Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without Congressional approval.
Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a Seacoast Media Group forum Thursday, which focused on the Iraq War and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of another war with Iran, he said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the oval office.
“The President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, which was followed by a raucous applause.
You tell them Joe!
I just hope this also counts for if the administration talks Israel into attacking first so that we can "protect our friends in Jerusalem".
I think in the next Democratic Presidential debate this should be one of the question posed to all of the candidates. It would help me to weed out the warmongers.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tell me that this does not make your heart beat a little faster.
Half a dozen doctored "mug shots" of President Bush and other administration officials are decking a hall of the New York Public Library's main Fifth Ave. branch, drawing grins and gripes."It's hysterical," Bennett Graff of New Haven said after studying the head shots and adjoining profiles of a particularly befuddled-looking Bush and a finger-wagging Vice President Cheney. "It's kind of bold, to say the least."
I can only hope that this is simply the foreshadowing of events that are yet to come.
Only then will our country really start to heal.
New fake Bin Laden tape "found". It must be getting closer to election time.
Osama bin Laden is apparently sending out a new message.This time, he's telling the nations of Europe to stop helping the Americans in the war in Afghanistan.
According to translaters the person speaking on the tape, beleived to be Bin Laden, says he was the "only one responsible" for the September 11th attacks on the U.S.
He says it was unjust for the Americans to have invaded Afghanistan; and adds that "the American tide is ebbing." Al-Jazeera aired two brief excerpts of the audiotape, titled "Message to the European Peoples." The rest of the message is not known.
Does anybody still take these things seriously?
I mean besides the 23% of people who still think Bush is doing a good job. But they are just idiots.
According to translaters the person speaking on the tape, beleived to be Bin Laden, says he was the "only one responsible" for the September 11th attacks on the U.S.
He says it was unjust for the Americans to have invaded Afghanistan; and adds that "the American tide is ebbing." Al-Jazeera aired two brief excerpts of the audiotape, titled "Message to the European Peoples." The rest of the message is not known.
Does anybody still take these things seriously?
I mean besides the 23% of people who still think Bush is doing a good job. But they are just idiots.
Pat Robertson identifies a new threat to Christianity. Yoga.
Wednesday's "700 Club" featured a question about the Christian view of yoga. A concerned viewer asked, "Does it really have its origins in evil?" Pat Robertson gave the verdict: Yes! According to Pat, stretching is fine, but by repeating common yoga mantras, you are actually praying to Hindu gods Vishnu and Krishna and you're not even aware of it!I love how Christians always frame their arguments in terms of "good and evil", with Christianity always representing "good" and everything else on the side of "evil".
So books about boy wizards are "evil".
Meditation is "evil".
Yoga is "evil".
Science is "evil".
Critical thinking is "evil".
You know what is "evil"? Close minded people, that's where "evil" really dwells. And the people who listen to them are "stupid".
Why have we not bombed Iran yet? Has the Bush administration changed its mind? Not according to United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter.
Metro Times: A year ago, when your book Target Iran came out, you were sounding the alarm about war being imminent. Why do you think that attack hasn’t occurred?
Scott Ritter: Let’s remember that this is an elective war, not a war of necessity. A war of necessity would be fought at the point and time a conflict is required, if somebody is threatening to invade you, to attack, etc. But an elective war is one where we choose to go to war. It will be conducted on a timescale that’s beneficial to those who are planning the conflict.
As far as why it hasn’t happened, there’s any number of reasons. One, the Bush administration has not been able to stabilize Iraq to the level they would like to see prior to expanding military operations in the region. Two, the international community has not rallied around the cause of Iran’s nuclear program representing a casus belli to the extent that the Bush administration would like. They were hopeful that there would be more action from the [United Nations] Security Council. It took a long time to get the issue shifted from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s headquarters to the Security Council. And even when it got shifted to the Security Council, the Council took very timid steps, not decisive steps. The Bush administration sort of tied its hands at that point in time. I think you are seeing increasing frustration today at the slow pace.
Also, the need to redefine the Iranian threat away from exclusively being focused on nuclear activity, because now you have the difficulty of both the IAEA saying there is no nuclear weapons program and the CIA saying pretty much the same thing. So the Bush administration needs to redefine the Iranian threat, which they have been doing successfully, casting Iran as the largest state sponsor of terror, getting the Senate resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command a terrorist organization, and creating a perception amongst the American people, courtesy of a compliant media, that talks about the reason why things are going bad in Iraq is primarily because of Iranian intervention.
They have been working very hard to get back on track. I still believe that we are seeing convergence here. The Bush administration is moving very aggressively toward military action with Iran.
MT: Is your conclusion that an attack is imminent based on the administration’s statements and actions, like labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, or do you also have sources within the intelligence community and the military and the administration telling you what’s going on?
Ritter: I don’t have any current sources of the sort you just spoke of. I was plugged in back in 2006 to good quality current information. But I haven’t been plugged in recently, so I have to use some sort of analytical methodology as opposed to saying, “Aha, I got it from the horse’s mouth.” But there’s nothing that has occurred that leads me to believe the Bush administration has changed its policy direction. In fact there has been much that’s occurred that reinforces the earlier conclusions that were based on good sources of information. We take a look at items in the defense budget, the rapid conversion of heavy bombers to carry bunker-busting bombs on a specific time frame, the massive purchasing of oil to fill up the strategic oil reserve by April 2008. Everything points to April 2008 to being a month of some criticality. It also matches my analysis that the Bush administration will want to carry this out prior to the crazy political season of the summer of 2008.
The Bush administration is just waiting for all of the attention from the media and blogs to die down so they can move forward with this as secretly as possible.
Well I for one will never stop bringing this kind of information to light. We were blindsided by Iraq, and I will do what I can to make sure it does not happen with Iran.
Scott Ritter: Let’s remember that this is an elective war, not a war of necessity. A war of necessity would be fought at the point and time a conflict is required, if somebody is threatening to invade you, to attack, etc. But an elective war is one where we choose to go to war. It will be conducted on a timescale that’s beneficial to those who are planning the conflict.
As far as why it hasn’t happened, there’s any number of reasons. One, the Bush administration has not been able to stabilize Iraq to the level they would like to see prior to expanding military operations in the region. Two, the international community has not rallied around the cause of Iran’s nuclear program representing a casus belli to the extent that the Bush administration would like. They were hopeful that there would be more action from the [United Nations] Security Council. It took a long time to get the issue shifted from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s headquarters to the Security Council. And even when it got shifted to the Security Council, the Council took very timid steps, not decisive steps. The Bush administration sort of tied its hands at that point in time. I think you are seeing increasing frustration today at the slow pace.
Also, the need to redefine the Iranian threat away from exclusively being focused on nuclear activity, because now you have the difficulty of both the IAEA saying there is no nuclear weapons program and the CIA saying pretty much the same thing. So the Bush administration needs to redefine the Iranian threat, which they have been doing successfully, casting Iran as the largest state sponsor of terror, getting the Senate resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command a terrorist organization, and creating a perception amongst the American people, courtesy of a compliant media, that talks about the reason why things are going bad in Iraq is primarily because of Iranian intervention.
They have been working very hard to get back on track. I still believe that we are seeing convergence here. The Bush administration is moving very aggressively toward military action with Iran.
MT: Is your conclusion that an attack is imminent based on the administration’s statements and actions, like labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, or do you also have sources within the intelligence community and the military and the administration telling you what’s going on?
Ritter: I don’t have any current sources of the sort you just spoke of. I was plugged in back in 2006 to good quality current information. But I haven’t been plugged in recently, so I have to use some sort of analytical methodology as opposed to saying, “Aha, I got it from the horse’s mouth.” But there’s nothing that has occurred that leads me to believe the Bush administration has changed its policy direction. In fact there has been much that’s occurred that reinforces the earlier conclusions that were based on good sources of information. We take a look at items in the defense budget, the rapid conversion of heavy bombers to carry bunker-busting bombs on a specific time frame, the massive purchasing of oil to fill up the strategic oil reserve by April 2008. Everything points to April 2008 to being a month of some criticality. It also matches my analysis that the Bush administration will want to carry this out prior to the crazy political season of the summer of 2008.
The Bush administration is just waiting for all of the attention from the media and blogs to die down so they can move forward with this as secretly as possible.
Well I for one will never stop bringing this kind of information to light. We were blindsided by Iraq, and I will do what I can to make sure it does not happen with Iran.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Rudy Giuliani charged taxpayers for the cost of his extramarital affair. Oh he was just born to be President, wasn't he?
As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.
The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.
At the time, the mayor’s office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing “security.”
The Hamptons visits resulted in hotel, gas and other costs for Giuliani’s New York Police Department security detail.
You know I kind of thought that Rudy was all puff and no substance, but I was wrong! This guy has cajones the size of bowling balls!
He charged the people of New York for his booty calls, that is fucking gangsta!
I can hardly wait to hear how the Moral Majority people are going to respond to this happy news! Let's see, he might keep us safe from those Muslim terrorists, but he breaks half a dozen Commandments before breakfast each day. Hmm decisions, decisions.
The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.
At the time, the mayor’s office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing “security.”
The Hamptons visits resulted in hotel, gas and other costs for Giuliani’s New York Police Department security detail.
You know I kind of thought that Rudy was all puff and no substance, but I was wrong! This guy has cajones the size of bowling balls!
He charged the people of New York for his booty calls, that is fucking gangsta!
I can hardly wait to hear how the Moral Majority people are going to respond to this happy news! Let's see, he might keep us safe from those Muslim terrorists, but he breaks half a dozen Commandments before breakfast each day. Hmm decisions, decisions.
Richard Roberts says God told him to resign, Benny Hinn quickly turns his cell phone off.
Richard Roberts told students at Oral Roberts University Wednesday that he did not want to resign as president of the scandal-plagued evangelical school, but he did so because God insisted.
God told him on Thanksgiving that he should resign the next day, Roberts told students in the university's chapel.
"Every ounce of my flesh said 'no'" to the idea, Roberts said, but he prayed over the decision with his wife and his father, Oral Roberts, and decided to step down.
Roberts said he wanted to "strike out" against the people who were persecuting him, and considered countersuing, but "the Lord said, 'don't do that,'" he said.
Apparently Roberts has frequent conversations with God. And surprisingly God may have a problem with ethics.
Roberts has previously said that God told him to deny the allegations. The week the lawsuit was filed, Richard Roberts said that God told him: "We live in a litigious society. Anyone can get mad and file a lawsuit against another person whether they have a legitimate case or not. This lawsuit ... is about intimidation, blackmail and extortion."
And what we learn from the above statement is that God has no trouble encouraging his people to lie, but that makes total sense as it is also clear that God is a lawyer. And that is further reinforced by the fact that God made the following plea deal.
On Wednesday, Roberts said God told him he would "do something supernatural for the university," if he stepped down from the job he held at the 5,700-student school since 1993.
Something supernatural huh. I am going to guess rain of toads. Or maybe the earth will open up and swallow the whole damn school. Now that would almost make me a believer!
God told him on Thanksgiving that he should resign the next day, Roberts told students in the university's chapel.
"Every ounce of my flesh said 'no'" to the idea, Roberts said, but he prayed over the decision with his wife and his father, Oral Roberts, and decided to step down.
Roberts said he wanted to "strike out" against the people who were persecuting him, and considered countersuing, but "the Lord said, 'don't do that,'" he said.
Apparently Roberts has frequent conversations with God. And surprisingly God may have a problem with ethics.
Roberts has previously said that God told him to deny the allegations. The week the lawsuit was filed, Richard Roberts said that God told him: "We live in a litigious society. Anyone can get mad and file a lawsuit against another person whether they have a legitimate case or not. This lawsuit ... is about intimidation, blackmail and extortion."
And what we learn from the above statement is that God has no trouble encouraging his people to lie, but that makes total sense as it is also clear that God is a lawyer. And that is further reinforced by the fact that God made the following plea deal.
On Wednesday, Roberts said God told him he would "do something supernatural for the university," if he stepped down from the job he held at the 5,700-student school since 1993.
Something supernatural huh. I am going to guess rain of toads. Or maybe the earth will open up and swallow the whole damn school. Now that would almost make me a believer!
Who exactly is reporting on how well the surge is working in Baghdad?
Nearly 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit, despite a recent drop in violence attributed to the build-up of U.S. forces, a poll released on Wednesday said.
The survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center showed that many U.S. journalists believe coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict.
A separate Pew poll released on Tuesday showed that 48 percent of Americans believe the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going very or fairly well, up from 34 percent in June, amid signs of declining Iraqi civilian casualties and progress against Islamist militants such as al Qaeda in Iraq.
But most journalists said they believe violence and the threat of violence have increased during their tenures.
"Above all, the journalists -- most of them veteran war correspondents -- describe conditions in Iraq as the most perilous they have ever encountered, and this above everything else is influencing the reporting," the authors said in a report that accompanied the data.
Now if the journalists cannot do any real reporting because it is too dangerous then where does the "good news" come from? Who is providing the numbers that say the casualties are down?
Is it from the Iraqi Prime Minister? And we all know that his take on this subject is not prejudiced, don't we.
Or from the Associated Press? I usually trust them on most news stories, but where are they getting their numbers? Is it from reports like these?
Let's face it. If the reporters are relying on information provided by the military to gauge the amount of violence in Baghdad that should raise thousands of red flags in our heads.
But that does not seem to stop CNN, MSNBC, and of course FOX, from acting as if it is the gospel.
Hey maybe it is like the Gospels. That was also a supposedly historical document with a very pronounced prejudicial bent to it.
The survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center showed that many U.S. journalists believe coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict.
A separate Pew poll released on Tuesday showed that 48 percent of Americans believe the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going very or fairly well, up from 34 percent in June, amid signs of declining Iraqi civilian casualties and progress against Islamist militants such as al Qaeda in Iraq.
But most journalists said they believe violence and the threat of violence have increased during their tenures.
"Above all, the journalists -- most of them veteran war correspondents -- describe conditions in Iraq as the most perilous they have ever encountered, and this above everything else is influencing the reporting," the authors said in a report that accompanied the data.
Now if the journalists cannot do any real reporting because it is too dangerous then where does the "good news" come from? Who is providing the numbers that say the casualties are down?
Is it from the Iraqi Prime Minister? And we all know that his take on this subject is not prejudiced, don't we.
Or from the Associated Press? I usually trust them on most news stories, but where are they getting their numbers? Is it from reports like these?
Let's face it. If the reporters are relying on information provided by the military to gauge the amount of violence in Baghdad that should raise thousands of red flags in our heads.
But that does not seem to stop CNN, MSNBC, and of course FOX, from acting as if it is the gospel.
Hey maybe it is like the Gospels. That was also a supposedly historical document with a very pronounced prejudicial bent to it.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
If you ever doubted that the Iraq war was all about oil then you need to see what the State Department was working on in early 2001.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.
Pay special attention to the "Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts" section and then remember that this was created a full six months before 9-11.
I will allow you to reach your own conclusions.
Pay special attention to the "Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts" section and then remember that this was created a full six months before 9-11.
I will allow you to reach your own conclusions.
How John Edwards can save America.
It may not be possible for one candidate to rise up at this point and overcome Hillary Clinton. But the two second-tier candidates, Obama anad Edwards, topple Clinton in short order when their support is combined. Even taking away Obama supporters who would not join in supporting Edwards for a running mate and Edwards supporters who might not join in supporting Obama as the carrier of more votes than Edwards, we still have the noticeable support for Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. These supporters are concerned primarily with getting out of the Mideast. Knowing the facts, most of them should fight to have a peacemaker take the expected nomination away from Clinton.
It would be primarily up to John Edwards, who is running third. It would be a heroic act, but I have seen enough sparks of heroism in Edwards. His joining in and giving his support to Obama and leading the third-tier candidates to do the same would give us what may be the ONLY chance of overcoming an otherwise strong candidate who suffers, alas, from any genuine credibility in her determination to stop this Mideast jingoism. In that one aspect, she is frightening close to the Republican contenders.
How many supporters of John Edwards would take deep breaths and turn their attention from the candidate they most admire to pile up the support Obama needs to overtake Clinton? The same goes for the supporters of the third-tier people. And the BIG question is whether John Edwards himself could be persuaded to consider such a heroic move.
You know if I had my chance to form the perfect ticket I would make it an Edwards/Obama ticket, for two reason mostly. One, that this is Edwards second run at this and he deserves to have the top spot, and Two my fear that America may sill have trouble electing an African American.
But let's face it, if Edwards/Obama did as well as we expect during their eight years in office then Obama could stroll into the White House in the next election.
By the way I must give credit to my good friend Enigma over at Watergate Summer for the idea for this post.
It would be primarily up to John Edwards, who is running third. It would be a heroic act, but I have seen enough sparks of heroism in Edwards. His joining in and giving his support to Obama and leading the third-tier candidates to do the same would give us what may be the ONLY chance of overcoming an otherwise strong candidate who suffers, alas, from any genuine credibility in her determination to stop this Mideast jingoism. In that one aspect, she is frightening close to the Republican contenders.
How many supporters of John Edwards would take deep breaths and turn their attention from the candidate they most admire to pile up the support Obama needs to overtake Clinton? The same goes for the supporters of the third-tier people. And the BIG question is whether John Edwards himself could be persuaded to consider such a heroic move.
You know if I had my chance to form the perfect ticket I would make it an Edwards/Obama ticket, for two reason mostly. One, that this is Edwards second run at this and he deserves to have the top spot, and Two my fear that America may sill have trouble electing an African American.
But let's face it, if Edwards/Obama did as well as we expect during their eight years in office then Obama could stroll into the White House in the next election.
By the way I must give credit to my good friend Enigma over at Watergate Summer for the idea for this post.
Need another reason NOT to support Hillary? Here you go.
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released Monday.Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.
Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.
Yeah I know that the polls are all over the place on this issue. I just heard the Clinton campaign crowing about another poll showing that she COULD beat the Republicans.
But the question we should all be asking ourselves is WHY the Republicans started declaring Hillary the guaranteed nominee almost two years ago. What did they know back then? And why would they want her to be their opponent in 2008?
Remember that we only ever see the tip of these political icebergs. And what we DON'T know CAN hurt us!
Is it that they know they can beat her? Or that she will not allow a criminal investigation into the crimes of George W. Bush? Either way their endorsement makes her radioactive in my book.
Look at your blank faces. My name will mean nothing, ten minutes after I'm dead. One of you denies me. One of you betrays me...
If this does not demonstrate how George Bush visualizes himself I don't know what would.This is just too perfect!
Please visit the link above which will take you to the website of the mad genius that created this masterpiece.
P.S. The lyrics in the title are from my favorite opera "Jesus Christ Superstar".
Monday, November 26, 2007
Look there's the guy we elected President in 2000! And he is standing right next to George Bush!
Talk about an inconvenient truth. Al Gore finally won his place in the Oval Office on Monday - right next to George W. Bush. Forever linked by the closest and craziest presidential race in history, the two men were reunited by, of all things, White House tradition.
Gore was among the 2007 Nobel Prize winners who were invited in for a photo and some chatter with the president; Gore got the recognition for his work on global warming.
The two men stood next to other, sharing uncomfortable grins for photographers and reporters, who were quickly ushered in and out.
I would have paid a lot of money to have been able to listen in on that meeting.
I would have liked Gore to have grabbed Bush by the lapels and said "You stole that election in 2000, and this is the best you could do with your chance at being President?"
What would you have liked Gore to ask Bush?
My jaw just dropped.
Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a history of heart problems, experienced an irregular heartbeat Monday and was taken to George Washington University Hospital for evaluation.
Did you read that?
But one thing I do think is that if Cheney decides to leave office due to health concerns, and Bush replaces him with one of these Presidential hopefuls, we will have an entirely new political dynamic.
Did you read that?
Vice President Cheney has a heart beat!
I was absolutely convinced that he was simply an animated corpse living off of the blood of the innocents. Now I don't know what to think.
But one thing I do think is that if Cheney decides to leave office due to health concerns, and Bush replaces him with one of these Presidential hopefuls, we will have an entirely new political dynamic.
Hillary and Obama switch roles in Iowa.
In a reversal of fortune, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is barnstorming Iowa with a front-runner’s swagger while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) scrambles like an underdog.
In ways big and small over the weekend, the two campaigns exuded a sense of switched identities — a dynamic driven by poll-driven perceptions that Clinton’s sense of inevitability is slipping and Obama is riding a bit of a wave amid the Midwestern seas of grain.
And this is the way it should be from now on in the rest of the nomination process. And with Oprah jumping into the fray I really think we will witness a dramatic change in Obama's political fortunes.
It almost time for John Edwards to offer to join Obama and run in tandem.
Obama/Edwards in 2008!
P.S. I must give a hat tip to my fellow blogger Enigma over at Watergate Summer for the link to this story.
In ways big and small over the weekend, the two campaigns exuded a sense of switched identities — a dynamic driven by poll-driven perceptions that Clinton’s sense of inevitability is slipping and Obama is riding a bit of a wave amid the Midwestern seas of grain.
And this is the way it should be from now on in the rest of the nomination process. And with Oprah jumping into the fray I really think we will witness a dramatic change in Obama's political fortunes.
It almost time for John Edwards to offer to join Obama and run in tandem.
Obama/Edwards in 2008!
P.S. I must give a hat tip to my fellow blogger Enigma over at Watergate Summer for the link to this story.
Another Republican Senator sees the writing on the wall.
NBC News has learned that Trent Lott's in the midst of informing close allies that he plans to resign his senate seat before the end of the year. It's possible a formal announcement of his plans could take place as early as today.Unfortunately Lott's replacement will be chosen by the uber conservative governor Haley Barbour who will undoubtedly find a Trent Lott clone that the feels can be re-elected in the next elections cycle.
Still it is gratifying to see these Republican war horses coming to the realization that their reign of terror is over.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Holy Thanksgiving! Image of Flying Spaghetti Monster shows up in pumpkin pie!
This is not a joke. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has appeared to us in a pumpkin pie. Bless his noodley appendages!I do not know why we were selected for such a blessing, but we receive it with glad and open hearts.
Well all I can say is, it is about time!
After years of ridiculous sightings of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ it is about time for a real deity to make an appearance!
Well if this does not finally gain the Flying Spaghetti Monster admittance into the "God club" then I don't know what it will take.
Pro-life activists are trying to use legal tactics to undermine science again.
Anti-abortion activists in several states are promoting constitutional amendments that would define life as beginning at conception, which could effectively outlaw all abortions and some birth-control methods.
The campaigns to grant "personhood" to fertilized eggs, giving them the same legal protections as human beings, come as the nation in December marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade — the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
During those three decades, abortion foes succeeded in imposing a variety of restrictions, such as waiting periods and parental notification for minors.
But some activists say they are fed up with incremental steps and are not interested in waiting years for a more conservative court to revisit Roe. Instead, they are out to change the legal status of embryos.
"The concept that we're going to elect judges who will change everything has failed," said Brian Rohrbough, past president of Colorado Right to Life. "The logical thing is to start with personhood ... It's the only legitimate tactic that does not involve a compromise."
I love babies.
The idea of anybody hurting a baby makes me so angry I can barely stand it.
But an embryo is not a baby. It is a "potential" baby. And so is the egg, or eggs, that exit a woman's uterus every month during her menstrual cycle. But this egg is not a baby either. It is simply a cell. And a fertilized egg is simply a jumble of cells. Not a baby.
The idea that all potential humans must be carried to term and birthed, is completely an invention of religion. And the reason why is extremely self-serving and not as charitable as we are led to believe. Essentially it is a concept that hearkens back to a time when Christianity was a young religion that was trying to expand its numbers through procreation and conversion. In those days, and even today, there was power in numbers. The more benefactors you had, the wealthier and more influential you would become. The more soldiers you created, the more formidable you would become. The more believers you created, the more accepted you become.
Why do you think there were all of those rules against masturbation? Because ancient priests believed that God would give men and women only a certain number of chances to make a new Christian, and they adapted their religious rules to cover their ignorance of biology.
It is not about potential babies, it is about potential parishioners.
However as modern humans have become more evolved and scientifically aware, we have come to understand that without birth control and sex education we are in danger of quickly populating this planet beyond its ability to support our needs. And as we find ourselves scrambling for the resources we need to sustain ourselves, we bump into others scrambling for those same resources. Wars are then needed to weed out the weak and to allow the strong to dominate.
And that is what we see happening today. Christians are the dominate religion, but Islam is growing rapidly (They also do not believe in birth control), and there is fear of a shift in the balance.
And they may change the definition from Christianity, to democracy, or capitalism, but don't be fooled. The goal is to force our way of life onto those who believe differently then we do, and take what they have by seduction, coercion, or force.
It is not about the babies. It is about the power.
The campaigns to grant "personhood" to fertilized eggs, giving them the same legal protections as human beings, come as the nation in December marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade — the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
During those three decades, abortion foes succeeded in imposing a variety of restrictions, such as waiting periods and parental notification for minors.
But some activists say they are fed up with incremental steps and are not interested in waiting years for a more conservative court to revisit Roe. Instead, they are out to change the legal status of embryos.
"The concept that we're going to elect judges who will change everything has failed," said Brian Rohrbough, past president of Colorado Right to Life. "The logical thing is to start with personhood ... It's the only legitimate tactic that does not involve a compromise."
I love babies.
The idea of anybody hurting a baby makes me so angry I can barely stand it.
But an embryo is not a baby. It is a "potential" baby. And so is the egg, or eggs, that exit a woman's uterus every month during her menstrual cycle. But this egg is not a baby either. It is simply a cell. And a fertilized egg is simply a jumble of cells. Not a baby.
The idea that all potential humans must be carried to term and birthed, is completely an invention of religion. And the reason why is extremely self-serving and not as charitable as we are led to believe. Essentially it is a concept that hearkens back to a time when Christianity was a young religion that was trying to expand its numbers through procreation and conversion. In those days, and even today, there was power in numbers. The more benefactors you had, the wealthier and more influential you would become. The more soldiers you created, the more formidable you would become. The more believers you created, the more accepted you become.
Why do you think there were all of those rules against masturbation? Because ancient priests believed that God would give men and women only a certain number of chances to make a new Christian, and they adapted their religious rules to cover their ignorance of biology.
It is not about potential babies, it is about potential parishioners.
However as modern humans have become more evolved and scientifically aware, we have come to understand that without birth control and sex education we are in danger of quickly populating this planet beyond its ability to support our needs. And as we find ourselves scrambling for the resources we need to sustain ourselves, we bump into others scrambling for those same resources. Wars are then needed to weed out the weak and to allow the strong to dominate.
And that is what we see happening today. Christians are the dominate religion, but Islam is growing rapidly (They also do not believe in birth control), and there is fear of a shift in the balance.
And they may change the definition from Christianity, to democracy, or capitalism, but don't be fooled. The goal is to force our way of life onto those who believe differently then we do, and take what they have by seduction, coercion, or force.
It is not about the babies. It is about the power.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The Catholics are coming out in force against the Golden Compass movie. Oh that should keep people away.
The Golden Compass is being advertised as "an exciting fantasy adventure" for children set in "a world where witches rule the northern skies, where ice bears are the bravest of warriors, and where every human is joined with an animal spirit who is as close to them as their own heart."But the $180 million Hollywood movie, which opens Dec. 7, is also drawing criticism from religious groups that describe it as "militantly atheistic," "blasphemous," "heretical," and "diabolical."
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and the American Family Association are among the groups calling for a boycott.
The controversy stems from His Dark Materials, the series of children's fantasy novels on which The Golden Compass is based. Written by 61-year-old British author Philip Pullman, the books in the trilogy have sold more than 14 million copies since debuting in 1995.
Mr. Pullman has described himself at various times as either an atheist or an agnostic, but in a recent interview with Donna Freitas for Beliefnet.com he called himself "a religious man" because he is "preoccupied by the questions religion is preoccupied with," including "Who created the universe?" "What are we here for?" and "What happens when we die?"
Mr. Pullman has made it clear that he is not happy with the way religious institutions have answered those questions.
Wow I was not even remotely interested in seeing this movie, but now it has moved to the top of my "must see" list.
All this author did was express doubt that the answers to all of life's question can be found through religion, and they go on the attack like this? How fragile is this religion? And how insecure are its adherents?
The idea that you can't even question a religions belief system in a public forum without suffering repercussions seems insane to me. These people do know that we live in America don't they?
In the end all they are going to do is give this film free publicity and get people who may not have been interested in the movie, like me, a reason to go see it.
Damn these people are simple!
WTF?
The mayor of an Arkansas town resigned on Wednesday, claiming he was abducted and brainwashed by Satan worshippers nearly three decades ago.
Centerton Mayor Ken Williams said he has been living under an assumed name for nearly 30 years. He had been mayor since 2001.
Williams told authorities he was born Don LaRose and that in the mid-1970s, he was a preacher in Indiana. He said he was abducted and brainwashed into forgetting all about his life as Don LaRose.
It was a double-life he had never acknowledged, Williams said, because he didn't even realize it existed until he had recently taken a truth-serum injection.
As Williams regained his memory, he said, he realized that he had a wife and two kids but that he had decided to leave and take on a new identity to protect them.
"I had no choice. The choice was to watch my family killed before my eyes or go with these people, and I chose instead to run," Williams said.
He wouldn't explain from who he was running, saying only that he had been brainwashed.
"I had multiple shock treatments," Williams said. "It took five years to get my memory back."
Look I know that I have a habit of labeling certain religious groups as being naive and easily manipulated, and that probably is not entirely fair (I actually have lots of friends who are church goers and I have nothing but respect for them as individuals). But you just know that a large number of people will buy this line of bullshit simply because he used the catchword for all evil in our country, "satanists". Christians love to pretend that the world is split right down the middle between those that are good, the Christians, and those that are bad, Satanists (or in a pinch Atheists).
This guy ran out on his family, for reasons that he would rather not divulge, and he concocts the lamest story imaginable to excuse his unforgivable decision. And he does it because he knows that there are many who will hear his explanation and want to believe it because it reinforces their belief in an organized evil force which is threatening their religion.
And that not only undermines the validity of their belief system, but it makes them seem embarrassingly ignorant.
So though I may like and respect many of the individuals who are members of this religion, as a whole they just seem ridiculous.
No offense.
Centerton Mayor Ken Williams said he has been living under an assumed name for nearly 30 years. He had been mayor since 2001.
Williams told authorities he was born Don LaRose and that in the mid-1970s, he was a preacher in Indiana. He said he was abducted and brainwashed into forgetting all about his life as Don LaRose.
It was a double-life he had never acknowledged, Williams said, because he didn't even realize it existed until he had recently taken a truth-serum injection.
As Williams regained his memory, he said, he realized that he had a wife and two kids but that he had decided to leave and take on a new identity to protect them.
"I had no choice. The choice was to watch my family killed before my eyes or go with these people, and I chose instead to run," Williams said.
He wouldn't explain from who he was running, saying only that he had been brainwashed.
"I had multiple shock treatments," Williams said. "It took five years to get my memory back."
Look I know that I have a habit of labeling certain religious groups as being naive and easily manipulated, and that probably is not entirely fair (I actually have lots of friends who are church goers and I have nothing but respect for them as individuals). But you just know that a large number of people will buy this line of bullshit simply because he used the catchword for all evil in our country, "satanists". Christians love to pretend that the world is split right down the middle between those that are good, the Christians, and those that are bad, Satanists (or in a pinch Atheists).
This guy ran out on his family, for reasons that he would rather not divulge, and he concocts the lamest story imaginable to excuse his unforgivable decision. And he does it because he knows that there are many who will hear his explanation and want to believe it because it reinforces their belief in an organized evil force which is threatening their religion.
And that not only undermines the validity of their belief system, but it makes them seem embarrassingly ignorant.
So though I may like and respect many of the individuals who are members of this religion, as a whole they just seem ridiculous.
No offense.
Richard Roberts resigns!
Embattled Oral Roberts University President Richard Roberts resigned Friday following nearly two months of allegations that he and his family misused university and ministry resources. In his resignation letter, Roberts states: "I love ORU with all my heart. I love the students, faculty, staff and administration and I want to see God's best for all of them."
I just have to say as a long time fan of the fallen Christian hypocritic, I have been jonesing for a new scandal to come from the bowels of our American evangelical movement for quite some time.
I mean sure the Ted Haggard debacle was a ton of fun, but that thing was a whole year ago.
I remember the great ones like Jimmy Swaggert, who was caught with a prostitute, and Jim Bakker, who paid a church secretary to keep quiet about their sexual liaison. I mean those were some great church scandals!
So I implore the other evangelical leaders to get off of their overweight rear ends and give us a new sex scandal that we can use to recognize our moral superiority over your lying asses.
Come on Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Dr. Rick Warren, etc., we know you are already engaging in "sinful" behavior, quit hiding your light under a bushel and give us the opportunity to once again remember that you are simply charlatans masquerading as holy men.
This is going to be a bad one.
"We haven't faced a downturn like this since the Depression," said Bill Gross, chief investment officer of PIMCO, the world's biggest bond fund. He's not suggesting anything like those terrible times — but, as an expert on the global credit crisis, he speaks with authority.
"Its effect on consumption, its effect on future lending attitudes, could bring us close to the zero line in terms of economic growth," he said. "It does keep me up at night."
Some 2 million homeowners hold $600 billion of subprime adjustable-rate mortgage loans, known as ARMs, that are due to reset at higher amounts during the next eight months.
Subprime loans are those made to people with poor credit. Not all these mortgages are in trouble, but homeowners who default or fall behind on payments could cause an economic shock of a type never seen before.
Some of the nation's leading economic minds lay out a scenario that is frightening. Not only would the next wave of the mortgage crisis force people out of their homes, it might also spiral throughout the economy.
The thing that upsets me the most about this kind of news is just how predictable it was. Anybody with any real common sense should have seen that turning into a country of borrowers would someday end in a huge debt landing on our doorstep. As a nation we simply owe more then we make.
I have to wonder if some of the support for Hillary Clinton is not from people desperate to have Bill helping to steer the economy back to the stability we enjoyed in the mid and late 1990's.
"Its effect on consumption, its effect on future lending attitudes, could bring us close to the zero line in terms of economic growth," he said. "It does keep me up at night."
Some 2 million homeowners hold $600 billion of subprime adjustable-rate mortgage loans, known as ARMs, that are due to reset at higher amounts during the next eight months.
Subprime loans are those made to people with poor credit. Not all these mortgages are in trouble, but homeowners who default or fall behind on payments could cause an economic shock of a type never seen before.
Some of the nation's leading economic minds lay out a scenario that is frightening. Not only would the next wave of the mortgage crisis force people out of their homes, it might also spiral throughout the economy.
The thing that upsets me the most about this kind of news is just how predictable it was. Anybody with any real common sense should have seen that turning into a country of borrowers would someday end in a huge debt landing on our doorstep. As a nation we simply owe more then we make.
I have to wonder if some of the support for Hillary Clinton is not from people desperate to have Bill helping to steer the economy back to the stability we enjoyed in the mid and late 1990's.
Australia dumps their conservative, warmongering leader! By crikey!
Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and withdraw Australia's combat troops from Iraq.
Labor Party head Kevin Rudd's pledges on global warming and Iraq move Australia sharply away from policies that had made Howard one of President Bush's staunchest allies.
Rudd has named global warming as his top priority, and his signing of the Kyoto Protocol will leave the U.S. as the only industrialized country not to have joined it.
I have friend heading back to her home in Australia in the very near future (after can she can unload her house), and I just e-mailed her to tell her how jealous I am that she gets to return to a brand new progressive government while I am stuck here with Bush.
If Australia wasn't in the middle of the biggest drought in history I might even consider pulling up roots and heading to the land down under.
Labor Party head Kevin Rudd's pledges on global warming and Iraq move Australia sharply away from policies that had made Howard one of President Bush's staunchest allies.
Rudd has named global warming as his top priority, and his signing of the Kyoto Protocol will leave the U.S. as the only industrialized country not to have joined it.
I have friend heading back to her home in Australia in the very near future (after can she can unload her house), and I just e-mailed her to tell her how jealous I am that she gets to return to a brand new progressive government while I am stuck here with Bush.
If Australia wasn't in the middle of the biggest drought in history I might even consider pulling up roots and heading to the land down under.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Roman Catholic school board removes book because it was written by an atheist. Yet public libraries still carry the Narnia books. Fair?
A Roman Catholic school board in Ontario ordered the popular fantasy book "The Golden Compass" taken off library shelves at dozens of schools Thursday after receiving a complaint about the author referring to himself as an atheist.Big deal. Why would it make any difference what the religious persuasion was of an author, so long as the book was good.
I mean it is not like the guy wrote the book to turn children away form Christianity or anything.
Pullman has made provocative statements in the past, telling the Washington Post in 2001 that he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."
Oh.
Well I still think that the children should be allowed to make their own choices in reading material.
You know this book was just made into a movie, I might have to go and check it out. Sounds like my kind of film.
Are you on the fence about whether the "stress positions" utilized by the CIA constitute torture? Well watch this and then decide.
Let me warn you that this is quite disturbing and to be prepared.
No blood or guts but for the senstive among us it may prove to be very upsetting.
It certainly made my stomach churn.
No blood or guts but for the senstive among us it may prove to be very upsetting.
It certainly made my stomach churn.
Yet another example of how the Bush administration supports our troops.
At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY.
The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.
And if you add this number to the number of soldiers returning with PTSD you could conceivably have almost 70 to 80,000 military members suffering with physical or psychological injuries to their brains. If these brave men and women do not get the help they need their diagnosis will essentially worsen until they are no longer able to function.
Their families may not recognize that the reason for the changes in their behavior are related to their war experiences and the next thing you know you have broken families, fatherless children, and more formerly productive citizens who are now unable to care for themselves effectively.
The sins of George Bush just continue to stack up.
The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.
And if you add this number to the number of soldiers returning with PTSD you could conceivably have almost 70 to 80,000 military members suffering with physical or psychological injuries to their brains. If these brave men and women do not get the help they need their diagnosis will essentially worsen until they are no longer able to function.
Their families may not recognize that the reason for the changes in their behavior are related to their war experiences and the next thing you know you have broken families, fatherless children, and more formerly productive citizens who are now unable to care for themselves effectively.
The sins of George Bush just continue to stack up.
I have no fear that the man with the Hanna-Barbera cartoon name will ever be elected, but here are some things about Mike Huckabee you should know.
Mike Huckabee, the Republican presidential candidate and former Southern Baptist minister, is getting help from Tim LaHaye, the Christian conservative organizer and co-author of the apocalyptic “Left Behind” novels.
“America and our Judeo-Christian heritage are under attack by a force that is more destructive than any America has faced” since Hitler,Dr. LaHaye and his wife, Beverly, wrote in letters sent to lists of conservative Christians in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. “Defeating the radical jihadists will require renewed resolve and spiritual rearmament by the evangelical pastors in America.”
The letters were distributed in part through an e-mail list maintained by Mrs. LaHaye’s organization, Concerned Women for America, to encourage pastors to attend two-day conferences held in each state (free, including meals and a hotel room). Mr. Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, is the only candidate speaking.
As we watch the train wreck that is the Bush presidency careen to a long overdue stop, I cannot imagine that too many American voters would make the mistake of voting for anybody simply because he is supported by the most evangelical wing of the right wing. But if there are any voters who are so simple minded as to vote for the person who they believe will continue to add fuel to the conflagration in the Middle East, then Mike Huckabee would fit that bill.
However it also appears that Huckabee has a closet just stuffed with skeletons as reported by the good folks at AlterNet. If after reading that you are still a Mike Huckabee supporter then you obviously have problems of your own.
By the way due to the fact that I am still trying to digest the pounds of fattening, high calorie, food that I stuffed myself with last night I am exceedingly lazy and found both of these stories over at Crooks and Liars. So here is a hat tip to Nicole Bell who did all of the leg work over there.
God how do people eat like this all of the time. I am going to the gym in about two hours and see if I can sweat some of this gravy out of my system.
“America and our Judeo-Christian heritage are under attack by a force that is more destructive than any America has faced” since Hitler,Dr. LaHaye and his wife, Beverly, wrote in letters sent to lists of conservative Christians in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. “Defeating the radical jihadists will require renewed resolve and spiritual rearmament by the evangelical pastors in America.”
The letters were distributed in part through an e-mail list maintained by Mrs. LaHaye’s organization, Concerned Women for America, to encourage pastors to attend two-day conferences held in each state (free, including meals and a hotel room). Mr. Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, is the only candidate speaking.
As we watch the train wreck that is the Bush presidency careen to a long overdue stop, I cannot imagine that too many American voters would make the mistake of voting for anybody simply because he is supported by the most evangelical wing of the right wing. But if there are any voters who are so simple minded as to vote for the person who they believe will continue to add fuel to the conflagration in the Middle East, then Mike Huckabee would fit that bill.
However it also appears that Huckabee has a closet just stuffed with skeletons as reported by the good folks at AlterNet. If after reading that you are still a Mike Huckabee supporter then you obviously have problems of your own.
By the way due to the fact that I am still trying to digest the pounds of fattening, high calorie, food that I stuffed myself with last night I am exceedingly lazy and found both of these stories over at Crooks and Liars. So here is a hat tip to Nicole Bell who did all of the leg work over there.
God how do people eat like this all of the time. I am going to the gym in about two hours and see if I can sweat some of this gravy out of my system.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Afraid of insects? Can you imagine running into this thing?
This was a bug you couldn't swat and definitely couldn't step on.British scientists have stumbled across a fossilized claw, part of an ancient sea scorpion, that is of such large proportion it would make the entire creature the biggest bug ever.
How big? Bigger than you, and at 8 feet long as big as some Smart cars.
The discovery in 390-million-year-old rocks suggests that spiders, insects, crabs and similar creatures were far larger in the past than previously thought, said Simon Braddy, a University of Bristol paleontologist and one of the study's three authors.
I cannot look at this story without immediately thinking of the movie "The Incredible Shrinking Man". The scene where he fought the spider used to give me nightmares.
It just kind of puts into perspective how tenuous our place at he top of the food chain is. Without our amazing brains we would have been hunted into extinction by any number of more capable predators.
I need to give a tip of my hat to Enigma over at Watergate Summer who e-mailed me this story. Thanks darling.
Do foreign fighters in iraq come over from Iran? Nope they actually come from the countries of our allies.
Saudi Arabia and Libya, both considered allies by the United States in its fight against terrorism, were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to serve as suicide bombers or to facilitate other attacks, according to senior American military officials.
The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid’s target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.
The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006.
The records also underscore how the insurgency in Iraq remains both overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni. American officials now estimate that the flow of foreign fighters was 80 to 110 per month during the first half of this year and about 60 per month during the summer. The numbers fell sharply in October to no more than 40, partly as a result of the Sinjar raid, the American officials say.
Saudis accounted for the largest number of fighters listed on the records by far — 305, or 41 percent — American intelligence officers found as they combed through documents and computers in the weeks after the raid. The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through.
Libyans accounted for 137 foreign fighters, or 18 percent of the total, the senior American military officials said. They discussed the raid with the stipulation that they not be named because of the delicate nature of the issue.
You realize of course that this data will not change how the Bush administration views Iran, which it wants desperately to vilify and blame for the majority of our difficulties in Iraq.
I love it when Bush, and his supporters, talk about responding to "facts on the ground" as if that really has any impact on their ideological desires to destroy the Muslim cultures and supplant it with our American model.
I have to say that I have an almost morbid curiosity to discover what our next President will learn about just how much the Bush regime hid evidence, trumped up coincidences, and acted on imaginary data. I just imagine that there are thousands of military members who would like the chance to finally talk about what they had really experienced in Iraq without fear of reprisal from this punitive administration.
The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid’s target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.
The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006.
The records also underscore how the insurgency in Iraq remains both overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni. American officials now estimate that the flow of foreign fighters was 80 to 110 per month during the first half of this year and about 60 per month during the summer. The numbers fell sharply in October to no more than 40, partly as a result of the Sinjar raid, the American officials say.
Saudis accounted for the largest number of fighters listed on the records by far — 305, or 41 percent — American intelligence officers found as they combed through documents and computers in the weeks after the raid. The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through.
Libyans accounted for 137 foreign fighters, or 18 percent of the total, the senior American military officials said. They discussed the raid with the stipulation that they not be named because of the delicate nature of the issue.
You realize of course that this data will not change how the Bush administration views Iran, which it wants desperately to vilify and blame for the majority of our difficulties in Iraq.
I love it when Bush, and his supporters, talk about responding to "facts on the ground" as if that really has any impact on their ideological desires to destroy the Muslim cultures and supplant it with our American model.
I have to say that I have an almost morbid curiosity to discover what our next President will learn about just how much the Bush regime hid evidence, trumped up coincidences, and acted on imaginary data. I just imagine that there are thousands of military members who would like the chance to finally talk about what they had really experienced in Iraq without fear of reprisal from this punitive administration.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
What a great holiday. I plan to eat too much, drink too much, and talk politics too much.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
NO, NO, NO, NO!!!
Mike Guzman and thousands of other students say the best way to prevent campus bloodshed is more guns.
Guzman, an economics major at Texas State University-San Marcos, is among 8,000 students nationwide who have joined the nonpartisan Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, arguing that students and faculty already licensed to carry concealed weapons should be allowed to pack heat along with their textbooks.
"It's the basic right of self defense," said Guzman, a 23-year-old former Marine. "Here on campus, we don't have that right, that right of self defense."
Many states forbid license-holders from carrying weapons on school campuses, while in states where the decision is left to the universities, schools almost always prohibit it. Utah is the only state that expressly allows students to carry concealed weapons on campus.
College campuses are different from other public places where concealed weapons are allowed. Thousands of young adults are living in close quarters, facing heavy academic and social pressure — including experimenting with drugs and alcohol — in their first years away from home.
This is an idea that is so ludicrous that I cannot even believe it needs to be addressed.
Allowing hormonal, overly stressed, young people who may be experimenting with alcohol or drugs for the first time without any parental supervision close by, to carry hand guns is so stupid it makes my head throb!
What kind of complete simpleton believes, even for an instant, that allowing MORE kids to carry weapons on campus is going to REDUCE the incidence of gun violence?
That is like suggesting that handing out bags of candy to elementary school students will reduce the amount of hyperactivity in the classroom. It is an idea that would only occur to somebody whose head was so far up their ass they could watch their food digest.
I hate these pro-gun assholes who believe that the solution to all violence is to arm everybody. They are an embarrassment to those of us who have evolved past the need to prove our manhood by carrying a device whose sole purpose is to end the life of another person.
Look I am sorry your penis is so small, but carrying a gun will not make you any more manly. Try surgery.
Guzman, an economics major at Texas State University-San Marcos, is among 8,000 students nationwide who have joined the nonpartisan Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, arguing that students and faculty already licensed to carry concealed weapons should be allowed to pack heat along with their textbooks.
"It's the basic right of self defense," said Guzman, a 23-year-old former Marine. "Here on campus, we don't have that right, that right of self defense."
Many states forbid license-holders from carrying weapons on school campuses, while in states where the decision is left to the universities, schools almost always prohibit it. Utah is the only state that expressly allows students to carry concealed weapons on campus.
College campuses are different from other public places where concealed weapons are allowed. Thousands of young adults are living in close quarters, facing heavy academic and social pressure — including experimenting with drugs and alcohol — in their first years away from home.
This is an idea that is so ludicrous that I cannot even believe it needs to be addressed.
Allowing hormonal, overly stressed, young people who may be experimenting with alcohol or drugs for the first time without any parental supervision close by, to carry hand guns is so stupid it makes my head throb!
What kind of complete simpleton believes, even for an instant, that allowing MORE kids to carry weapons on campus is going to REDUCE the incidence of gun violence?
That is like suggesting that handing out bags of candy to elementary school students will reduce the amount of hyperactivity in the classroom. It is an idea that would only occur to somebody whose head was so far up their ass they could watch their food digest.
I hate these pro-gun assholes who believe that the solution to all violence is to arm everybody. They are an embarrassment to those of us who have evolved past the need to prove our manhood by carrying a device whose sole purpose is to end the life of another person.
Look I am sorry your penis is so small, but carrying a gun will not make you any more manly. Try surgery.
I have resisted posting about this incident because it upsets me too much. But now I am too pissed off to ignore it!
The Saudi Justice Ministry Tuesday issued a "clarification" of a court's handling of a rape case and the increased punishment -- including 200 lashes --meted out to the victim.
The case, which has sparked media scrutiny of the Saudi legal system, centers on a married woman. The 19-year-old and an unrelated man were abducted, and she was raped by a group of seven men more than a year ago, according to Abdulrahman al-Lahim, the attorney who represented her in court.
The woman was originally sentenced in October 2006 to 90 lashes. But that sentence was more than doubled to 200 lashes and six months in prison by the Qatif General Court, because she spoke to the media about the case, a court source told Middle Eastern daily newspaper Arab News.
Okay I have read this so called "clarification" and it is total bullshit! Here it is, judge for yourself:
"We would like to state that the system has ensured them the right to object to the ruling and to request an appeal," the statement continued, "without resorting to sensationalism through the media that may not be fair or may not grant anyone any rights, and instead may negatively affect all the other parties involved in the case."
The statement also described the progress of the woman's case and explained that it was heard by a panel of three judges, not one judge "as mentioned in some media reports."
It said the case was treated normally through regular court procedures, and that the woman, her male companion and the perpetrators of the crime all agreed in court to the sentences handed down.
So the message here is that if you accept the court blaming you for being the victim of a crime, and don't expose the totally hypocrisy of this so called "justice system", you will be beaten only half as hard as you would if you dare to point out that the system is antiquated and primitive.
In other words this Saudi "justice" system does not want to be exposed to the critical eye of the media. And what does that tell you?
I am outraged that in this day and age ANY modern society would even contemplate punishing the victim of a rape in any manner, much less the unbelievably barbaric method of administering lashes. I don't care how much oil these under evolved neanderthals have beneath their sand, we should refuse to do business with them and remove our military support until they do away with these horribly archaic laws.
The case, which has sparked media scrutiny of the Saudi legal system, centers on a married woman. The 19-year-old and an unrelated man were abducted, and she was raped by a group of seven men more than a year ago, according to Abdulrahman al-Lahim, the attorney who represented her in court.
The woman was originally sentenced in October 2006 to 90 lashes. But that sentence was more than doubled to 200 lashes and six months in prison by the Qatif General Court, because she spoke to the media about the case, a court source told Middle Eastern daily newspaper Arab News.
Okay I have read this so called "clarification" and it is total bullshit! Here it is, judge for yourself:
"We would like to state that the system has ensured them the right to object to the ruling and to request an appeal," the statement continued, "without resorting to sensationalism through the media that may not be fair or may not grant anyone any rights, and instead may negatively affect all the other parties involved in the case."
The statement also described the progress of the woman's case and explained that it was heard by a panel of three judges, not one judge "as mentioned in some media reports."
It said the case was treated normally through regular court procedures, and that the woman, her male companion and the perpetrators of the crime all agreed in court to the sentences handed down.
So the message here is that if you accept the court blaming you for being the victim of a crime, and don't expose the totally hypocrisy of this so called "justice system", you will be beaten only half as hard as you would if you dare to point out that the system is antiquated and primitive.
In other words this Saudi "justice" system does not want to be exposed to the critical eye of the media. And what does that tell you?
I am outraged that in this day and age ANY modern society would even contemplate punishing the victim of a rape in any manner, much less the unbelievably barbaric method of administering lashes. I don't care how much oil these under evolved neanderthals have beneath their sand, we should refuse to do business with them and remove our military support until they do away with these horribly archaic laws.
Did Bush restrictions slow down discovery of alternate stem cell source? Oh yeah!
The discovery that it is possible to create equivalents to embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos has the potential to reshape -- and perhaps defuse -- the acrimonious political debate that has raged ever since human embryonic stem cells were discovered in 1998.
Even before the research was officially published yesterday, White House officials began making the case that the studies vindicated the president's unwavering six-year opposition to funding for embryo-cell research and his long-standing position that scientific progress is possible without offending the morality of millions of Americans.
One of the researchers involved in yesterday's reports said the Bush restrictions may have slowed discovery of the new method, since scientists first had to study embryonic cells to find out how to accomplish the same thing without embryos.
"My feeling is that the political controversy set the field back four or five years," said James Thomson, who led a team at the University of Wisconsin and who discovered human embryonic stem cells in 1998.
This breakthrough has been predicted for many years, but until it happened there was just no way to determine how stem cells might be used to repair failing organs or damaged spinal cords.
So while this ridiculous debate raged, which would not have been necessary if the religious right could have just understood the difference between a cell and a baby, people like Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve have had to suffer with debilitating challenges.
I just wish Christopher Reeve could have lived to see this.
Even before the research was officially published yesterday, White House officials began making the case that the studies vindicated the president's unwavering six-year opposition to funding for embryo-cell research and his long-standing position that scientific progress is possible without offending the morality of millions of Americans.
One of the researchers involved in yesterday's reports said the Bush restrictions may have slowed discovery of the new method, since scientists first had to study embryonic cells to find out how to accomplish the same thing without embryos.
"My feeling is that the political controversy set the field back four or five years," said James Thomson, who led a team at the University of Wisconsin and who discovered human embryonic stem cells in 1998.
This breakthrough has been predicted for many years, but until it happened there was just no way to determine how stem cells might be used to repair failing organs or damaged spinal cords.
So while this ridiculous debate raged, which would not have been necessary if the religious right could have just understood the difference between a cell and a baby, people like Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve have had to suffer with debilitating challenges.
I just wish Christopher Reeve could have lived to see this.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Eastern religions more science friendly then western religions.
“Most people in Hindu and Buddhist countries,” Dr. Silver says, “have a root tradition in which there is no single creator God. Instead, there may be no gods or many gods, and there is no master plan for the universe. Instead, spirits are eternal and individual virtue — karma — determines what happens to your spirit in your next life. With some exceptions, this view generally allows the acceptance of both embryo research to support life and genetically modified crops.”By contrast, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is the master creator who gives out new souls to each individual human being and gives humans “dominion” over soul-less plants and animals. To traditional Christians who consider an embryo to be a human being with a soul, it is wrong for scientists to use cloning to create human embryos or to destroy embryos in the course of research.
I cannot help but wonder how much further along we would be in fighting birth defects, eradicating disease, and increasing our understanding of the universe we would be if science was not constantly bumping into certain unfortunate superstitions.
The brutal truth is that Christianity has been acting like an anchor struggling to hold back scientific progress for hundreds of years. They live in constant terror that someday science will reveal that their faith is based on a lie, and they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to slow down that eventuality.
Christians trying to shut down Jerry Springer opera. Okay now whose side am I on?
A Christian group trying to prosecute the producer and broadcaster of Jerry Springer - The Opera under blasphemy laws will take its case to the high court in London today.
Christian Voice wants to bring a case against Mark Thompson, the director general of the BBC, and Jonathan Thoday, producer of the award-winning musical, for blasphemous libel, but was refused permission by City of Westminster magistrates court. The group is hoping to launch what would be only the third prosecution in more than 80 years for an offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
A life sentence for blasphemy? That seems a little steep.
Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, said in 2005 that the show portrayed Jesus as a "coprophiliac sexual deviant". A coprophiliac is someone who is sexually aroused by faeces.
Okay now on the negative side I find myself siding with an individual who I blame personally for much of the trashy television that fills our idiot boxes during the afternoon. But on the plus side I learned a new word, "coprophiliac". Although I am not sure when I will get a chance to use it.
I think that these people just need to lighten up.
Maybe take in a show or something.
Perhaps something uplifting like a a musical, or opera. LOL!
Yeah I know, I am going to hell.
Christian Voice wants to bring a case against Mark Thompson, the director general of the BBC, and Jonathan Thoday, producer of the award-winning musical, for blasphemous libel, but was refused permission by City of Westminster magistrates court. The group is hoping to launch what would be only the third prosecution in more than 80 years for an offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
A life sentence for blasphemy? That seems a little steep.
Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, said in 2005 that the show portrayed Jesus as a "coprophiliac sexual deviant". A coprophiliac is someone who is sexually aroused by faeces.
Okay now on the negative side I find myself siding with an individual who I blame personally for much of the trashy television that fills our idiot boxes during the afternoon. But on the plus side I learned a new word, "coprophiliac". Although I am not sure when I will get a chance to use it.
I think that these people just need to lighten up.
Maybe take in a show or something.
Perhaps something uplifting like a a musical, or opera. LOL!
Yeah I know, I am going to hell.
Obama is already in the lead in Iowa, and now comes Oprah!
Oprah Winfrey is poised to campaign for White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.Obama made the disclosure while working a crowd at Central High School here, after delivering an education policy speech. A man, Ralph Hoagland, asked Obama—who was mingling and shaking hands-- if Oprah was going to stump for Obama in New Hampshire.
I am definitely warming up to Obama as we get closer to the primaries (Have you read his health care plan?), and having Oprah stump for him might just be the final nail in the coffin of Hillary's campaign momentum.
I still have high hopes for my boy John Edwards, but I always think of him and Obama as an eventual team up so I feel that what is good for one will reflect well on the other.
Ex-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan spills the beans!
President Bush, Karl Rove, and other top administration officials were "involved" in misleading the White House press corps about the outing of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame, a forthcoming book from former Press Secretary Scott McClellan alleges.
"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," writes McClellan. "So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."
But his press performances weren't based on the facts, McClellan continues.
"There was one problem. It was not true," he writes. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."
You know I have always felt a little sorry for Scott McClellan. He always looked overwhelmed by the job of defending the President's decisions to a press corps that could smell blood in the water.
And the fact that he is willing to put in print just how deceitful and manipulative Bush and his cabinet were just makes me feel bad for calling Scott "Puffy McMoonface".
Scot has certainly earned my respect for not continuing to cover for this criminal President and his administration. I can only hope that there are many more to follow.
And I am going to buy his book, "What Happened", just to show my support for anybody with the balls to criticize this bunch of assholes after being off the koolaid for a while.
"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," writes McClellan. "So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."
But his press performances weren't based on the facts, McClellan continues.
"There was one problem. It was not true," he writes. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."
You know I have always felt a little sorry for Scott McClellan. He always looked overwhelmed by the job of defending the President's decisions to a press corps that could smell blood in the water.
And the fact that he is willing to put in print just how deceitful and manipulative Bush and his cabinet were just makes me feel bad for calling Scott "Puffy McMoonface".
Scot has certainly earned my respect for not continuing to cover for this criminal President and his administration. I can only hope that there are many more to follow.
And I am going to buy his book, "What Happened", just to show my support for anybody with the balls to criticize this bunch of assholes after being off the koolaid for a while.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Obama slightly ahead of Hillary in Iowa.
Overall, in current preferences, 30 percent in Iowa support Obama, 26 percent Clinton and 22 percent Edwards, with 11 percent for Bill Richardson.I know I may be grasping at straws, but I am so hungry for any news that Hillary may not be our nominee in 2008, that I will gobble up any crumb that I can find.
Colin Powell says Iran far from developing nuclear weapon.
"I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon," said Powell, who was invited by the National Bank of Kuwait to speak on economic opportunity and crisis in the Middle East.
A recent report by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog found Iran has been generally truthful in the information it has provided the agency about aspects of its past nuclear activities.
Asked if he sees a U.S. war on Iran coming, the retired U.S. general said although no American official will say the option was "off the table," he did not see prospects of a military conflict.
There is no base of support among Americans for such an action, Powell said, adding that the U.S. military already has enough on its hands in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I cannot tell you how much I want to trust that Powell is correct about the fact that the United States will not attack Iran. But then I remember how little he understood what the Bush administration was capable of while he was still a part of that administration.
A recent report by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog found Iran has been generally truthful in the information it has provided the agency about aspects of its past nuclear activities.
Asked if he sees a U.S. war on Iran coming, the retired U.S. general said although no American official will say the option was "off the table," he did not see prospects of a military conflict.
There is no base of support among Americans for such an action, Powell said, adding that the U.S. military already has enough on its hands in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I cannot tell you how much I want to trust that Powell is correct about the fact that the United States will not attack Iran. But then I remember how little he understood what the Bush administration was capable of while he was still a part of that administration.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
If Hillary is given the Presidency, Bush will not declare a state of emergency and call off the election. Democracy is dead!
What has happened appears to be that the U.S. establishment has decided to move to “Plan B.” This may be defined as a decision that the sway of the Bush/Cheney regime must end and that some semblance of normality should be restored, at least in appearance, by making Hillary Clinton the next President.
Of course part and parcel of any Hillary Clinton presidency would be the presence and participation of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. We may rightly speak of “the Clintons” as a unit in this context.
The signs that Hillary Clinton is the President-designee have been appearing in droves. These include her rise in the polls, especially in Iowa, the emergence of an anti-Bush surge in the mega-media, especially on MSNBC, and the appointment of Democrats with ties to the Clintons at the Defense and Treasury Departments. Other signs include the emergence of a campaign by certain well-connected websites to keep tabs on pro-Neocon news commentators and offensives being launched against some particularly obnoxious right-wing media figures such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
The way Hillary Clinton is being portrayed in the mega-media is of decisive importance, because media-owning conglomerates such as GE, Viacom, and Disney serve the interests of the establishment, not the public. Nothing makes it to the airwaves without the approval of the financial interests which control these giants. Also decisive was the appearance of Hillary and Bill on the cover of the October 6 edition of The Economist, long the keystone publication of the Anglo-American international financial empire.
The Washington Post, another establishment house organ, has noted that Hillary herself is couching her election in terms of “when, not if.” The theme she is projecting is that of an anointed insider calling for “national unity.” For this she is being duly attacked by her competitors, most notably John Edwards.
The best example of how the mega-media is telegraphing establishment intent was Chris Mathews’ lead story on Hardball on Monday night, November 5, which displayed MSNBC’s “Power Rankings” for presidential candidates. The segment began with an adulatory profile of Hillary’s campaign. Mathews then set a record for premature declaration of victory by predicting her as “the most likely winner of the Democratic nomination and presidential election” a full year before the election is even to take place.
Mathews repeated his judgment several times in what was obviously rehearsed language, even as the members of his three-person panel of commentators were trying in vain to raise objections, including the view that Hillary might not even win the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary. Mathews repeatedly overrode his own experts with his insistence that Hillary was the MSMBC pick.
Oh yes, we will have the formality of a presidential election. Doubtless some fur will fly, because Hillary will always be the Clinton the right-wing most loves to hate. So we won’t see a coronation.
It is certain, however, that the current regime will exact a price for accepting at least temporary defeat. So far the price seems to be agreement by Hillary Clinton that the conquest of Iraq is a fait accompli, that the building of the Baghdad supersize embassy will continue, that permanent military bases in Iraq will be maintained a lá Korea, and that the option of an attack on Iran will remain “on the table.”
She has not raised her voice against any of this. The vehicle by which Clinton signed on to a possible attack on Iran was her vote in favor of the Senate resolution naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist sponsor. Perhaps there is also an understanding between the Clintons and the Bush/Cheney camp that the latter will not be prosecuted for crimes committed in office.
I have had this feeling that there was a deal in the works for almost a year now.
The Republicans have been attacking Hillary, and thereby giving her campaign legitimacy, ever since she declared. It has been clear to me that it is just like Brer Rabbit telling Brer Bear not to throw him in the brier patch. The Republicans want her to win.
Then the only question was why? I mean it has been clear that the Republicans have no shot at winning in 2008 (I can't help wondering if they have told Romney this.), but then why choose the wife of their arch nemesis?
The only answer to that is because a deal has been made. I think it was made back when Bill and Bush Sr. were doing all of that tsunami relief work back in 2005. I believe that Clinton took the opportunity to talk about a way for them both to get what they wanted, Bush Sr. does not have to see junior go to jail and Bill gets to go back to the White House.
It is a win-win for them, and a lose-lose for us.
Of course part and parcel of any Hillary Clinton presidency would be the presence and participation of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. We may rightly speak of “the Clintons” as a unit in this context.
The signs that Hillary Clinton is the President-designee have been appearing in droves. These include her rise in the polls, especially in Iowa, the emergence of an anti-Bush surge in the mega-media, especially on MSNBC, and the appointment of Democrats with ties to the Clintons at the Defense and Treasury Departments. Other signs include the emergence of a campaign by certain well-connected websites to keep tabs on pro-Neocon news commentators and offensives being launched against some particularly obnoxious right-wing media figures such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
The way Hillary Clinton is being portrayed in the mega-media is of decisive importance, because media-owning conglomerates such as GE, Viacom, and Disney serve the interests of the establishment, not the public. Nothing makes it to the airwaves without the approval of the financial interests which control these giants. Also decisive was the appearance of Hillary and Bill on the cover of the October 6 edition of The Economist, long the keystone publication of the Anglo-American international financial empire.
The Washington Post, another establishment house organ, has noted that Hillary herself is couching her election in terms of “when, not if.” The theme she is projecting is that of an anointed insider calling for “national unity.” For this she is being duly attacked by her competitors, most notably John Edwards.
The best example of how the mega-media is telegraphing establishment intent was Chris Mathews’ lead story on Hardball on Monday night, November 5, which displayed MSNBC’s “Power Rankings” for presidential candidates. The segment began with an adulatory profile of Hillary’s campaign. Mathews then set a record for premature declaration of victory by predicting her as “the most likely winner of the Democratic nomination and presidential election” a full year before the election is even to take place.
Mathews repeated his judgment several times in what was obviously rehearsed language, even as the members of his three-person panel of commentators were trying in vain to raise objections, including the view that Hillary might not even win the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary. Mathews repeatedly overrode his own experts with his insistence that Hillary was the MSMBC pick.
Oh yes, we will have the formality of a presidential election. Doubtless some fur will fly, because Hillary will always be the Clinton the right-wing most loves to hate. So we won’t see a coronation.
It is certain, however, that the current regime will exact a price for accepting at least temporary defeat. So far the price seems to be agreement by Hillary Clinton that the conquest of Iraq is a fait accompli, that the building of the Baghdad supersize embassy will continue, that permanent military bases in Iraq will be maintained a lá Korea, and that the option of an attack on Iran will remain “on the table.”
She has not raised her voice against any of this. The vehicle by which Clinton signed on to a possible attack on Iran was her vote in favor of the Senate resolution naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist sponsor. Perhaps there is also an understanding between the Clintons and the Bush/Cheney camp that the latter will not be prosecuted for crimes committed in office.
I have had this feeling that there was a deal in the works for almost a year now.
The Republicans have been attacking Hillary, and thereby giving her campaign legitimacy, ever since she declared. It has been clear to me that it is just like Brer Rabbit telling Brer Bear not to throw him in the brier patch. The Republicans want her to win.
Then the only question was why? I mean it has been clear that the Republicans have no shot at winning in 2008 (I can't help wondering if they have told Romney this.), but then why choose the wife of their arch nemesis?
The only answer to that is because a deal has been made. I think it was made back when Bill and Bush Sr. were doing all of that tsunami relief work back in 2005. I believe that Clinton took the opportunity to talk about a way for them both to get what they wanted, Bush Sr. does not have to see junior go to jail and Bill gets to go back to the White House.
It is a win-win for them, and a lose-lose for us.
Bush is pissed that the Democrats are finally standing up to him.
With Congress and the White House engaged in a long-running feud over war funds, President George W. Bush criticized Democrats on Saturday for holding up money he requested for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Bush is seeking $196 billion for the wars for the fiscal year beginning October 1. Democrats who control Congress want to attach a troop pullout plan to the funding bill for the war but lack enough votes to pass the measure in the Senate.
"For months, Congress has delayed action on supplemental war funding because some in Congress want to make a political statement about the war," he said, criticizing Democrats for leaving for their Thanksgiving break without approving the war funds.
Bush accused Democrats of trying to micromanage the war.
"We do not need members of Congress telling our commanders what to do," he said.
Once again Bush fails to see the irony of arguing that Congress should not have a say in how the military conducts the war, while under his direction the military has been involved in disaster after disaster.
I am glad to see our Democrats standing their ground. I just hope that this time they do not blink first.
Bush is seeking $196 billion for the wars for the fiscal year beginning October 1. Democrats who control Congress want to attach a troop pullout plan to the funding bill for the war but lack enough votes to pass the measure in the Senate.
"For months, Congress has delayed action on supplemental war funding because some in Congress want to make a political statement about the war," he said, criticizing Democrats for leaving for their Thanksgiving break without approving the war funds.
Bush accused Democrats of trying to micromanage the war.
"We do not need members of Congress telling our commanders what to do," he said.
Once again Bush fails to see the irony of arguing that Congress should not have a say in how the military conducts the war, while under his direction the military has been involved in disaster after disaster.
I am glad to see our Democrats standing their ground. I just hope that this time they do not blink first.
10 Bill O'Reilly quotes that make it impossible to understand why people listen to him.
These are almost painful to read.But the one I think is the most telling is this one:
4) "So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda' kissing your neck from behind...and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I'd just put it on your p***y but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business..." --as quoted in a sexual harassment suit filed against him by a Fox News producer, 2004
I mean let's face it, you cannot be taken seriously by the conservative Republicans if you don't have at least one sex scandal under your belt.
Here is a photographic journey through the Creation museum. Just in case you were not getting enough idiocy this Sunday morning.
I love this first one.
Yeah the only reason that we have not found human and dinosaur bones buried in the same layer of the earth's crust is because they were not "buried together".
And this crap is being called "science" and taught to impressionable young children. In my opinion that is simply child abuse.
Is there too much "politics" in politics these days?
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) took the rare step of issuing a statement in his own name on Saturday to call attention to a report by columnist Robert D. Novak that New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is sitting on “scandalous” information about Obama.
The information was not described and there is no proof it exists.
Obama accused Clinton of “'swift boat’ politics” and vowed he will not be intimidated.
“I am prepared to stand up to that kind of politics, whether it's deployed by candidates in our party, in the other party or by any third party,” Obama said. “The cause of change in this country will not be deterred or sidetracked by the old ‘Swift boat’ politics. The cause of moving America forward demands that we defeat it.”
Now after making that statement the Clinton campaign came back with this:
"A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said in a statement.
"We have no idea what Mr. Novak's item is about and reject it totally."
This is the kind of manipulative, sneaky, ugly politics that makes most Americans queasy.
Now I dislike Robert Novak for his support of the Republicans, his outing of Valerie Plame, and his hypocrisy. But I don't believe he made this story up out of whole cloth. He clearly heard the story from what he considered a reliable source, and Novak is certainly not one to let a rumor go by unreported.
The Clinton camp then saying they have no idea what Novak is talking about, but "hey look out how un-presidential Obama is in how he responded to it", is too cute by half.
Clinton's team wants to point out that Obama is not a savvy enough politician to be America's next President. But here is the thing, I am not going to choose our Democratic nominee based on whether he plays politics better then the other possible nominee.
I am looking for a leader.
We have already seen what you get when you get somebody in office who is very good at playing politics. (I am talking about Karl Rove here, not the moron that he manipulated into office.)
To be truly honest I have no idea why anybody would want the job of President! It ages you faster then any other possible job. You are disliked by almost half of the country. The problems facing you are virtually insurmountable. And in this case you are inheriting a government and military that is fractured and hemorrhaging.
I think that a lot of people want the position for egotistical reasons. I don't want them.
Others want it for ideological reasons. I don't want them.
Perhaps others just have no idea what they are getting into. I really don't want them either.
I want the person who realizes the solutions to our problems and feels obligated to apply those solutions. This person may not be the most attractive, or the most photogenic, or the most politically savvy, but they feel called to serve their country. Not to benefit themselves, but to benefit their country.
This time let's elect a leader, and not simply a politician.
The information was not described and there is no proof it exists.
Obama accused Clinton of “'swift boat’ politics” and vowed he will not be intimidated.
“I am prepared to stand up to that kind of politics, whether it's deployed by candidates in our party, in the other party or by any third party,” Obama said. “The cause of change in this country will not be deterred or sidetracked by the old ‘Swift boat’ politics. The cause of moving America forward demands that we defeat it.”
Now after making that statement the Clinton campaign came back with this:
"A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said in a statement.
"We have no idea what Mr. Novak's item is about and reject it totally."
This is the kind of manipulative, sneaky, ugly politics that makes most Americans queasy.
Now I dislike Robert Novak for his support of the Republicans, his outing of Valerie Plame, and his hypocrisy. But I don't believe he made this story up out of whole cloth. He clearly heard the story from what he considered a reliable source, and Novak is certainly not one to let a rumor go by unreported.
The Clinton camp then saying they have no idea what Novak is talking about, but "hey look out how un-presidential Obama is in how he responded to it", is too cute by half.
Clinton's team wants to point out that Obama is not a savvy enough politician to be America's next President. But here is the thing, I am not going to choose our Democratic nominee based on whether he plays politics better then the other possible nominee.
I am looking for a leader.
We have already seen what you get when you get somebody in office who is very good at playing politics. (I am talking about Karl Rove here, not the moron that he manipulated into office.)
To be truly honest I have no idea why anybody would want the job of President! It ages you faster then any other possible job. You are disliked by almost half of the country. The problems facing you are virtually insurmountable. And in this case you are inheriting a government and military that is fractured and hemorrhaging.
I think that a lot of people want the position for egotistical reasons. I don't want them.
Others want it for ideological reasons. I don't want them.
Perhaps others just have no idea what they are getting into. I really don't want them either.
I want the person who realizes the solutions to our problems and feels obligated to apply those solutions. This person may not be the most attractive, or the most photogenic, or the most politically savvy, but they feel called to serve their country. Not to benefit themselves, but to benefit their country.
This time let's elect a leader, and not simply a politician.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
People are finally starting to take the idea that this administration wants a war with Iran serously
For such leading neocon zealots as Norman Podhoretz, bombing and even invading Iran are about protecting "our" Mideastern oil, strengthening Israel's regional power, and continuing Western control of the restive Muslim majority in the Middle East. Podhoretz and other true believers assert that there's an urgent need for Israel and the West to crush Iran's Muslim government now, frantically wailing that it intends to destroy America and control the world. Even though Iran has made no threats to the U.S., the neocons see regime change there as the key to winning "World War IV" (they insist that the Cold War was World War III) against what they have dubbed "Islamofacism."
How nutty are they? Podhoretz concedes that by attacking such an influential Islamic nation, Bush would "unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest." Yet this Dr. Strangelove maniacally declares, "I pray with all my heart that he will." Now there's a prayer to a truly fiendish god!
I advise you to read this entire article. It pretty mush says a lot of the same things I have been saying on this blog for over a year, but they are a reputable news source and I am just a man typing in his pajamas on a yet another blog.
But what I have been saying is very important, and I hope that all Americans get to hear that message. And I could care less if they hear from me or from another source.
Just make sure you hear it, before it is too late.
If my words and the link above do not convince you then perhaps hearing from a retired Admiral will.
How nutty are they? Podhoretz concedes that by attacking such an influential Islamic nation, Bush would "unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest." Yet this Dr. Strangelove maniacally declares, "I pray with all my heart that he will." Now there's a prayer to a truly fiendish god!
I advise you to read this entire article. It pretty mush says a lot of the same things I have been saying on this blog for over a year, but they are a reputable news source and I am just a man typing in his pajamas on a yet another blog.
But what I have been saying is very important, and I hope that all Americans get to hear that message. And I could care less if they hear from me or from another source.
Just make sure you hear it, before it is too late.
If my words and the link above do not convince you then perhaps hearing from a retired Admiral will.
Could you pass a drivers test now?
Well, if a test administered by GMAC Insurance is any indication, one in six people cruising our highways and byways -- roughly 36 million licensed drivers -- would flunk their driver's test if they had to take it today.
The following state rankings were released for the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test:
1. Idaho.
2. Alaska
3. Minnesota
4. Wisconsin
5. Kansas
6. Washington
7. South Dakota
8. Montana
9. Oregon
10. Iowa
11. Nebraska
12. Wyoming
13. Oklahoma
13. Indiana
13. North Carolina
16. New Mexico
17. North Dakota
18. Missouri
19. Delaware
19. Nevada
21.Vermont
22. California
23. Hawaii
24. Texas
25. Maryland
25.Alabama
27. Arkansas
28. Michigan
29. Kentucky
30. Utah
31. Ohio
31.Colorado
33. South Carolina
33.Arizona
33. Florida
36. Maine
37. New Hampshire
37. Mississippi
37. Tennessee
40. Connecticut
41. Virginia
41. Louisiana
43. West Virginia
44. Georgia
45. Illinois
46. Pennsylvania
47. Rhode Island
48. Massachusetts
48. District of Columbia
48. New Jersey
51. New York
Now this may seem a little off topic for this particular website but the main reason that I posted it is so that i can brag about how knowledgable the drivers from my state appear to be.
As you can see we came in second (I call foul since we should have been first), and I think the reason we are so aware of the rules of the road is that every single winter we all have to learn to drive again. We drive all summer long without a care in the world and then the snow comes.
This year we had 147 traffic accidents on the first day of heavy snow. You heard me right, 147!
And I can tell you from personal experience that when it is snowing we are mentally going over all of the driving rules and making sure we are following, not only the ones in the driving manual, but the additional ones that ALL Alaskans have to learn the hard way. Such as:
The following state rankings were released for the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test:
1. Idaho.
2. Alaska
3. Minnesota
4. Wisconsin
5. Kansas
6. Washington
7. South Dakota
8. Montana
9. Oregon
10. Iowa
11. Nebraska
12. Wyoming
13. Oklahoma
13. Indiana
13. North Carolina
16. New Mexico
17. North Dakota
18. Missouri
19. Delaware
19. Nevada
21.Vermont
22. California
23. Hawaii
24. Texas
25. Maryland
25.Alabama
27. Arkansas
28. Michigan
29. Kentucky
30. Utah
31. Ohio
31.Colorado
33. South Carolina
33.Arizona
33. Florida
36. Maine
37. New Hampshire
37. Mississippi
37. Tennessee
40. Connecticut
41. Virginia
41. Louisiana
43. West Virginia
44. Georgia
45. Illinois
46. Pennsylvania
47. Rhode Island
48. Massachusetts
48. District of Columbia
48. New Jersey
51. New York
Now this may seem a little off topic for this particular website but the main reason that I posted it is so that i can brag about how knowledgable the drivers from my state appear to be.
As you can see we came in second (I call foul since we should have been first), and I think the reason we are so aware of the rules of the road is that every single winter we all have to learn to drive again. We drive all summer long without a care in the world and then the snow comes.
This year we had 147 traffic accidents on the first day of heavy snow. You heard me right, 147!
And I can tell you from personal experience that when it is snowing we are mentally going over all of the driving rules and making sure we are following, not only the ones in the driving manual, but the additional ones that ALL Alaskans have to learn the hard way. Such as:
- Start testing your brakes several car lengths before he stoplight to make sure you have traction. (The ice is often thick and polished right before an intersection.)
- Put your car or truck into all wheel drive as soon as you leave the main roads. (Neighborhoods are notoriously poorly maintained.)
- Use the ice to help you make the turns and don't hit the brakes too hard, or it is ditch time for you!
- There is no such thing as driving too slow in icy conditions.
- Remember to always tap your brakes early to let the driver behind you know you are about to stop. (Just because you have brand new studded snow tires does not mean the moron behind you can stop as quickly.)
- Always allow your car to warm up and defrost before driving. Many accidents are caused by windows fogging up unexpectedly. (One of my friends slowly pulled off the road to allow his iced up windows to defrost and bumped into a child waiting for the bus. The child was unhurt but my friend was devastated.)
See? I told you we should be number one!
Child Mortality rate in Iraq is staggering.
Child mortality in Iraq has spiralled because of the tense security situation, deteriorating health services and lack of medical supplies, say experts.According to a report released in May 2007 by aid agency Save the Children, “Iraq’s child mortality rate has increased by a staggering 150 per cent since 1990, more than any other country.”
The report, entitled State of the World’s Mothers 2007, said that some 122,000 Iraqi children - the equivalent of one in eight - died in 2005, before reaching their fifth birthday. More than half of the deaths were among newborn babies in their first month of life.
I am always so confused by how zealous some people can be about the abortion issue (I just saw some picketers outside of a clinic yesterday on my way home from work), but remain unfazed by news of children in other countries dying by the thousands.
Is it because they are not American children?
Is it because they are not Christian children?
ALL children need the protection of the adults around them, and that includes the adults living across the oceans from them. And that especially includes the adults whose country's policies are killing them!
We have a moral obligation to care for these people whose world we have decimated. We should be providing health clinics where these parents can bring their children. If I were to support a surge it would be a surge of humanitarian aid. And if these clinics needed to be protected by our military, then I would have no problem with that as well. But we must do something to ease their suffering.
Every time I see this kind of article I just wonder what happened to our soul? How can one of the most humanitarian countries on the planet have allowed this holocaust to have been visited upon these people? Are we really that frightened?
Friday, November 16, 2007
New text books for the No Child Left behind program are rife with errors. It is almost like the program was thought up by a complete idiot. Oh yeah.
Proposed math books for elementary school children and their teachers have resulted in one computation that publishers would just as soon erase – 109,263.
That's the number of errors that were uncovered in proposed math textbooks that are under review by the State Board of Education for distribution to schools in the fall of 2008.
The total number of errors was nearly five times the total for last year, thanks to one publisher whose books contained more than 86,000 errors – 79 percent of the total.
Six publishers submitted drafts of their textbooks to the TEA hoping to get in line for selection of the next generation of math books that will be used in Texas public schools.
All had some errors, but Houghton Mifflin Co., one of the leading educational publishers in the U.S., had 86,026 errors in the series of books it submitted to the state. That was 79 percent of all the errors that were discovered.
"It looks like one publisher won the sweepstakes," said board member Bob Craig, R-Lubbock, eliciting laughter from other board members. "How can you make 86,000 errors in your textbooks? How do you do that?"
A spokesman for Houghton Mifflin, based in Boston, did not return calls seeking comment on Thursday. A majority of the company's errors were in teacher editions.
One of my jobs is working in a school and we use this company's textbooks.
I hate the NCLB program!
That's the number of errors that were uncovered in proposed math textbooks that are under review by the State Board of Education for distribution to schools in the fall of 2008.
The total number of errors was nearly five times the total for last year, thanks to one publisher whose books contained more than 86,000 errors – 79 percent of the total.
Six publishers submitted drafts of their textbooks to the TEA hoping to get in line for selection of the next generation of math books that will be used in Texas public schools.
All had some errors, but Houghton Mifflin Co., one of the leading educational publishers in the U.S., had 86,026 errors in the series of books it submitted to the state. That was 79 percent of all the errors that were discovered.
"It looks like one publisher won the sweepstakes," said board member Bob Craig, R-Lubbock, eliciting laughter from other board members. "How can you make 86,000 errors in your textbooks? How do you do that?"
A spokesman for Houghton Mifflin, based in Boston, did not return calls seeking comment on Thursday. A majority of the company's errors were in teacher editions.
One of my jobs is working in a school and we use this company's textbooks.
I hate the NCLB program!
People who believe they are "holier then thou" are actually terribly flawed people. No surprise here.
Morally upstanding people are the do-gooders of society, right? Actually, a new study finds that a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts, such as cheating. In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats.
And that in a nutshell is why Republicans and born again Christians are the most unethical people on the planet.
Okay I may have oversimplified that last point, but you have to admit it FEELS true.
By the way let me just point out that the name of this blog is The Immoral Minority, which if you go by the information in this article, proves I am a freaking saint!
And that in a nutshell is why Republicans and born again Christians are the most unethical people on the planet.
Okay I may have oversimplified that last point, but you have to admit it FEELS true.
By the way let me just point out that the name of this blog is The Immoral Minority, which if you go by the information in this article, proves I am a freaking saint!
America can no longer call itself the greatest country in the world. Especially with Norway in the picture.
If you wanted to design a small 21st Century nation from scratch, combining outrageous good fortune with virtue, you'd probably come up with something like Norway.
With a per capita income of $65,509, Norway ranks second only to super-rich Luxembourg. Much of the wealth derives from North Sea oil, but Norwegians have barely touched a penny of it, instead putting more $350 billion into an investment fund for future generations.
Health-care services are considered among the best in the world and are available to everyone, with the cap on out-of-pocket expenses at $200 a year. Working women on maternity leave get a year off at 80 percent pay. Elderly Norwegians seeking to escape the harsh northern winters can retire to government-run geriatric communities in sunny Spain.
Norway, home of the Nobel Peace Prize, has no enemies, but it does have a well-trained army that is always on the front lines of international peacekeeping missions. It also gives generously to less fortunate nations, donating more per capita than any other country.
And the government recently unveiled plans to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to zero and thus become the world's first "carbon-neutral" country by 2050.
So you might think that all of this good fortune and virtue would make the Norwegians just a little bit fat and self-satisfied?
Self-satisfied maybe, but fat, no. According to a new study on obesity, Norwegians are the slimmest people in Europe.
Let me get this straight.
They have FREE health care? For EVERYBODY?
They are the most environmentally friendly country on earth?
They have a well trained army that DOESN'T invade other countries?
They save ALL of their oil wealth for future generations, and haven't traded away their children's futures to fund an illegal war?
AND they are skinny?
Does it show that I am jealous?
With a per capita income of $65,509, Norway ranks second only to super-rich Luxembourg. Much of the wealth derives from North Sea oil, but Norwegians have barely touched a penny of it, instead putting more $350 billion into an investment fund for future generations.
Health-care services are considered among the best in the world and are available to everyone, with the cap on out-of-pocket expenses at $200 a year. Working women on maternity leave get a year off at 80 percent pay. Elderly Norwegians seeking to escape the harsh northern winters can retire to government-run geriatric communities in sunny Spain.
Norway, home of the Nobel Peace Prize, has no enemies, but it does have a well-trained army that is always on the front lines of international peacekeeping missions. It also gives generously to less fortunate nations, donating more per capita than any other country.
And the government recently unveiled plans to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to zero and thus become the world's first "carbon-neutral" country by 2050.
So you might think that all of this good fortune and virtue would make the Norwegians just a little bit fat and self-satisfied?
Self-satisfied maybe, but fat, no. According to a new study on obesity, Norwegians are the slimmest people in Europe.
Let me get this straight.
They have FREE health care? For EVERYBODY?
They are the most environmentally friendly country on earth?
They have a well trained army that DOESN'T invade other countries?
They save ALL of their oil wealth for future generations, and haven't traded away their children's futures to fund an illegal war?
AND they are skinny?
Does it show that I am jealous?
Stephen Colbert should not be underestimated.
Misunderestimate Stephen Colbert at your peril. Just because he is an unassuming, bespectacled physical specimen whose business cards may read “TV comedian” is no reason to dismiss him as a lightweight funnyman. Since the very night he launched his own series on Comedy Central in 2005, Colbert has thrown some vicious elbows, and demonstrated a bravura that dares his enemies to, in paraphrasing his ironic hero George W. Bush, bring it on.As both a humorist and a political and media commentator, Colbert is a stealth bomber. A gladiator of mockery. A comedy Rambo. He’s the most dangerous satirist out there right now, and neither the writers’ strike nor his failure to get on the presidential-primary ballot in his native state of South Carolina will stall his advance for long.
In fact, Colbert has reached such revered status at this juncture that even in a period of relative inactivity — not doing a show, not running for president — people are talking about him, wondering about him, and waiting for his next move. He’s the Al Gore of Comedy Central: even if he can’t or won’t run for office, he is nevertheless building anticipation. (Can a Nobel Prize be far off?)
This writers strike is completely ruining my end of the day ritual of laughing at all of the news items that made me cringe earlier in the day.
I rely on Colbert and Stewart to make the horrifying funny. Now when i go to bed in my flannel liberal pajamas I have to leave my Ted Kennedy nightlight on so that I don't have nightmares.
I hate to do this again, but I have to give a tip of my hat to Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, because they posted this article before me. Of course I would like to point out that they are like four hours ahead of Alaskan time. Not really fair.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
This should not have happened! Remind me not to go to Canada anytime soon.
Four cops cannot over power one unarmed man without utilizing their tazers?
Canadian mounties are pussies!
Canadian mounties are pussies!
I only saw half of the debate because they put it on opposite Countdown. Like I am going to miss Keith for these bozos!
- I really enjoyed watching the rest of the pack hammer Hillary on her Iran vote. That is a good indicator of her poor judgement.
- Bill Richardson is boring. If he asks "why can't we all just get along?" again I am going to scream!
- Joe Biden sounded very Presidential and was the first one to open the debate about Hillary's Iran vote, though he cowardly shouted out "That was not meant as an attack on Hillary!" Yes it was, man up!
- Best line of the night goes to Kucinich who pointed out how many of the other Presidential hopefuls have changed their opinions from supporting certain issues to now being against them. His response was "Wouldn't you like to have a President who is right the first time?" I just loved that!
- Kucinich also gets points for bringing up impeachment. If only he did not look like the Lucky Charms Leprechaun.
New Orleans high school students make video about the corruption surrounding the rebuilding of the levees.
Levee.org produced a video that has drawn the ire of the American Society of Civil Engineers, which says the spoof, produced by Newman high school students, defames then. Levees.org stand by the video, but says it pulled it from its web site saying it has no resources to fight the ASCE.
The ASCE pressured YouTube to yank this video, which they did, but nobody told me not to post it. Not that I would listen anyhow.
You know how I am.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The man who is supposed to be investigating allegations against Blackwater did not even know his brother served on the board of Blackwater. Uh huh.
The State Department has come under fire in recent months for its oversight of the embattled private security firm, which protects U.S. diplomats in Iraq. Blackwater was involved in a Sept. 16 shooting in Baghdad that left 17 Iraqis dead, an incident the FBI is currently investigating.
Chairman Henry Waxman of California began the House Oversight Committee hearing by stating that "we have now learned that Mr. Krongard's brother, Buzzy Krongard, serves on Blackwater's advisory board."
The Inspector General immediately refuted the allegations.
"I can tell you, very frankly, I am not aware of any financial interest or position he has with respect to Blackwater," Howard Krongard said. "When these ugly rumors started recently, I specifically asked him. I do not believe it is true that he is a member of the advisory board that you stated. And that's something I think I need to say."
However, Democrats then produced a July 26 letter in which Erik Prince, Blackwater's founder and CEO, invited Buzzy Krongard, a former top CIA official, to join Blackwater's advisory board, followed by a Sept. 5 letter in which Prince welcomed Krongard to the board.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., told the inspector general that Buzz Krongard was even scheduled to attend a Blackwater board meeting earlier this week in Williamsburg, Va.. Howard Krongard then promised to recuse himself from Blackwater-related issues if his brother was a board member.
An hour later, after a brief recess, the inspector general did just that.
"During the break, I did contact my brother," Krongard said. "I learned that he had been at the advisory board meeting yesterday. I had not been aware of that. And I want to state on the record right now that I hereby recuse myself from any matters having to do with Blackwater."
Let me get this straight.
The man who is put in charge of investigating Blackwater, does not even know his own brother is on the board of Blackwater?
And apparently when his brother joined the board of Blackwater they were granted immunity from being prosecuted in Iraq. And this Krongard had nothing to do with that?
If this wasn't about the murder of innocent Iraqis it might even be funny that they thought nobody would discover their duplicity. But it is not funny, and I hope the Democrats put the screws to this Erik Prince and his company. And then they can go after whoever tried to cover for their murderous rampage.
Chairman Henry Waxman of California began the House Oversight Committee hearing by stating that "we have now learned that Mr. Krongard's brother, Buzzy Krongard, serves on Blackwater's advisory board."
The Inspector General immediately refuted the allegations.
"I can tell you, very frankly, I am not aware of any financial interest or position he has with respect to Blackwater," Howard Krongard said. "When these ugly rumors started recently, I specifically asked him. I do not believe it is true that he is a member of the advisory board that you stated. And that's something I think I need to say."
However, Democrats then produced a July 26 letter in which Erik Prince, Blackwater's founder and CEO, invited Buzzy Krongard, a former top CIA official, to join Blackwater's advisory board, followed by a Sept. 5 letter in which Prince welcomed Krongard to the board.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., told the inspector general that Buzz Krongard was even scheduled to attend a Blackwater board meeting earlier this week in Williamsburg, Va.. Howard Krongard then promised to recuse himself from Blackwater-related issues if his brother was a board member.
An hour later, after a brief recess, the inspector general did just that.
"During the break, I did contact my brother," Krongard said. "I learned that he had been at the advisory board meeting yesterday. I had not been aware of that. And I want to state on the record right now that I hereby recuse myself from any matters having to do with Blackwater."
Let me get this straight.
The man who is put in charge of investigating Blackwater, does not even know his own brother is on the board of Blackwater?
And apparently when his brother joined the board of Blackwater they were granted immunity from being prosecuted in Iraq. And this Krongard had nothing to do with that?
If this wasn't about the murder of innocent Iraqis it might even be funny that they thought nobody would discover their duplicity. But it is not funny, and I hope the Democrats put the screws to this Erik Prince and his company. And then they can go after whoever tried to cover for their murderous rampage.
The White House just does not want to give up those "lost" e-mails. So you just know that we need to see them.
Why is it taking White House officials so long to restore millions of deleted e-mails from the backup tapes they claim to have?
The e-mails in question date from March 2003 to October 2005 -- a crucial period that includes the Iraq invasion, a presidential election and Hurricane Katrina.
White House officials have known for more than two years that the messages were deleted -- a clear violation of presidential records-preservation statutes. But the president's aides won't explain what happened, what sort of backups they have and what they're doing about it.
That obstinacy led a federal judge to step in yesterday and order the White House to preserve every bit of related data in its possession -- just to make sure nothing untoward happens while a civil suit by two open-government groups goes forward.
Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "The Bush administration had opposed such an order, arguing that it is unnecessary because the White House administrative office already is preserving backup tapes in its possession. But U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. was not satisfied by that assurance and issued the formal order, which carries contempt penalties if violated. . . .
"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [CREW], a watchdog group that has been critical of the administration, has said it was told by internal sources that the White House determined that at least 5 million and perhaps many more e-mails from that period were not saved as required by law."
Pete Yost writes for the Associated Press: "The Federal Records Act details strict standards prohibiting the destruction of government documents including electronic messages, unless first approved by the archivist of the United States. . . .
"The judge's order 'should stop any future destruction of e-mails, but the White House stopped archiving its e-mail in 2003 and we don't know if some backup tapes for those e-mails were already taped over before we went to court. It's a mystery,' said Meredith Fuchs, a lawyer for the National Security Archive."
Here is the order:"defendants shall preserve media, no matter how described, presently in their possession or under their custody or control, that were created with the intention of preserving data in the event of its inadvertent destruction. Defendants shall preserve the media under conditions that will permit their eventual use, if necessary, and shall not transfer said media out of their custody or control without leave of this court."
In their motion, National Security Archive lawyers explained that "fundamentally, the defendants refuse to provide any details about the still existing body of back-up copies, including what time period they cover, the extent to which they contain any of the missing emails, and whether there are multiple copies beyond what the defendants have variously referred to as 'disaster recovery tapes -- tapes formatted to focus on restoring systems and point in time data in the event of an emergency -- that were in the [White House] Office of Administration's possession as of September 5, 2007' . . .
"The missing records at issue span critical events in U.S. policy, including the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the Abu Ghraib scandal, release of a congressional report detailing the flawed intelligence that was relied upon concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the handling of Hurricane Katrina. If the deletions go beyond 2005, they may also involve records concerning the renewal of the highly controversial U.S.A. Patriot Act, a major administration initiative concerning immigration policy, and the White House role in the firing of a number of U.S. Attorneys. These are the kinds of records that the Federal Records Act seeks to preserve because they document our history and facilitate an informed American public."
First they lost them. Now they claim to have found them. But they will not say if they have them all, or where they have them. And now they are just dragging their feet to allow the clock to run out on this Presidency before having to surrender them to the press.
You just know there must be a ton of "smoking guns" contained in these messages.
I think we all know that this administration has conducted outright criminal behaviors that they are desperate to not be held accountable for. And I also think they are hoping that Hillary will be the next President, and that she will pull a "Gerald Ford" and refuse to pursue criminal proceedings to help "heal the country".
And that is just bullshit! I will not be "healed" until I know what really happened on 9-11, until I see the evidence that tells us that this administration knew all along that Saddam did not have WMD's, until I see the evidence that this White House instructed our interrogators to torture the detainees, and the truth about why we went into Iraq.
Maybe then I will be finally be able to think about my country without my eyes welling up with tears. And then I will be healed.
The e-mails in question date from March 2003 to October 2005 -- a crucial period that includes the Iraq invasion, a presidential election and Hurricane Katrina.
White House officials have known for more than two years that the messages were deleted -- a clear violation of presidential records-preservation statutes. But the president's aides won't explain what happened, what sort of backups they have and what they're doing about it.
That obstinacy led a federal judge to step in yesterday and order the White House to preserve every bit of related data in its possession -- just to make sure nothing untoward happens while a civil suit by two open-government groups goes forward.
Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "The Bush administration had opposed such an order, arguing that it is unnecessary because the White House administrative office already is preserving backup tapes in its possession. But U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. was not satisfied by that assurance and issued the formal order, which carries contempt penalties if violated. . . .
"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [CREW], a watchdog group that has been critical of the administration, has said it was told by internal sources that the White House determined that at least 5 million and perhaps many more e-mails from that period were not saved as required by law."
Pete Yost writes for the Associated Press: "The Federal Records Act details strict standards prohibiting the destruction of government documents including electronic messages, unless first approved by the archivist of the United States. . . .
"The judge's order 'should stop any future destruction of e-mails, but the White House stopped archiving its e-mail in 2003 and we don't know if some backup tapes for those e-mails were already taped over before we went to court. It's a mystery,' said Meredith Fuchs, a lawyer for the National Security Archive."
Here is the order:"defendants shall preserve media, no matter how described, presently in their possession or under their custody or control, that were created with the intention of preserving data in the event of its inadvertent destruction. Defendants shall preserve the media under conditions that will permit their eventual use, if necessary, and shall not transfer said media out of their custody or control without leave of this court."
In their motion, National Security Archive lawyers explained that "fundamentally, the defendants refuse to provide any details about the still existing body of back-up copies, including what time period they cover, the extent to which they contain any of the missing emails, and whether there are multiple copies beyond what the defendants have variously referred to as 'disaster recovery tapes -- tapes formatted to focus on restoring systems and point in time data in the event of an emergency -- that were in the [White House] Office of Administration's possession as of September 5, 2007' . . .
"The missing records at issue span critical events in U.S. policy, including the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the Abu Ghraib scandal, release of a congressional report detailing the flawed intelligence that was relied upon concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the handling of Hurricane Katrina. If the deletions go beyond 2005, they may also involve records concerning the renewal of the highly controversial U.S.A. Patriot Act, a major administration initiative concerning immigration policy, and the White House role in the firing of a number of U.S. Attorneys. These are the kinds of records that the Federal Records Act seeks to preserve because they document our history and facilitate an informed American public."
First they lost them. Now they claim to have found them. But they will not say if they have them all, or where they have them. And now they are just dragging their feet to allow the clock to run out on this Presidency before having to surrender them to the press.
You just know there must be a ton of "smoking guns" contained in these messages.
I think we all know that this administration has conducted outright criminal behaviors that they are desperate to not be held accountable for. And I also think they are hoping that Hillary will be the next President, and that she will pull a "Gerald Ford" and refuse to pursue criminal proceedings to help "heal the country".
And that is just bullshit! I will not be "healed" until I know what really happened on 9-11, until I see the evidence that tells us that this administration knew all along that Saddam did not have WMD's, until I see the evidence that this White House instructed our interrogators to torture the detainees, and the truth about why we went into Iraq.
Maybe then I will be finally be able to think about my country without my eyes welling up with tears. And then I will be healed.
NOVA takes on Intelligent Design.
I guess this was on yesterday, but I only happened across it today. And that blows because I would definitely like to see this!
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Did the CIA meet with Bin Laden two months before 9-11?
Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.
The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.
Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.
The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.
I have no idea if this story has any validity or not. All I know is that the "official" story stinks to high heaven. Something hinky happened and I just hope that someday we all get a chance to find out what it was.
The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.
Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.
The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.
I have no idea if this story has any validity or not. All I know is that the "official" story stinks to high heaven. Something hinky happened and I just hope that someday we all get a chance to find out what it was.
Could somebody please get this thing on the fast track before the damn gas prices make me choose between driving and eating?
US researchers have developed a method of producing hydrogen gas from biodegradable organic material, potentially providing an abundant source of this clean-burning fuel, according to a study released Monday.
The technology offers a way to cheaply and efficiently generate hydrogen gas from readily available and renewable biomass such as cellulose or glucose, and could be used for powering vehicles, making fertilizer and treating drinking water.
If this Iraq war really was about oil, then why the hell a barel of oil now $94.62?
Or was that the plan all along?
The technology offers a way to cheaply and efficiently generate hydrogen gas from readily available and renewable biomass such as cellulose or glucose, and could be used for powering vehicles, making fertilizer and treating drinking water.
If this Iraq war really was about oil, then why the hell a barel of oil now $94.62?
Or was that the plan all along?
CBS News reports on "stunning" number of hidden military suicides.
Tonight CBS will air the first of a two-part series on the "hidden epidemic" of military suicides, revealing numbers that CBS calls "stunning." The report examines data on the suicide rate amongst veterans once they return home, which indicates a serious mental health issue — and a hidden mortality rate.
"We first started researching military suicides because it had never been done before," said Armen Keteyian, CBS News' chief investigative correspondent in a statement forwarded by CBS News. "But when all the data was collected, we were astonished. I had no idea how much of an epidemic CBS uncovered. We expect this to be a wake up call."
"At least 120 Americans who served in the U.S. military killed themselves per week in 2005, CBS News learned in a five-month investigation into veteran suicides. That's 6,256 veteran suicides in one year, in 45 states."
The policies of George Bush seemed dedicated to the murder of our military members.
He sends them into harms way. If they survive the first tour of duty they know they will be asked to go back again, and if they survive they go again, and again, and again. It is almost like the only way for a soldier to end his fear of being rotated through Iraq or Afghanistan again is to just take his own life before the enemy can do it.
But nobody pays any attention to the man, or woman, who simply cannot take the stress of wondering when their number is up. But these soldiers are casualties of war just as surely as the platoon sergeant who meets his end by an IED or snipers bullet.
And for those who do not die in Iraq or take their own lives, what of them? Are they still whole? Did they come back in one piece? Even if they are not physically wounded, are their minds untouched by the experience? They may be the most heartrending casualties of all.
Do you remember the Marlboro soldier?
The legacy of George Bush does not fall on historians to determine. We can do it right now. He has destroyed our country's reputation, bankrupted our nation, destroyed our military, and that may not even be the worst of it.
"We first started researching military suicides because it had never been done before," said Armen Keteyian, CBS News' chief investigative correspondent in a statement forwarded by CBS News. "But when all the data was collected, we were astonished. I had no idea how much of an epidemic CBS uncovered. We expect this to be a wake up call."
"At least 120 Americans who served in the U.S. military killed themselves per week in 2005, CBS News learned in a five-month investigation into veteran suicides. That's 6,256 veteran suicides in one year, in 45 states."
The policies of George Bush seemed dedicated to the murder of our military members.
He sends them into harms way. If they survive the first tour of duty they know they will be asked to go back again, and if they survive they go again, and again, and again. It is almost like the only way for a soldier to end his fear of being rotated through Iraq or Afghanistan again is to just take his own life before the enemy can do it.
But nobody pays any attention to the man, or woman, who simply cannot take the stress of wondering when their number is up. But these soldiers are casualties of war just as surely as the platoon sergeant who meets his end by an IED or snipers bullet.
And for those who do not die in Iraq or take their own lives, what of them? Are they still whole? Did they come back in one piece? Even if they are not physically wounded, are their minds untouched by the experience? They may be the most heartrending casualties of all.
Do you remember the Marlboro soldier?
The legacy of George Bush does not fall on historians to determine. We can do it right now. He has destroyed our country's reputation, bankrupted our nation, destroyed our military, and that may not even be the worst of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)