Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Dr. Frank's What's-it: Comment on Valuable Prizes
Comments: Valuable Prizes

I read somewhere that this one was the clincher...

http://users.cybercity.dk/~bbo1856/jacob.jpg

Posted by Fcb at December 13, 2004 10:29 PM

ohhh. kay.
hmm
i don't have anything to say about that. i just wanted to tell everyone that farrakhan lives in my neighborhood and i have been past his house many times. if anyone wants to know any information about his home please let me know. i have never actually seen him, except in photos. this is my closest brush with celebrity ever and makes me feel that maybe i am a little famous myself.

Posted by r a e d y at December 13, 2004 11:02 PM

For the record, Chavez has more legitimacy, and far greater a mandate, to lead Venezuela than Bush has to lead the United States.

In 1998, Chávez won the Venezuelan presidential election by the largest percent of voters (56.2%) in four decades, crushing the two major parties that had dominated Venezuelan politics since 1958.

In 2000, he ran for re-election and won by an even wider margin, with 59.7% of the vote.

Chávez's popularity allowed his supporters to win 120 of the 131 assembly seats.

The new Venezuelan constitution, backed by Chavez, was approved in a nationwide referendum held in December 1999. Among its many reforms, it provided for a new procedure to recall a president and provided term limits to the president of two terms.

Now why are we not supposed to like Chavez again?

Because the Bush Administration and the CIA orchestrated a failed coup against him?

Posted by Aryamehr University at December 14, 2004 12:13 AM


now,how did i know who wrote that?

granted... i only skimmed those linked sources.
that said, i think we are supposed to find it entertaining that he's supposed to be some kind of hero while he's putting through some very fascist sounding controls on radio and journalism.
If that is the case I would be inclined to agree.

correct me if I'm wrong infamous Doctor F. but
I think that's about it.

Posted by just me at December 14, 2004 12:40 AM

Not only that, but Bush has never won, and will never win, the Ghadafi International Human Rights Prize.

Posted by Dr. Frank at December 14, 2004 12:44 AM

Yeah. Any substantive response?


Posted by Aryamehr University at December 14, 2004 01:08 AM

Not really. It's all the same to me if you're a big fan of Hugo Chavez. I just think it's funny that there's a Ghadafi International Human Rights Prize.

Posted by Dr. Frank at December 14, 2004 01:57 AM

I thought it was funny too, Frank, until I saw the recipients and realized it was a lark. Perhaps Osama or Kim Jong Il will win next year?

What's Farrahkhan's address? I feel a need to organize a protest.

Posted by Zaphod at December 14, 2004 10:18 AM

Aryamehr,
Is it so bad to not like people who strike us as loons? Just because they have some impressive numbers?
People have no poetry today, just statistics.

(I will tactfully avoid mentioning the 2004 elections)

Posted by maor at December 14, 2004 10:42 AM

Now, I doubt that the good Colonel sees any comparison, but I'd like to note that the reason that Nobel instituted his prizes, including the Peace Prize, is that he invented dynamite and felt like he owed the world some kind of philanthropy for introducing high explosives into warfare. It probably seemed pretty ironic at the time (did they have irony in the 19th century? I guess maybe Wilde invented it...)

And FWIW, Aryamehr U, I agree with you on Chavez. Bush's international unpopularity actually seems to be helping leftist populists (e.g. Chavez and Lula) win political support, while it makes more conservative "free traders" less popular. The media focuses so much now in the middle east that conflicts over resources, national wealth, and poverty in South America and Africa are generally being ignored. I wonder if any Senators will ask questions on these issues in upcoming cabinet confirmation hearings.

Posted by Nick at December 14, 2004 06:55 PM

I think the "coy implication" of Frank's comment goes beyond lampooning the existance of the "Gadhafi International Human Rights Prize."

The Doktor is cleverly attempting to draw associations between Chavez and despots in order to smear and discredit Chavez as a guy who is liked by the bad guys.

The idea is to evoke the reaction displayed by Zaphod's post above: A knee-jerk mental association of the democratic Chavez with despotic elements. Suddenly Hugo Chavez is mentioned in the same breath as Arab terrorists and North Korean dictators.

In reality, Chavez's democratic credentials are overwhelming and indisputable.

That's why Frank doesn't want to talk about that part.

George W. Bush, in comparison, has no mandate in the United States, having won both elections by unprecedented razor-thin margins, and arguably by fradulent means each time.

Posted by Aryamehr University at December 14, 2004 07:45 PM

You know what I haven't had in a while?

Big League Chew.

Posted by josh at December 14, 2004 08:48 PM


Personally I'm a little more disturbed by the disapearance of this one Ben&Jerry's flavor that had the not as evasive Pop Rocks.

But nice subject change. ;)

Posted by JUST ME at December 14, 2004 10:28 PM

you havent had a reggie bar in a while either.
that's because they were both discontinued.

Posted by holy modal rounder at December 15, 2004 05:48 AM

uh, I see Big League at the store all the time, hope it's not old and stale. I chew Orbitz anyway, I'm a big-boy now.

Posted by Zaphod at December 15, 2004 10:43 AM

Chavez has some impressive electoral numbers only on account of massive fraud. See this piece for the example of how Chavez beat the recall:
-------------------------
March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuela's opposition abandoned an effort to force a recall vote on President Hugo Chavez, saying the national elections agency had created an unfair process for verifying signatures on recall petitions.

First Justice Party leader Julio Borges said in a televised press conference that the opposition would only participate if the National Electoral Council changed the rules. The agency ruled earlier this week that the opposition was 600,000 signatures short of the 2.4 million needed to force a vote, while 876,000 questionable signatures were subject to reconfirmation by the signers.

``We already submitted enough signatures for a referendum,'' said Borges, who is hoping to draw more than 100,000 protesters tomorrow to an opposition march and rally. ``The way the rules are now, we will not participate in the confirmation process.''

Ongoing unrest in Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil supplier, pushed crude prices higher as investors fear that output could be reduced. Crude oil for April delivery rose 62 cents, or 1.7 percent, at $37.26 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest since March 13, 2003, when US troops massed on Iraq's border.

Venezuela earlier suspended the right of the country's 24 million people to carry firearms in a bid to damp violence that has claimed the lives of at least 10 protesters in the last week.

Defense Minister General Jorge Garcia said the suspension would start at 6 p.m. (5 p.m. New York time) today and continue through March 14. The restriction was imposed as Chavez opponents protested in the capital for an eighth day.

------------------------------

But whatever the basis of his popularity may be, it's obvious that Chavez is no more a champion of human rights than Qaddafi.

Posted by Richard Bennett at December 15, 2004 03:11 PM

What about that yummy gum that has Sprite or A&W Rootbeer in the middle. I've been trying to find that for about a year. If anyone knows where to get it please tell.

Posted by anythingcoloredpink at December 15, 2004 03:11 PM

There are obviously many different views of Chavez, but even his most ardent admirers should be able to concede that deciding to travel to Libya to accept a bogus "human rights prize" from Gadhafi was not exactly his finest hour.

Posted by Dr. Frank at December 15, 2004 04:16 PM

Blair meets Gadhafi in Libya, sees 'common cause'

http://msnbc.m*n.com/id/4599489


Canadian Prime Minister to visit Libya on Gadhafi reconciliation tour

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20041203/ca_pr_on_na/martin_libya_2


France's Chirac Makes Historic Libya Trip

http://abcnews.g*.com/International/wireStory?id=280016&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312


German Leader Praises Gadhafi in Libya

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/89-10152004-383584.html

Evidently Hugo Chavez isn't the only one in cahoots with Gadhafi.

Posted by Aryamehr University at December 15, 2004 05:10 PM

dude, that chew is roached

Posted by holy modal rounder at December 15, 2004 05:27 PM

University, why don't you have some nice reefer and forget about all this.

Posted by Richard Bennett at December 15, 2004 06:52 PM


what i truly mourn is still the loss of tan m&m's.

Posted by just me at December 15, 2004 07:26 PM

eh, i always liked the poo brown ones anyway...

Posted by holy modal rounder at December 16, 2004 01:38 AM

"Yeah. Any substantive response?"

AU, you're a pretty smart guy, in that shallow, callow way that many lefties are smart: you know, ivory tower, talking point, completely out of touch with reality. I don't think "substantive" is the right word for you to be slinging here.

What, Bush stole the election again? And Chavez didn't? I wouldn't suppose your standards of proof for the two would be fair and equal, no?

Posted by JB at December 16, 2004 09:25 AM

Stole the election? Just fucking quit that garbage, you poor losers. Jeebus, you uber-liberals are just the opposite of what you say you are: compassionate, smart, blah blah blah blah. You are so bitter that you can't see that you lost fair and square. You have to invent some kind of whiney assed loser suck your thumb and cry to momma "he stole the election" excuse. Here's a news flash: you aren't smarter than everybody else, you don't know what's best for everybody else and your smug, bitter and contrite attitude works against your cause and not for it. For the record, I voted for Kerry. Here's another news flash, your grand savior Hillary doesn't stand a chance in hell, so you'd better look for a more likable candidate, because the American people spoke and they spoke in favor of GWB! Kerry actually got slaughtered if you count the number of states that Bush won vs Kerry. Kerry got some big electoral vote states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, NY and California, but he didn't get much more than that. The map was 90% red. This should be the year the electoral college goes away, but that's too much to hope for. Go ahead and bash Bush, claim the election was stolen (bullshit), be overly vocal, cry and moan about your causes, THINK that you are smarter, better and more worthy of life than 90% of the country but know that you are vastly outnumbered and that the American people have spoken.

Disclaimer: This message was brought to you by somebody who voted for Kerry and in no way is endorsed by GWB.

Posted by Zaphod at December 16, 2004 11:34 AM

You shouldn't harbor such resentment, though. Everybody thinks their opinion is the "right" one. When you say that "the American people have spoken" that is a bit of a prevarication. The American people are continuously speaking as a collecton of individuals, never with a singular voice.

Posted by josh at December 16, 2004 01:37 PM

And quite a few of those red states have a lot more mass than people. As far as actual counted votes go, Bush didn't win by a landslide by any means. I know, a win is a win is a win, but let's not get hysterical. I'm starting to think people actually believed that whole "most important election of our lives" crap that both sides were spewing in an effort to seem larger than reality (the reality being that it was not the most important election of our lives). I voted fro Kerry (or against Bush) and he lost. Big deal. Next.

Posted by Mike H at December 16, 2004 06:40 PM

Although its kinda sad that Sixlets are becoming somewhat hard to find as well.

Posted by JUST ME at December 16, 2004 07:30 PM

JB: I am not a leftist.

I'm more than happy to consider and discuss evidence you or Frank have that suggests Hugo Chavez is a bad person that the United States, as a matter of policy, should oppose.

The problem is that you, nor Frank, have provided any such evidence.

So far, Frank has provided practical jokes and you have provided ad hominem attacks accusing me of being a leftist.

Does anyone who finds those comments unpersuasive have to be a leftist?

Posted by Aryamehr Unviersity at December 16, 2004 08:09 PM

sixlets are the same as chiklets,but bigger and come in little packs of 6, little tiny pieces of candy coated gum that turn hard after you chew them like 5 times. Made in Mexico, I think.

Posted by Zaphod at December 17, 2004 10:21 AM


no no no,they're completely different. its not gum,its chocolate. they're like m&m's except malty and look more like pellets.

surely you've had sixlets in your time.

Posted by just me at December 17, 2004 05:24 PM

I guess I got them confused with something else. Sorry

Posted by Zaphod at December 17, 2004 05:42 PM

am i going insane or did someone delete my "what the hell are sixlets?" post. unless somehow it didnt get posted. this blog is f-up

Posted by holy modal rounder at December 17, 2004 08:31 PM

It was there, now it's gone. But it's ok, no need to be so angry.

Posted by Amy 80 at December 17, 2004 11:11 PM

I"M NOT ANGRY!! WHO THE HELL ARE YOU.... TO TELL ME... WHY YOU LITTLE

Posted by holy modal rounder at December 18, 2004 07:24 AM

but seriously, i fail to see why such an innocuous question would get erased by the site owner. and thanks amy80, but we already have an angry police.. dr. phil

Posted by holy modal rounder at December 18, 2004 07:25 AM

Holy, I'm guessing your sixlets question was inadvertently deleted with the comments spam - it happens sometimes. I'm sorry (but, I admit, not *that* sorry - you can take these things too far.)

Posted by Dr. Frank at December 18, 2004 12:50 PM