Journal Archive - January, 2008

sitting in my hotel room in london and i just finished watching bush's final
state of the union address.
eh. to be honest it was kind of a non-event.
no nutty comments about steroids or trips to mars.
no new members in the axis-of-e-vil.
he just seemed sort of out of touch and a bit lost and sort of
desperate in a 'uh oh, i don't want to leave
office with a 25% approval rating' kind of way.
it got me thinking about the state of the republican right in 2008.
and how fractured it is.
to make a big sweeping generalization, there are 4 big components
to the republican right(let's use simpsons examples)-
1-the flanderses(aka-cultural evangelical conservatives)
2-mr burns and kent brockman(rich guys who don't like taxes)
3-cletus and brandene(ignorant hicks who believe that barack obama lives in baghdad with wmd's)
4-grampa simpson(scared and angry people over 70)
the truth is that none of these people really agree with or share the others concerns/agendas.
mr burns could really care less about prayer in school
or roe-v-wade or gays in the military, he cares about subsidies for the nuclear
power plant and low taxes for people making over $500,000 a year.
conversely the flanderses don't care about corporate welfare and low taxes
for rich people, they care about prayer in schools and creationism and making sure israel
is in the hands of the jews so that the rapture will finally happen.
cletus and brandene care, to put it in cletus' own words 'about brandene being
in i-raq protecting us from 9-11'.
and grampa simpson and the people in the retirement home care about medicare
and making sure brown and tan people stay out of america.

and it's all kind of falling apart.
the flanderses like mike huckabee, mr burns likes mitt romney, cletus and brandene don't know who they like but they know they don't like hillary cos she wants to kill christmas, and grampa simpson likes john mccain cos he's over 70 and doesn't take sass from the young people.
the evangelicals(the flanderses)are the most volatile, cos they REALLY care about their agenda
and they have great antipathy and distrust for anyone who slightly disagrees with them and they have a fairly inflated sense of their voting power(an evangelical leader once said 'we own the republicans, without us they're nothing'.).
it'll be interesting to watch the race proceed. thus far it just seems schizophrenic on the gop side.
and isn't it odd that the majority of republican candidates and pundits either live or work in democratic states, specifically nyc?
anne coulter and rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly and sean hannity and rupert murdoch and mitt romney and the majority of the bushes and etc all, for the most part, spend most of their time in or around nyc, the most liberal city in america.
and yet the republican lumpen still think that the aforementioned gop cabal are still 'one of us'.
how would lefties feel if all of their pundits and candidates all lived in oklahoma city or dallas or mobile, alabama?
to the few gop-eople who come here, doesn't it make you think that your pundits and candidates might just be a little bit disingenous when they spout anti-liberal vitriol but they choose to live and work in the most liberal city in america?
just a thought.

moby

it's degenerates time again.
the next degenerates will be on february 14th(valentines day) at hiro.
i'll be dj'ing with the fantastic mixhell and the equally fantastic drop the lime(who just did a really
great remix for one of the songs off of 'last night').
once again, $5 and get there early and avoid the line. thanks, moby

5:48 a.m and i'm headed to the airport.
it's been a while since i've woken up while it's still dark outside
and i can't for a second say that i miss it at all.
a few hundred million years of evolutionary conditioning has led
my body to rightly believe that waking up before the sun comes up is
somehow wrong in every sense of the word.
but i just saw the south carolina primary results.
wow.
barack beat hillary by 30 points?
he got more votes than mccain and romney comined?
that's really impressive.
and, i hate to say this, but i found bill clinton's strident advocacy on behalf
of hillary to be kind of offensive.
i understand they need to use whatever tools are at their disposal,
but bill clinton coming out and attacking barack obama seemed really distasteful, especially
for an ex-president.
maybe i'm outdated in my thinking, but i somehow see ex-presidents as being
dignified and above the fray, sort of like exalted elder statesmen.
so to see bill clinton out being cranky and testy and making things up about barack
and snapping at journalists was kind of disheartening and i don't think ended up
doing any favors for hillary.
ok, off to the airport.
congratulations to barack on such a huge win.
moby

because i believe that this is truly important information i'm going to post
the washington post's op-ed coverage of this issue.
the new york times, not surprisingly, barely covered this issue at all.
i guess the memories of judith miller reporting white house press releases in the run up to the war
as 'news' are still too fresh...
you may think that i write too often about politics, but can't you see the importance
of this issue?
the bush administration knowingly lied to the american people and the world about
the reasons for beginning a war.
we've known that for a while, but here we have the documentation showing the
depth and extent and brazen-ness of the bush administrations collective deceit.
dismiss it if you will, but remember that the war in iraq has cost close to a TRILLION dollars
in taxpayers(aka-yours)money. the war in iraq has resulted in hundreds of thousands
of deaths. it has completely destabilized the region. and it has strained our relationships
and credibililty around the world.(it has also led to the highest oil prices in the history
of the world...think about that the next time you're filling up your car).
and it was all based on coordinated deceit on the part of bush and his administration.
moby

-Washington Post op-ed
A nonprofit group pursuing old-fashioned accountability journalism is out with a new report and database documenting 935 false statements by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials hyping the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the two years after Sept. 11, 2001.

The Center for Public Integrity reports that its "exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The database also documents how Bush and others had reason to know what they were saying was not supported by the facts.

There are plenty of reasons why the deceitful run-up to war is not old news. For one, the war goes on. For another, government credibility remains severely damaged. And then there's the fact that the president has never really been held to account for his repeated falsehoods.

Bush famously told The Washington Post, upon embarking on his second term, that he saw the 2004 election as his "accountability moment." Yet neither before nor since has he admitted mistakes or poor judgment. The closest he came may have been in December 2005, when he acknowledged intelligence failures -- by others.

Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith write in the report's overview: "Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war intelligence -- not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. . . .

"Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence."

The Findings

Lewis and Reading-Smith write: "President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. . . .

"On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war. . . .

"President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14)."

2 nonprofit and nonpartisan journalism organizations released this report the other day.
for some reason the media in the u.s aren't covering this piece of news...
moby

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonpartisan journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign on the part of the administration that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

The study counted 935 false statements made by Bush administration officials in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

i just heard about heath ledger.
what sad news.
i didn't know heath very well, but i'd met him a few times and always found
him to be really nice and smart.
very sad.
moby

a few things:

a-to be clear, in posting that i found the idea of clam flavored tomato beer(chelada)to be vile i was in no way insulting members of the latino communty who find it to be delightful. yes, i find the idea of clam flavored tomato beer to be horrifyingly repulsive, but i still love latin culture. same as i find the idea of a hotdog covered in mayonaisse and shrimp sauce to be disgusting but i still love sweden. and i find the idea of a sheeps stomach stuffed with thistles and lard to be disgusting but i still love scotland. you see my point? i love mongolian culture but i'm not in any hurry to drink fermented yak milk. i love the japanese but i don't really want to eat frush fugu out of the briney pacific. and so on.
so, to recap:
clam flavored tomato beer: disgusting.
latin america: awesome.

b-i'm in utah now for sundance. snow is wasted on me. i never learned to ski. i don't know
how to snowboard. etc. so maybe i'll just go throw snowballs at stop signs. or, better yet, read
my trashy airport fiction while looking at the ski slopes in the distance.

c-john mccain looks like the man to beat in the gop primaries. mitt romney is starting
to catch up, and mike huckabee is really slipping(down the long, slippery pole
of actual scrutiny).

d-utah is a beautiful place but it always kind of freaks me out a little bit. it's a giant state, founded
by mormons. and mormons are, well, odd. or to be more specific, the mormon religion is kind of odd. i'm not criticizing it(i don't need orrin hatch and posse gunning for me), but you have to admit
that it's kind of an odd religion, with a decidedly odd genesis. i hope that the mormons
can understand and appreciate that the rest of us find mormonism to be, and i say this
respectfully, odd. but it's fascinating that an entire gigantic state was founded by 19th century
followers of a man who was visited by god in upstate new york. again, no disrespect to mormons
or mormonism, but it's a fascinating and odd religion, no?

e-todays very very very odd consumer product is nodoro. here's the link, if you dare
look at it.

http://www.nodoro.com/

at first i wasnt't sure if it was a joke or not.
i think it's for real.
well, good luck to the nodoro people. maybe there's a chelada/nodoro synergistic
marketing tie-in to be had somewhere down the line.

f-ok, that's the end of todays coherent and cohesive list. time for bed in park city.

-moby

ok, i'm ashamed to say that i have yet to see 'cloverfield'.
i'm ashamed because:

a-it's a given that i'm going to love any movie involving giant monsters
and nyc.
and
b-the song 'disco lies' from 'last night' appears in the movie, and i try to see every movie
in which songs of mine appear(although sometimes this can be excruciating, like
when 'natural blues' appeared in the tom green movie...oof. sorry, i loved the tom
green show, but the tom green movie was pretty rough.)

but i'm currently being an entertainment weasel at park city in utah('entertainment' as
i'm in the entertainment industry, 'weasel' cos i'm kind of weasel-y), and i don't think
cloverfield is a part of sundance this year, alas.
perhaps the festival would be enlivened by the presence of more movies
involving giant monsters in nyc or other major metropolitan areas.
i used to believe that including monsters in any movie would inherently make
the movie better, even if it's a victorian period piece involving reserved waspy
banter.
por ejemplo:

'charles, it's a shame the croquet was interrupted by the rain.'
'yes, but rain is a small price to pay for being rich and british.'
'tis true, but still...oh fuck! the monster's back!'
'quick, grab the victorian flame thrower and let's kick it's ass!'

you see what i mean?
monsters in movies = better movies.
it's just a given.
in other news:
it's snowing like a motherf*cker at present. snow is pretty but, sadly, it's wasted on me.
i don't know how to ski, i don't know how to snowboard, etc.
i'm such a new yorker. i come to the great wild snowy west and my first thought is 'where's
the nearest deli? are there any bookstores near the hotel?'
ok, i guess i'll go watch the snow fall and think about deli's and monster movies.
moby

ok, this'll be my last mike huckabee journal entry for a while.
i promise.
but as it's my last mike huckabee journal entry for a while
i'd like to tell you a story.
in 1993 mike huckabee was invited to speak at the yearly
meeting of a group called 'the council of conservative citizens'.
sounds innocuous enough, no?
well, no.
due to a scheduling conflict mike huckabee wasn't able to attend, but he
sent a videotaped speech in his place.
apparently the videotaped speech was very well received.
so why is this a big deal?
because the 'council of conservative citizens' states this as their
ethos:
"We oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."

in other words the 'council of conservative citizens' is a white-supremacist organization.
the southern poverty law center has them listed as a hate group, up there with the kkk and the
aryan nation brotherhood.
and mike huckabee was a supporter of theirs.
of course the huckabee campaign has refused to release a copy of the videotape
of mike huckabee's speech to the c.o.c.c, just as they've refused to release transcripts
of any of huckabee's sermons when he was a preacher.

ok, that's it.
once again i kind of hope that mike huckabee gets the gop nomination because
he'll be so incredibly easy to beat.

-moby

you might know that i'm always sort of on the look out for new products
that make absolutely no sense to me.
('nuts and gum-together at last' as featured on the simpsons, for example).
years ago i found a flavored bottled water for pets. oh, that was a good one.
they had 'crispy beef flavored water' for dogs.
and 'tangy fish flavored water' for cats.
i'm not making this up. really. i even bought some just so people would believe
me that such things existed.
well, today someone sent me a link to 'chelada'.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/29/37389

'what is chelada?' i hear you asking?
and 'is it disgusting?' i hear as your potential follow-up question.
well, here are the answers:

a-chelada is a new product from the anheuser-busch corporation. it combines
buweiser beer with clam juice and tomato juice. in a can. for convenience and portability.

b-is it disgusting? well, i haven't tried it, but really, how could beer and clam juice and tomato
juice in a can not be disgusting? i mean, how could it not be ipecac-like in it's ability
to immediately cause the consumer to start vomiting uncontrollably?

maybe i'm mistaken. maybe people love it and swear by it and find it to be refreshing
and tasty.
here's the scene: it's august 10th and it's very hot outside. you've just come back
from a long and healthy bike ride and you're hot and sweaty and boy do you want
something refreshing to slake your thirst.
'honey! i'm back from my bike ride and boy am i thirsty!'
'welcome back honey, would you like a room temperature can of beer mixed
with clam juice?'
'boy would i!!'

i personally see the target market for chelada(clam flavored tomato beer)as being
senior citizens who smoke those dark brown 'more' cigarettes and are on their 3rd bypass operation and need oxygen tanks to walk to their car and who've given up and life and want to ingest things that will fill them with a feeling of self-loathing and despair. but i could be wrong.
maybe the clam flavored tomato beer market is younger and more vibrant, sort of like
the people who watch the bam margera show and drink mountain dew and listen
to rape rock and punch waiters?
here's the ad campaign:

4 guys in a contemporary suv, nu-metal music playing. the 4 guys are drinking chelada clam flavored tomato beer and high-fiving while throwing their empty cans at homeless people and baby deer and bunnies.
voice over: 'extreme! when all you wanna do is party, go with chelada!'
commercial ends as the 4 chelada drinking guys chase a nun down a dark alley, high-fiving all the way.

maybe they're going for the youth market? a jaded youth market, tired of being catered
to in unimaginably varied ways, hungry for something new. and what's newer than
clam flavored tomato beer(in a 'lite' version for our fitness conscious consumers)?

it makes me wonder what's up next in the anheuser-busch new-product pipeline.

how about:

'partita': mexican rose wine in a can, flavored with real 'south of the border' lizard blood.

'G-filte': sweet passover wine, flavored with whitefish and guarana, for a 100% kosher-kick.

'coro': deep fried beer, filtered through grade-b beef, with 2 tablespoons
of lard in every can.

it's a fantastic time to be alive.

-moby

so let's talk about mike huckabee a bit more, ok?
what do we have so far:
a-fat guy, loses weight, plays bass, runs for president, wins iowa, loses new hampshire
and michigan and wyoming.
b-pressures parole board to pardon a serial rapist who then goes on to rape
and murder more women after being paroled.
c-says he stands with the writers guild and then crosses picket lines
to be on jay leno's show.
d-receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in unethical gifts while governor.
e-refuses to release transcripts of his sermons from when he was a preacher.

and now we find out that in 1998 mike huckabee signed a church
letter that stated:

"a wife is to submit herself to the servant leadership of her husband."

as many of you might know, i'm not a woman(i'm a master at stating the obvious). so i can't necessarily speak authoritatively
about the concerns and issues facing women in the 21st century.
but i'm working under the assumption that most american women do not
consider themselves to be servants to their husbands(or any
man, for that matter). i'm also working under the assumption that most
women would not happily subject themselves to the leadership of their
husbands, and thus occupy "servant" role in their homes.
but i'll ask the women who might be reading this, how do you feel about mike
huckabee publicly endorsing the statement:

"a wife is to submit herself to the servant leadership of her husband."

?

does it make you:
a-want to run out and vote for him in the hope that someday you'll live in a country
where all women can be servants to their husbands/boyfriends/bosses/etc?
or
b-utterly fucking terrified that this right-wing nut-job is running for president and actually
being taken seriously?

-moby

hi,

i've just put 15 new pieces of music up on mobygratis.com.
once again, the way it works is that you line-on to webstation mobygratis.com(via
the information super information highway information)and you can use the music there
for free if you're a student filmmaker or an indie filmmaker or a non-profit making a non-commercial
film.
if you're making a commercial film or commercial short you can use the music but you'll have to pay a small fee that will be paid to the humane society(i've structured mobygratis so that i can
never make any money from it, this will hopefully keep me honest).
here are the titles of the new tracks, along with their descriptions.
i hope that you're able to find things that will help your film or short.

1-rotator: distorted organ, surf, fast
2-papa: dark tribal drums, atmospheric
3-sunder: delicate, melodic, quiet
4-ana: very quiet, analog, melodic, plaintive
5-lenox: rythmic, atmospheric, funk
6-across: piano, jazz, mournful, strings, quiet
7-morning span: plaintive, elegiac, quiet, jazz drums
8-blackroom: guitars, drums, organ, bar-room dirge
9-open: guitars, psychedelic, expansive
10-parasail: bossa nova, jazz guitars, piano
11-she's asleep: jazz pianos, strings, melodic, plaintive
12-vicious pen: electro, analog, rythmic, very synthetic, melodic
13-sighted: very dark, brooding, menacing
14-brandish: strings, big, pensive, orchestral
15-loma: fast, organ driven new wave, drums, guitars

-moby

hi,
if you're in nyc next tuesday(january 15th)i'll
be dj'ing at 205 club(corner
of stanton and chrystie)with jacques and
justin.
i'm going to be digging through my old
record boxes and playing some
obscure old house tracks that i haven't
played in years.
jacques and justin always throw good
parties, so it should be a fun night.
oh, i think i'm dj'ing at 1a.m, or thereabouts.
moby

i'm sure that at this point many of you have seen this, but it's
one of my favorite pieces of animation.
poor little flightless kiwi.
moby

here's the link to the first video from 'last night'.
it's for the song 'alice', and it's debuted on pitchfork this month.

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/forkcast/47810-moby-ft-aynzil-and-the...

the video was directed by andreas nillson(who's directed videos for the knife
and jose gonzalez). my only input to the video was that i wanted to see a lot
of things exploding. as a result it's filled with lots of things exploding...
this is kind of low-res version of the video, but in a way i think that almost makes
it more interesting.
i particularly love the fact that the video makes absolutely no sense(although it's
filled with monsters and exploding trucks).
i hope you like it.
oh, the song, 'alice' features the vocals of aynzli(from jamaica and the uk), the 419 crew(rappers
from nigeria), and my friend lady rizo(a burlesque performer from brooklyn...).
i hope you like it.
moby

ok, some politics.
everyone's a pundit, right?
so here's me engaging in some punditry.
i'm not even sure if 'punditry' is a real word, it sounds more like
a state in india, but here's me with the punditry.
i'm going to punditize and offer my opinions on the candidates(today is
iowa caucus day, after all and whatnot).

hillary clinton. it's funny, if we were electing a president based on how qualified
they were to do the job she'd be #3 in the race(after bill richardson and joe biden).
but we're not voting for people based on how qualified they are, we're voting based
on how much we like them and how well we think they'd fit in at our july 4th picnic and how
good they'd be at holding our hand if our pet died. hillary would be a great president.
i truly believe that. she's smart and capable and rational and experienced. but for some
reason people just don't seem to like her very much. she doesn't have the gw
bush 'fun at a barbecue' quotient. this is ultimately what is hurting her campaign.

joe biden and bill richardson. the 2 most qualified democratic candidates. each
polling in low single digits. bill richardson would be my first choice out of the whole
bunch, as he has the best and most diverse experience. but he's polling at around 3% or
so. so we can say goodbye to joe and bill. bye joe and bill.

john edwards. i know he's telegenic, but there's something about him that
just seems a bit weird. and his 'i care about the poor' populism seems a bit forced(as he's worth tens
of millions of dollars). but what do i know? nothing. maybe he'd be a great president.
he just kind of creeps me out a bit. maybe it's cos he always looks an airbrushed 1980's
catalog model. but that shouldn't disqualify someone from being chief executive even if
it does creep me out.

barack obama. first off, he has the single worst name anyone could ever have in the history
of politics ever ever ever. barack(rhymes with iraq) hussein(like the guy who tried to kill
gw's daddy) obama(one consonant away from bush family pal osama bin laden).
personally i see his terrible name as being kind of a plus, as it really couldn't
be worse unless his name was satan hitler babyeater.
he's the least experienced of the candidates but he's also really smart and principled
and telegenic. he seems like he would be fun at a barbecue but he'd also be good
if you needed help doing your taxes and he'd definitely be nice to you if your goldfish
died. ironically i think he's the democrats best chance to win. ironic, as he's:
a-inexperienced
b-1/2 muslim
c-possessed of the worst name in the history of politics
but gw was a coke addict with 2 dui's and a history of running companies
into the ground(not to mention a last name that is colorfully and colloquially used to describe
ladies baby making parts). so who knows? barack obama seems like the dem's best choice.
plus it would be awesome to have an african-american president. the rest of the world
wouldn't be able to hate us as much, which would be nice.

so, the republicans:

fred thompson: ha ha haha. that's pretty much all that's warranted there. ha ha ha.
is he even campaigning? if you looked like the fat guy who owns costingtons dept. store
on the simpsons
and you were married to his hot wife would you rather be:
a-sitting in a diner in iowa pretending to care about ethanol
or
b-having sex with your hot wife while counting royalty checks from 'the practice' or whatever
show he was on.
?
i think that 'b' is the clear winner.
(an aside: there is something fantastically ironic about the only hollywood actor among
the candidates being the first choice of so many red-state republicans...).

adolph giuliani: again: ha ha ha ha. awesome. he's such a fantastic clown. and the republicans
are taking him seriously? hey! republicans! you know how you're pro-guns? giuliani
supports gun control. you know how you hate the gays? giuliani is pro gay marriage.
you know how you hate abortion? giuliani is pro-choice. you know how you pretend
to hate divorce(unless it's ronald reagan or newt gingrich or 98% of the republicans
on the planet)? giuliani is on wife #174.
so, please, vote for giuliani! again: fantastic irony that a liberal catholic from new york
is the first choice of so many red-state evangelicals.
oh, did i mention that giuliani likes to dress up in drag for opera parties?
again, republicans, please vote for him cos he's an awesome cross dressing insane
new yorker who loves gays(well, 'awesome cross dressing insane new yorker
who loves gays' is oxymoronic, as all new yorkers are awesome and insane and love gays).

mitt romney. sorry. oops, trying to...stay...awake. one more time? who? oh, mitt...romney.
damn. fell asleep right here on my laptop. he sure is principled or something. or rich?
oh, that's right, he's rich. and his family look super nice. and i think that he and john edwards
both did sears catalog modeling in the 80's or something excellent. i like mitt romney
cos he's basically changed his mind on just about everything/anything in the last year.
that shows he's something. not sure what, but something. his best quality is that
he seems nice. i have no idea what he stands for, but i'm sure christmas at his
house is disconcertingly pleasant.

mike huckabee. oh, fuck, he's the terrifying one. mr charming, 'i play bass', 'gosh i'm
folksy and charming', 'shucks i'm just a former fat guy who likes puppies', etc.
oh, let's add some others: 'shucks, i only pardon serial rapists when they're baptists
like me', 'there's a foreign policy? foreign? like florida?', 'as governor i promised
an illiterate in every family and i delivered!', 'america is a land of diversity, we welcome
baptists and methodists', 'fight terrorism, blow up a doctors office', 'lets keep those pakistanis from flooding over the mexican border', etc.
he makes gw and dick cheney look liberal. but i kind of hope that he gets the nomination
because he'll be so easy to beat. america, as insane as it is, just isn't ready for a president
who is even more incompetent than gw and who helped pardon a rapist who went on
to kill people after being released from prison. at least i hope that america isn't
ready for such a president.

john mccain. you know, every time i see john mccain on the daily show i like him.
he's smart and funny and experienced. i probably woudn't vote for him(as he's
an anti-choice republican, etc), but he seems like the best of the gop candidates in terms
of experience and perspective and intellect. if i were a republican in iowa or new hampshire
he'd get my vote.

ron paul. he's unelectable, but he should definitely have his own tv show, and it's fantastic
how much passion and energy he's inspired. and i admire that he is so tenaciously principled, especially when contrasted with the 'principles? sure i have principles. what are they again this week?' approach of some of the other candidates.

ok, that's my basic rundown on the candidates.
there are other people running, but these are the biggies.
and i hope that dennis kucinich runs every 4 years, because, not to sound shallow, it's great to have a healthy vegan with a beautiful wife running for president.

thanks.
moby

happy new year everyone!
i'm just heading over to studio b to dj.
maybe i'll see some of you there.
if not, hopefully see you soon.
i hope that you have a genuinely happy year, even when
it ceases to be new.
moby