Journal Archive - January, 2007

when i was a sophomore in high-school i started a band with some friends(john farnsworth, chip moody, jim spadacinni). eventually we became 'the vatican commandos', but before that we were:
uxb, the banned, the red beats, brave education, etc, etc.
in the original line-up we had 2 guitarists(john and i), a drummer(chip), and a vocalis (jim).
we were a bit inexperienced, and we didn't know that more often than not a band is enhanced by the presence of a bass player(eventually jim learned bass).
we rehearsed in my mom's basement and also in john's barn. or, rather, john's parents barn.
i think we also rehearsed in jim's mom's basement for a while, as well.
our first show was in a field adjacent to john's house. we got a really long extension cord and set up our 2 tiny amps and 1 tiny drum set and 1 tiny p.a in a field and invited some friends over to listen to us perform.
the only, uh, problem was that we didn't really have too many friends and the few friends we did have probably had better things to do so they didn't exactly, to use contemporary parlance, 'show up'.
so our first show was for an audience of 0.
even john's sisters(tara and cynthia) and dog(sparky)chose not to come and watch us play in the field(as a word of explanation, it was march and it was pretty cold outside).
so maybe it was more like a conceptual performance at a conceptual festival?
we did actually perform. we played our original songs('housewives on valium', 'wonderbread', 'it's so scary')and some covers('white riot', 'feast on my heart', 'sex bomb').
oh, 'sex bomb' by flipper, not the tom jones version, as good as it might be.
we did get a quasi/erstwhile review, though. one of john's neighbors called up and asked john's mom what the noise was. when the neighbor was told that it was a performance to an audience of zero the neighbor then asked: a-if it was going to last long, and b-if it could be quieter.
we did eventually get to the point where we performed in front of other human beings (although, sadly, john's dog sparky never got to see us perform. sparky did once swallow an entire stick of butter, which was impressive/disgusting because sparky was a tiny little dog, maybe weighing 10 pounds maximum. so sparky swallowing an entire stick of butter was the equivalent of you eating about 5 pounds of butter in one sitting). we eventually even made a record('hit squad for god' by vatican commandos). and vatican commando's went on to be a relatively well known band in the mid 80's hardcore scene(at this point john and i had left, sadly).
but our first show was, as i wrote above, to an audience of zero in the middle of an empty field on a cold sunday in march.
so if anyone ever says that they were in the audience for my first punk rock show you know that they're lying, for there was no one in the audience for my first punk rock show, not even sparky the dog(as i said, it was pretty cold, and sparky, like dick cheney in avoiding military service, had other priorities).
-moby

dick cheney is currently out doing the rounds of media/press in order to, uh, defend the administrations strategy in iraq? put a better public face on the bush white house?
actually i have no idea why he's out doing the rounds of media/press, as he almost always comes across as a bully/ogre/oddball.
here's one of my favorite dick cheney quotes, from a recent newsweek interview, showing our vice-president in all of his adult, statesmanlike, 'above the fray' best:

Q: Regarding other comments—criticism from (your old friend)Brent Scowcroft about not knowing you anymore. People have gotten quite personal, people you worked with before. You wouldn't be human if you didn't have some reaction.

Cheney: Well, I'm vice president and they're not.

so, what?
our vice-president is a 7 year old?
2nd in command after bush, and the best he can do when asked about criticism is to say: 'i'm vice president and they're not'?
maybe the p.r people at the white house should ask dr. evil(aka dick cheney)to stay out of the public eye for a while?
and in a recent interview he was visibly upset and shaken when a journalist asked about cheney's gay daughter.
cheney said something like: 'that's off limits, a question like that is way out of line'.
but, uh, cheney's daughter is publicly gay. she's a public figure, and she publicly has a girlfriend/life-partner. so how is
asking about the vice-presidents gay daughter out of line?
again, maybe dick cheney should take a little media break, as i'm not sure if he's actually helping his cause by being in the public eye.
-moby

msnbc/newsweek:
"the president’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history—30 percent—and more than half the country (60 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over.
Half (49 percent) of all registered voters would rather see a Democrat elected president in 2008, compared to just 28 percent who’d rather see a Republican.
With Bush widely viewed as an ineffectual “lame duck” (by 71 percent of all Americans), over half (53 percent) of the poll's respondents now say they believe history will see him as a below-average president. Only 22 percent of those polled think Bush's decisions about Iraq and other major policy are influenced mainly by the facts; 67 percent say the president's decisions are influenced more by his personal, subjective beliefs.
Overall, 61 percent are unsatisfied with the way things are going in America; just 30 percent are satisfied."

i had received emails from a few people asking me to put 'i like it' up on my myspace page.
i aim to please, so i'm putting 'i like it' back up on my myspace page(but it might not stay up for very long, as i do tend to change the music pretty often).
someday soon there will be music on moby.com as well, i promise.
apart from that: it is very cold in nyc.
see, i'm a fascinating conversationalist.
'what do you want to talk about? how about the weather? sure is cold, huh? think it'll snow?'
but really, nyc is very cold. or, nyc is really very cold. or, really, nyc is very cold.
ok, i'll stop.
oh, this is funny, i tried to put a version of 'i like it' up and myspace wouldn't let me because the version i had was copy protected.
so i found a version that's not copy protected.
but there's a certain irony in the person who wrote and recorded a song not being able to use it for his own non-nefarious purposes.
by the way, what does 'nefarious' mean?
it sounds kind of evil/dirty.
-moby

i saw a photo of a member of 'veterans for peace and justice' carrying a sign that said:

"i refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war"

as far as anti iraq war slogans go that's a pretty good one.
moby

on saturday there's an anti-war/bring-our-troops-home march in washington d.c.
if you, or someone you know, are planning on going can i ask you a favor?
can you do everything in your power to get those around you to behave with respect and dignity?
i'm sure you would anyway, but i had to ask.
the reason i ask is that the media, especially the right-wing media, are always looking for shots of crazy lefties burning flags and throwing garbage cans through shop windows.
and it goes without saying that nationally televised images of crazy lefties burning flags and throwing garbage cans through shop windows doesn't exactly help the cause of progressive politics in america. think of the civil rights marches on dc in the 60's.
they were dignified and respectful and effective, and they changed the nations mind on civil rights.
how effective would martin luther king jr have been if instead of calmly and eloquently giving the 'i have a dream' speech he had been burning a flag and throwing a brick through a car window?
i don't want to sound like a kill-joy, but i do believe that a progressive left who are able to comport themselves with dignity and respect have a much better chance of being able to actually accomplish their goals.
thanks
moby

oh, this might surprise you, but i do read the comments on myspace to my blog entries.
well, when i can, which is pretty often.
and i do the same on moby.com.
again, when i can, which is pretty often.
i'd love to respond to everyone, but then i would never actually have any time to work on music and work on restoring our nations covered bridges and make lifetime connections to the world of organized crime.
mmm...organized crime.
i appreciate everyone's comments, so: thank you(even those of you who hate my guts and disagree with me vehemently. i will be forever flattered that you've chosen me, of the 7 billion people on this planet, to hate).
-moby

p.s- just to be clear, the covered bridges and organized crime reference was a homer j. quote.

p.p.s-why did they build covered bridges? they're cute and all, but really, why? just decoration?
do other countries have covered bridges? are they just in new england?

tonight i went to see my friend bridget everett's show, 'at least it's pink', at ars nova.
i was hoping that it would be good, but it's actually amazing.
(an aside: you might know bridget from the 'new york new york' video with vids(i think that bridget is 'tammy')).
it's essentially a one-woman show(although kenny mehlmann, of 'kiki & herb', does figure quite prominently, albeit in his quiet, back-to-the-audience way).
the show made me particularly happy, cos 6 months ago bridget and i were talking about her fears that she would be stuck waitressing forever. now i hope and believe that she'll never have to serve overcooked steaks to businessmen and their hookers again.
i guess i need to offer a caveat...the show is not for the faint(feint?) of heart. if you're a committed evangelical from oklahoma you might be offended by about 98% of the show.
but it's an amazing show. i know i'm repeating myself, but it's an amazing show.
-moby

at some point in march, i believe, we're releasing:
'go, very best of moby: remixed'.
why?
well, because we have all of these great remixes and we thought that it made sense to release them.
some caveats:
a-it's not being released in north america(you'll notice that the north american version of 'best of' already came with a bunch of remixes as a bonus disc).
b-i'm not sure which countries it's being released in.
c-it's good.
d-i can say that it's good because i didn't actually do any of the remixes.
they're remixes as done by other people on my behalf.
of songs i'd written.
a phenomenon of which i'm sure you're well acquainted.
or 'with which'.
you're well acquainted. that is.
e-some of the remixers are: mylo, murk, olav basoski, faithless, armand van helden, and many others(all of whom are profoundly cooler than i. i just kind of show up and bask in their reflected glory.).
f-it's basically the songs from 'best of' remixed by lots of good remixers.
g-some of the remixes are old, but most are pretty new.
h-one of my hopes is that at some point mute will release every single remix that's ever been done on my behalf. there are about 18,000 of them. it might make an interesting box set. for the 14 people who'd like to own such a thing. so maybe mute could make 14 of these box sets.
i-think that's it for now.
j-oh, i don't know the release date(surprise surprise. i don't really know much of anything, do i?).
k-the artwork for 'go, the very best of moby. remixed' is really new-wave, like a punk rock 12" from 1981. i like it. again, i can say that i like it cos i just sat in a chair and watched as the talented graphic designer did the work.

ok, that's all for now.
g'night.
moby

i sometimes feel like i get a bit like rainman with the constant political blogging.
but this is sort of different.
why do democrats register as democrats and republicans as republicans?
by being a registered democrat(or republican)it means that you can vote in your parties primary.
doesn't it make more sense to register for the party that you don't appreciate and then try to screw up their primaries?
for example, suppose you live in iowa and you're a democrat. wouldn't it make more sense to switch and register as a republican and vote in the primaries for the candidate who has almost no chance of winning nationally, thus making it easier for the democrat to win in november by running against an un-electable republican(like newt gingrich, for example)?
or vice versa?
i'm a registered democrat, but i live in nyc which is one of the bluest of the blue states, so registering as a republican wouldn't do all that much(plus the new york primary is late).
just a thought.
ok, i'll take a break from the politics for a while.
but that leaves me with virtually nothing else to write about.
except...nope. nothing.
long songs?
why are songs usually less than 5 minutes?
in the olden tymes it was because you could only fit 4 minutes on a 7" 45 single.
but now with technology you could easily make a 3 hour song, and with your happy ipod you could easily play a 3 hour song.
maybe i'll start making 3 hour songs.
i'm sure that's exactly what the people at the record company want to hear...
but why not a 3 hour quiet ambient piece of music that repeats and repeats and repeats and is calm and quiet and soothing?
that would be nice.
don't worry, my next record will not be comprised of 3 hour songs.
in 1994 i did release a version of 'hymn' that was 33 minutes long.
it goes without saying that it was not, uh, one of my more successful releases.
i don't even know if anyone apart from me ever listened to it.
-moby

this is senator jim webb's rebuttal to gw's state of the union address.
it's worth reading.
i'm glad that the dem's seem to realize that jim webb is, and should be, a leading light in the democratic party.
thanks,
moby

Good evening.

I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown - an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy - how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy - how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy - that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues - those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death - we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us - sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable - and predicted - disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering.

Financially.

The damage to our reputation around the world.

The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.

And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

a-'groundhog day' is one of the finest movies ever made. i hadn't seen it in years and i watched it again today. it's awesome. if you haven't seen it in years you should go and watch it again.

b-i personally love the trend of party-bucking political mavericks like chuck hagel and jim webb, etc. i look forward to a political future for the united states wherein traditional and conventional party affiliation/loyalty is/are seen as a slightly embarrassing stigma. i hope that the gw bush regime spells the end of ignorant, short-sighted, and special-interest driven politics in the united states. politicians should be rewarded not for towing(or toe-ing)the party line, but rather for responding to circumstances in a pragmatic and intelligent way.

c-i was recently described on/in a media outlet as a 'washington insider'. is that a compliment or an insult? i guess the former? sort of? in a backhanded way?

d-to continue the random nature of my lists: amy's. how/why are amy's microwaved(and non-microwave(and -able)things so good? i just had one of her/their burrito's. ah boy, nothing is better late at night when you're coming home at 2 in the morning.

e-2 in the morning is not particularly late at night. well, not if you live in nyc or barcelona. the sound of garbage trucks usually heralds late night. the sun coming up as you're going to bed is definitely a sign that you're up too late. the sun having been up for 4 hours as you're going to bed is usually a sign that you need to stay in bed for a long, long time. or that you're somewhere dusty and warm where they speak spanish.

f-doesn't delaying/interrupting fine & quality broadcasting like the simpsons and the family guy for sporting events seem like the product of flawed network prioritizing? we live in the digital age, people should be able to watch the family guy at it's regularly scheduled time and get sports scores via the electronic super highway. also, adult swim's interstitials stopped being endearing a long time ago. i know, i should have more worthwhile things to complain about.

g-oodnight.

-moby

i wonder if there's a prominent democrat who hasn't decided to run for president?
bill richardson, hillary clinton, barak obama, john edwards, joe biden, and so on.
my pick for a good ticket right now would be hillary clinton and bill richardson.
barak obama's a very interesting candidate, of course, partially because he doesn't have much of a record to run against(and, of course, he's bright and principled). but 90% of running a successful national campaign is knowing how to run a successful national campaign, and that's where senator clinton(and bill richardson, given his experience) has everyone beat hands down(that and she can financially out-raise just about everyone else 10 to 1).
i also think that a hillary clinton-wesley clark ticket could be really interesting, and very strong on foreign affairs/defense.
wesley clark would make such a good running mate:
5 star general, from the south, rhodes scholar, 1/2 jewish, very bright, very telegenic.
i hope that the democrats remember that he's on their side and that he's clearly interested.
the big question for the next election is: what will the battleground states end up being?
the goal for the democrats, of course, is to turn gop red states into battleground states. i actually think that it's going to hinge on missouri, tennessee, virginia, and some of the western states.
if the dem's can get the gop to spend hard in what are traditionally red states then the gop will be spread too thin to be very competitive in the 2004 battleground states like pennsylvania and ohio and florida(these 3 should, demographically speaking, be blue states. it's for a variety of pernicious reasons that in the last 2 presidential election they ended up being considered battleground states. ohio now has a democratic governor, so it's much more likely to be a solid blue state, electorally, especially with diebold coming under increased pressure to issue paper trails for electronic voting...kind of sad that ohio was only a battleground state due to gop and diebold corruption...).
and i wonder who the gop will run?
i hope it's sam brownback. he's so far to the right on so many issues that he doesn't have a chance with mainstream america.
mike huckabee and john mccain are the two most viable candidates. and of the two i actually see mike huckabee as being more competitive as he:
a-has solid conservative credentials(safe to say that the evangelicals don't trust mccain or romney).
b-is smart and personable.
c-is from the south.
so let's hope that mike huckabee doesn't get the nomination...
ok, enough about politics for a while.
i just think that the coming presidential election is going to be really entertaining, and it's fun to prognosticate.
-moby

an interesting fact to consider(once again making me wonder why al gore left animal production out of 'an inconvenient truth'...maybe the role of animal production in global warming is too much of an inconvenient truth even for al gore?).

"A recent report by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization reckons that at least eighteen per cent of the global-warming effect comes from livestock production."

-moby

a-a dictionary for acronyms('ngc', for example. i know it has something to do with galaxies, but i don't know what, exactly).

b-replacing internal combustion engines with electric engines for all fixed-route delivery vehicles. it's just absurd to have internal combustion engines for vehicles that do the same route everyday and then sit in a garage for 12 hours where they could be re-charging.

c-storm surge barriers for new york city. very expensive, but nice to have when nyc gets hit with a category 5 hurricane and a storm surge.

d-speaking of which(storm surges)why haven't all of the people who own coastal real-estate banded together to start a climate-change lobbying group?
i was taking the train from dc to nyc today looking at the trillions of dollars of coastal, low-lying real estate that will all be underwater in a few years.
i don't understand why coastal property owners haven't started a huge climate-change lobbying group to try to roll-back the effects of global warming. it would seem as if they have the most to lose.

um, ok, i thought i had more good ideas(or bad ideas). but i guess i don't.
plus i have to go out to dinner.
and my brain is slow today.
have a good night.
moby

hi,
i just got back from dc, where i went to see a screening of my friend alexandra pelosi's movie 'friend of god', about evangelicalism in the united states.
it's a great movie, at times funny(evangelical pro-wrestlers), at times absurd(ted haggard asking a parishioner how often his wife has orgasms), at times depressing(little kids stating their belief in creationism after seeing drawings of humans with dinosaurs), and at times infuriating(just about everything else in the movie).
i believe it's going to be running on hbo soon.
the movie reminded me just how utterly disconnected the agenda of the evangelical christian right is from the teachings of christ.
they're jesus obsessed, but there's no correlation between their agenda and the teachings of christ.
i know, i've written about this a lot in the past.
but it's worth remembering: the evangelicals are obsessed with prayer in schools, supporting the war in iraq, opposing the teaching of evolution, fighting gay marriage, banning abortion.
and also worth remembering that jesus never mentioned any of these things in the new testament.
in fact he said, to paraphrase: don't pray in public, don't engage in violent behavior, judge not lest you be judged, and so on.
i just wish that someone in the mainstream media would ask jerry falwell or some other evangelical leader: 'what part of your anti-gay/pro-war message is supported by the teachings of christ?'
'friend of god' is a great movie, please try to see it if you can.
moby

before the war in iraq began the bush administration stated that the cost of the war would, in total, be $50 billion dollars.

today it was revealed that the war in iraq has cost u.s taxpayers $1.2 trillion dollars.

let's look at those numbers:

the bush administrations stated cost:

$50,000,000,000

the actual cost as revealed today:

$1,200,000,000,000

meanwhile in the u.s almost none of the 9-11 security council recommendations have been put into place because we can't afford them.
to put it in perspective:
if a contractor came to you and said:
'oh, i'll fix your bathroom, it'll cost $500 and be done in 3 months' and 4 years later they were still working on it and it had cost you $120,000, how would you feel?
-moby

i love them.
i'm on a few email lists for conservative organizations, just so i can be entertained by their crazy.
so today i get an email from the american family association.
and what are they upset about?
are they upset about the 36,000 iraqi civilians who were killed in 2006?
are they upset about the degradation of the environment?
are they upset about egregious wage disparity and the effects that it's having on our civilization?
are they upset about the effect that having hundreds of thousands of troops on extended duty in iraq is having on families back in the u.s?
nope.
they're upset that fox broadcasting showed a woman wearing a t-shirt during a football game with, as they put it, 'the "f" word'.
(oh, p.s-the 'f' word is 'fuck', as routinely seen in the new yorker and other publications).
so breaking up tens of thousands of families in the u.s so that troops can be stationed in iraq for a war that never should've started, that doesn't trouble the conservative right?
a word describing the action that resulted in all of us being here offends them?
a word?
fuck?
aka-slang describing coitus, without which none of us would be alive?
if you're pro-life don't you kind of have to be pro-fucking?
you can't really have life without fucking, right?
well, i guess you can have ivf and other high-tech forms of fertilization, but 99.9% of the time life results from good old fashioned penis-in-vagina fucking, right?
(and i'm sorry, but 'fuck' & 'fucking' are words. just words. nothing to get offended by). why are people offended by sex/coitus/fucking/etc, when it/they are the cornerstones of our very lives?
if our parents hadn't at some point gotten busy in the back of a car after drinking some
pabst blue ribbon none of us would be here.
our parents fucked: thus we were conceived(and, truthfully, we were probably not conceived during some well planned tender lovemaking, we were probably conceived in the back of a car or in a bathroom at a dive bar. that's just how the universe works....the universe can't wait around for us to conceive in perfectly choreographed ways, life is intrepid and will thus find it's way in, whether it's in the back of a car or on a shag rug in front of a fire in a ski house in vermont).
movies get pg ratings when they show people being shot and killed, but if you see a mans penis or a womans vagina the movie gets an nc-17 rating?
why are we offended by body parts that we all have and bodily functions that we all engage in(well, if we're lucky)?
years ago i asked a rhetorical question: 'what would god be more offended by, people being needlessly killed and maimed, or a bare breast on tv?'
breasts are miraculous body parts that enable us to feed our children, and somehow they're seen by the religious right as pornographic?
i do believe that future generations are going to build a time machine and come back and ask us a simple question: are you insane?
-moby

the u.n released a report today wherein it was revealed that in 2006, 3 years after the start of the war, 34,000 iraqi's died as a result of the violence in iraq.
34,000??
and we're supposed to be helping these people?
it's just fucking tragic.
gw bush and his band of arrogant neo-con idiots should be tarred and feathered and impeached and arrested and thrown into a jail cell at the bottom of the sea.
just imagine how we would feel if 340,000 u.s citizens had died violently last year as a result of a foreign invasion?
how do we build a time-machine to go back and prevent the invasion of iraq?
moby

here's one of my tragic predictions for 2007(and i hope i'm wrong, by the way)-

sometime soon there will be a huge wave of sunni violence against shi'ites in iraq.
then the iraqii civil war will escalate to the point of no return, as iran will become increasingly involved in iraq, as iran is predominantly shi'ite. and then the u.s and the neo-cons will finally get what they want, war with iran. that's the neo-con endgame at this point, and it's fucking tragic.
one reason they're putting more troops into iraq is because they want to go into iran. the neo-con's can't own up to their mistakes, so rather than admit that they've completely screwed up they're going to 'surge' until we have world war 3, involving iran and syria.

like i said, i hope i'm wrong.
moby

p.s-the sunni's in iraq are feeling as if the shi'ites are getting special exemption from the rule of law. this is making them angry and scared. for the bush/neo-con plan to work they have to have the complete cooperation of the shi'ites(as the government is basically run by the shi'ites). the shi'ites know this and they will use this to their advantage, further marginalizing the sunni's. it's about to get very bad, which is sad and tragic for all involved.