office on 9/11/01, is that terrorists should be compared with thugs and common organized criminals, not dictators and the standing armies of nation-states.
When Hitler dies, it's the end of World War II, and Germany goes back to peaceful ways like a good little Laederhosen-clad boy. But what happened after Colombian police -- aided by U.S. Special Forces -- assassinated Pablo Escobar?
The cocaine trade became worse than ever. Without one leader regulating the black market economy, a bunch of mini-Pablos sprung up, each determined to get his share of the pie. The amount of cocaine entering the United States skyrocketed upward.
By the same token, the death of Zarqawi will create multiple would-be Zarqawis, leading to more groups committing terrorist acts. So when the left says the death of Zarqawi could be a bad thing, they're right. The problem with conservative views of the war on terror is that every bit of news is treated as though it's inside a vaccuum. Without looking at the larger ramifications, Zarqawi's death is a good thing, of course. But not looking at the larger picture -- things like formulating an exit strategy, for example -- is what got us here in the first place.

It's beginning to look a lot like Election season

You know it's getting close to elections when the ruling party in Congress puts up a stupid, meaningless bill solely for the purpose of making the opposition party look bad. I speak, of course, of the House bill that would declare Iraq to be the official "central front of the war on terror" and rule out the possiblility of a timetable for withdrawal. So, if anyone happens to know a brave Democratic congressman, I've written a brief speech for him or her. Feel free to use any or all of it. You're welcome.


"Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for giving me this time. The Republicans have offered a bill for purely political reasons. They say it is to 'support the troops' with more than just platitudes. But the bill itself rules out a timetable for withdrawal, possibly leaving our troops in harm's way for years upon years to come.

Shall we have this debate in the 120th Congress? The 130th? To categorically deny a timetable for withdrawal or an exit strategy is not 'supporting the troops.' Quite the opposite -- it is abandoning them to a hostile land. And so, I cannot in good conscience support this bill.

Of course, that is exactly the answer my Republican colleagues hope for. They hope that Democrats will vote no on this bill, and then they will use that vote in the coming election. They will assert that we do not support the war on terror, because another part of this same bill states that we will win that war. And so, while I cannot vote yes on this bill, neither will I play along with these absurd political games and vote no.

I intend to abstain from voting on this issue. Moreover, I invite all of my fellow Democratic congressmen to follow me in this. These naked political games only have power if you let them. If we stand together, if we walk out of here as one, then we leave the Republicans alone to debate this issue with themselves -- which, given this sad ploy, appears to be their deepest desire. If we do this, then we paint these would-be attackers as the fools they are, instead of them painting us as the traitors we are not.

We will not fall to jingoistic, simple platitudes whose only purpose is to coarsen debate, sever cross-party ties and further sow the seeds of discord in a body that has already traveled too far down that road. I will not vote on this bill. I will not play this game. Who will stand with me?"


Throw it out there, Democratic Congressman X. You'll thank me later.

June 6, 2006

Well, there's number three -- Billy Preston died.

Preston played with both The Rolling Stones and The Beatles, including the Beatles' final rooftop concert

How many people can say they played with both the Stones and the Beatles?

One -- Billy Preston.

preston.jpg
Billy Preston, allegedly dead.

June 5, 2006

Guess these things come in threes -- Vince Welnick has died

Sheesh. As if Desmond Dekker wasn't bad enough. Vince Welnick, Grateful Dead keyboardist from the death of Brent Mydland in 1990 to the death of Jerry Garcia in 1995, has himself died -- of self-inflicted wounds apparently. Welnick took a lot of raps for being the worst of the Dead's keyboardists, and his critics were right. Welnick didn't have the talent of Keith, the stage presence of Pigpen or the all-around package of Brent. (And Constantin doesn't count.) But that doesn't mean Welnick was in any way a poor replacement. He was a fine musician in his own right, and, for better or for worse, defined the Grateful Dead throughout the only years in which I knew of them and enjoyed their music. Fare thee well, Vince.

vince.jpg
Vince Welnick, 1951-2006. G'bye, Brother Vince.


June 2, 2006

Mayor Jim Naugle -- Jackass of the Year

My paper, City Link occasionally runs a delightful feature in our Upfront section called Jackass of the Week, in which we highlight that week's most-contemptable asshole/moron/what-have-you. Given Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle's recent string of amazingly tin-eared quotes, I think he should be the number-one contender for Jackass of 2006.

My colleague over at New Times, Bob Norman -- a brilliant, if hubris-filled, investigative journalist who blogs (usually accurately, it should be said) about what every paper except New Times is doing wrong -- recently wrote a blog entry in which he decried the hoopla over Naugle's most recent stupidity, the idea that someone who works 40 hours a week is lazy and doesn't deserve to own a house, as being much ado about not a whole helluva lot. Norman points out that such quotes are par for the course when it comes to Naugle, and he's right.

I agree that there's been a surprisingly large amount of commentary over Mayor Antoinette's most recent idiocy, but you've got to admit, the man has been on a roll recently. Between this comment, the one about only "crazy, wacko liberals" believing the government would wiretap average Americans (just days before the NSA story broke, making him look spectacularly stupid), and a few others, the man has just been unstoppable. Over the last few weeks, it's been like the mayor can't seem to puke the foot back up, so far has it been inserted down into his gastro-intestinal tract.

If some rational, compassionate human being ever decides to run against Naugle, all he/she needs to do is put these quotes up on billboards around Fort Lauderdale, similar to all those God billboards you see on the freeways, like this one:

God_Billboard.jpg
Yeah, you know the ones


Put up quotes like "I'm supposed to subsidize some schlock sitting on the sofa and drinking a beer, who won't work more than 40 hours a week?" -- Jim Naugle

Then sit back and watch as you win by 30 or 40 points. Hell, somebody's got to do it. Even many of the wealthy people for whom this quote doesn't apply would be shamed into voting for the opposition -- I mean, sweet Jesus, who actually votes for people like this guy? And, in the end, Naugle should just say "thank you" when he gets kicked to the curb. After all, it beats what happened to the last person who said "Let them eat cake."

marie.jpg
Mayor Jim Naugle, Jacka... oops. sorry. Wrong uncaring aristocratic jackass

naugle.jpg
There we go. Mayor Jim Naugle, Jackass of 2006