I propose a lifetime moratorium on the phrase “it is what it is”. it si WAY overused these days and often adds nothing to a conversation, often used when the speaker has nothing else to say. A verbal punt, if you will.
This joins “surreal” (the reigning overused/misused phrase for the past 3 years) and “samwich” , among others, on the all time list of annoying.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
"best" medical care in the world...if you can get it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22357873/
When actuaries overrule the medical decisions of doctors at UCLA, what chance to any of us have?
When actuaries overrule the medical decisions of doctors at UCLA, what chance to any of us have?
Romney gets all Clintonesque or "when seeing is not seeing".
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/20/528873.aspx
OH YEAH AND WERE IS ALL THE REPUBLICAN OUTCRY THAT THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS DOESN’T KNOW THAT THE PATRIOTS PLAY FOOTBALL. THEY GAVE ALL KINDS OF SHIT WHEN KERRY MISPRONOUNCED LAMBEAU FIELD. THIS IS A MUCH BIGGER MISS.
The questioning did not relent. "I'm an English literature major," he insisted
at one point. "When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't
necessarily mean you were there." (He meant the Super Bowl, of course.)
OH YEAH AND WERE IS ALL THE REPUBLICAN OUTCRY THAT THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS DOESN’T KNOW THAT THE PATRIOTS PLAY FOOTBALL. THEY GAVE ALL KINDS OF SHIT WHEN KERRY MISPRONOUNCED LAMBEAU FIELD. THIS IS A MUCH BIGGER MISS.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Cafeteria Christianity to justify prejudice (and of course pander)
To those who hold to this ridiculous view that our founding fathers were Bible-thumping Baptists in the vein of Pat Robertson, et al.
You need to go back and look at the various religious beliefs of the presidents. Deists and Quakers and Presbyterians don’t share a lot of dogma with Southern Baptists or what passes for “Christian” these days in America . (I’m not going to prove to you again how un-Christian the small but very influential and vocal group of southern Baptists are, nor how unrepresentative they are of Christianity in America ).
And for your very irrelevant shout out to your obsession with gays…the gay marriage issue is a fake issue that you and your sloganeering buddies like to trot out to avoid REAL issues. (I’ve been waiting for you to tell me for years now, why you care who I marry, without trotting out incest and goats, but you’ve got nothing…PROVING how little of an issue it really is).
Did Truman and Kennedy talk about gay marriage? Nope. But then again, Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson didn’t talk very much about Civil Rights, does that mean that rights for blacks are not consistent with “Traditional Values”? The point: you can’t live in the past. Tradition doesn’t make it right. The world moves on. You and your gay-fearing buddies will be tossed on the scrapheap of history along with people who opposed a heliocentric system, suffrage for women and civil rights for blacks. Picking and choosing obscure biblical passages while ignoring the ones right next to it, doesn’t really seem like a “value system”, it seems like cherry-picking to support your prejudice.
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)
"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)
"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
You need to go back and look at the various religious beliefs of the presidents. Deists and Quakers and Presbyterians don’t share a lot of dogma with Southern Baptists or what passes for “Christian” these days in America . (I’m not going to prove to you again how un-Christian the small but very influential and vocal group of southern Baptists are, nor how unrepresentative they are of Christianity in America ).
And for your very irrelevant shout out to your obsession with gays…the gay marriage issue is a fake issue that you and your sloganeering buddies like to trot out to avoid REAL issues. (I’ve been waiting for you to tell me for years now, why you care who I marry, without trotting out incest and goats, but you’ve got nothing…PROVING how little of an issue it really is).
Did Truman and Kennedy talk about gay marriage? Nope. But then again, Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson didn’t talk very much about Civil Rights, does that mean that rights for blacks are not consistent with “Traditional Values”? The point: you can’t live in the past. Tradition doesn’t make it right. The world moves on. You and your gay-fearing buddies will be tossed on the scrapheap of history along with people who opposed a heliocentric system, suffrage for women and civil rights for blacks. Picking and choosing obscure biblical passages while ignoring the ones right next to it, doesn’t really seem like a “value system”, it seems like cherry-picking to support your prejudice.
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)
"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)
"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
Monday, December 03, 2007
Deja Vu all over again
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc_3
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.
Bush disappointed?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/venezuela_referendum_dc_32
Now he can’t invade, at least not right now ( I kid, but you know Bush likes to invade countries on little more than a leader saying mean things). But did you read the Constitutional Changes that Chavez wanted to institute, they are the exact type of executive Powers that Cheney has been pushing for. I’ll bet Bush sees a kindred spirit in Hugo. After all he did see into Putin’s soul and look what a good guy Putin turned out to be.
One of the things the Chavez wanted to do was remove legal controls on his actions when a state of emergency exists, one that he would declare. Just like Bush did with his “we are at war” stuff (which we are not b/c only Congress can declare war and that has not happened). Not that it’s a new idea…all executives/royals that wanted to expand their powers did so in “defense of the state/country/homeland”.
The Venezuelans voted AGAINST giving more power to the executive. Too bad America didn’t get to vote before Bush decided he was above the law.
Now he can’t invade, at least not right now ( I kid, but you know Bush likes to invade countries on little more than a leader saying mean things). But did you read the Constitutional Changes that Chavez wanted to institute, they are the exact type of executive Powers that Cheney has been pushing for. I’ll bet Bush sees a kindred spirit in Hugo. After all he did see into Putin’s soul and look what a good guy Putin turned out to be.
One of the things the Chavez wanted to do was remove legal controls on his actions when a state of emergency exists, one that he would declare. Just like Bush did with his “we are at war” stuff (which we are not b/c only Congress can declare war and that has not happened). Not that it’s a new idea…all executives/royals that wanted to expand their powers did so in “defense of the state/country/homeland”.
The Venezuelans voted AGAINST giving more power to the executive. Too bad America didn’t get to vote before Bush decided he was above the law.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Bloomberg/Hagel?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/29/hagel-criticizes-arrogant-bush-white-house/
he’s been saying what’s needed to be said for years, but now that he’s not running again he’s really saying what he feels…like every other person that has left this administration.
he’s been saying what’s needed to be said for years, but now that he’s not running again he’s really saying what he feels…like every other person that has left this administration.
question about zealotry
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071129/ts_nm/sudan_prophet_dc_21
So, it’s an “insult” to name the bear Mohammed, but aren’t there millions of guys walking around the world of Islamic faith that also have that name? Why isn’t it an insult for a mere mortal/non-prophet to have that name? In fact, isn’t Mohammed the most common name in the world, or maybe that’s just urban legend? If it’s the “most common” wouldn’t it lose its sanctity? Or if its use is honorary, why wouldn’t naming something else also be honorary?
So many questions about religious zealotry…
On the topic of religion, just finished reading a book called “Misquoting Jesus”. Maybe you’ve heard of it, but it’s about how the current version of the bible came to be. Written by Christian biblical scholar, an interesting read telling the story of how the current version went from oral history, through good and bad translations, good and bad copying, and intentional changes supporting various agendas. A little dry in spots, but might be worth a read if you’re so inclined.
So, it’s an “insult” to name the bear Mohammed, but aren’t there millions of guys walking around the world of Islamic faith that also have that name? Why isn’t it an insult for a mere mortal/non-prophet to have that name? In fact, isn’t Mohammed the most common name in the world, or maybe that’s just urban legend? If it’s the “most common” wouldn’t it lose its sanctity? Or if its use is honorary, why wouldn’t naming something else also be honorary?
So many questions about religious zealotry…
On the topic of religion, just finished reading a book called “Misquoting Jesus”. Maybe you’ve heard of it, but it’s about how the current version of the bible came to be. Written by Christian biblical scholar, an interesting read telling the story of how the current version went from oral history, through good and bad translations, good and bad copying, and intentional changes supporting various agendas. A little dry in spots, but might be worth a read if you’re so inclined.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Remember this when Fox "News" is losing its mind over "Happy Holidays"
Obviously the degree is different, but the religious zealotry is the same. So, when Gibson and O’Reilly are decrying the end of civilization because the Wal-mart greeter says “Happy Holidays” (which we all know means Thanksgiving, New Years and Christmas and maybe even GOD FORBID, Hanukah) recall what religious zealotry begets.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687755,00.html?cnn=yes
Or should I just lump this act with those of the Church that goes around to soldiers’ funerals and celebrates their deaths and lump them all together as the “Logical outcome” of Conservative thought?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687755,00.html?cnn=yes
Or should I just lump this act with those of the Church that goes around to soldiers’ funerals and celebrates their deaths and lump them all together as the “Logical outcome” of Conservative thought?
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Bush style Democracy taking hold in Pakistan
A friendly partisan Supreme Court upholds the "election victory" against the will of the people...and I worried that Bush couldn't export his version of Democracy, boy was I wrong:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21925944/
Happy Thanksgiving
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21925944/
Happy Thanksgiving
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse...fully supported, encouraged and covered up by the Bush WH
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1681265,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner
Bushies, I would imagine that being former Conservatives, you’d be appalled at this blatant disregard for the effective use of our tax dollars, but your blood should be boiling that those tasked with rooting out this fraud and abuse have been thwarted by the current administration, which leads to even more waste, fraud and abuse.
Bushies, I would imagine that being former Conservatives, you’d be appalled at this blatant disregard for the effective use of our tax dollars, but your blood should be boiling that those tasked with rooting out this fraud and abuse have been thwarted by the current administration, which leads to even more waste, fraud and abuse.
Shameful
It’s always the guys who never put their own lives in danger by actually entering the military that have such a love for torture and those who’ve actually put their lives on the line for America oppose torture.
I guess it’s easy to support the methods of Stalin, the Gestapo and Pol Pot if you never had to worry about them being used on you. (In 1947, the US tried a Japanese soldier for war crimes for using waterboarding…he was sentenced to 15 years hard labor)
How the hell does Bush claim that America represents democracy, morality and freedom for the world when he directs his minions to behave like a barbarians? The military code still forbids waterboarding explicitly which is why Bush has to make civilians (or goons from other countries who we have on our terrorism list). Oh yeah…and physical torture doesn’t work.
I guess it’s easy to support the methods of Stalin, the Gestapo and Pol Pot if you never had to worry about them being used on you. (In 1947, the US tried a Japanese soldier for war crimes for using waterboarding…he was sentenced to 15 years hard labor)
How the hell does Bush claim that America represents democracy, morality and freedom for the world when he directs his minions to behave like a barbarians? The military code still forbids waterboarding explicitly which is why Bush has to make civilians (or goons from other countries who we have on our terrorism list). Oh yeah…and physical torture doesn’t work.
A New Low 07 Nov 2007 09:21 am "Waterboarding is
something of which every American should be proud," - Deroy Murdock, National Review. Have you noticed
that the pro-torture right has gone from saying that torture is abhorrent to
saying that torture isn't occurring to saying that torture is not torture to now
saying that torture is "something of which every American should be proud". And
why not indeed? The Cheney logic is impregnable: the president is not bound by
the law or the Geneva Conventions; torture reveals information that allows the
government to seize individuals who might at some point commit terror attacks;
the president's job is to prevent terror attacks. Torture is thereby a good.
Alas, the American constitution clearly does not say that the president is above
the law; the Geneva Conventions do apply to all captives in wartime and the bar
on mistreatment far less than torture is clear; the only source we have for the
fact that these terror suspects were terrorists is the government that uses
torture against them; torture itself has no way of determining what is true or
what is false and was designed in the first place to produce false confessions.
And the president's first job is to uphold the Constitution.
Then, of course, there is the question of morality. But if you follow
Murdock's reasoning that torture saves lives, and your moral rubric is entirely
utilitarian, then torture itself is obviously an active moral good. I have no
idea why more "conservatives" don't aggressively propose expanding it. And
here's a prediction: after the next terror attack, they will.
More of that Bush restoring ethical behavior to the executive branch
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21589678/
It’s a good thing that Bush was going to restore ethics to the Executive Branch; I can’t imagine how much further they’d extend their unethical behavior if he hadn’t promised to do that.
It’s been lucrative to work for the King in other countries throughout history. Fortunately for the Friends of Bush, he restored Royalty in America (Divine Mandate and being above the law of the land and all) and now all his buddies are really cashing in. It’s not only great to BE the King, it’s great to KNOW the King.
It’s a good thing that Bush was going to restore ethics to the Executive Branch; I can’t imagine how much further they’d extend their unethical behavior if he hadn’t promised to do that.
It’s been lucrative to work for the King in other countries throughout history. Fortunately for the Friends of Bush, he restored Royalty in America (Divine Mandate and being above the law of the land and all) and now all his buddies are really cashing in. It’s not only great to BE the King, it’s great to KNOW the King.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
According to our President...this isn't torture
This is not torture, it’s “Aggressive Interrogation” as these techniques would not bring about organ failure or death. So, it’s all good. Nothing illegal here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21659520/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21659520/
George W. Bush…Bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East since 2001…
George W. Bush…Bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East since 2001…
At least 28 killed in attack on Afghan lawmakers
5 parliamentarians slain; doctor says toll could be much higher
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21650763/
Pakistan protests met with violent crackdown
Bush calls on Musharraf to relinquish army position, restore democracy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21609019/
2007 becomes deadliest yet for U.S. in Iraq
Military announces deaths of soldiers and sailor, raising year’s total to 853
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21650614/
Oil prices soar past $97, setting new record
Concerns about bombings in Afghanistan , inadequate U.S. supply
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
At least 28 killed in attack on Afghan lawmakers
5 parliamentarians slain; doctor says toll could be much higher
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21650763/
Pakistan protests met with violent crackdown
Bush calls on Musharraf to relinquish army position, restore democracy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21609019/
2007 becomes deadliest yet for U.S. in Iraq
Military announces deaths of soldiers and sailor, raising year’s total to 853
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21650614/
Oil prices soar past $97, setting new record
Concerns about bombings in Afghanistan , inadequate U.S. supply
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
Thursday, October 25, 2007
More Bush Lies?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/25/quds.force/index.html
Considering the Bushies are doing the same thing with Iran that they did with Iraq (ignore the war they are fighting to start another one without finishing the first; Afghanistan) I'm pretty skeptical of anything they say. Now that they have a hard-on to invade Iran, they will say anything, just like they did with Iraq.
Even without the Bush WH's inability to tell the truth about ANYTHING, you must also consider some facts. Iran hates the Taliban, Iran helped the US overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, Afghanistan said they have no evidence that Iran is supplying the Taliban AND 4 months ago the General leading the NATO forces in Afghanistan said there was no evidence that Iran was helping the Taliban.
Oh yeah, and the Bushies lie about everything and they have a hard-on for Iran right now, so let's just say given all the evidence and their pathological aversion to the truth, I would bet this is NOT true. (that's a consequence of lying about everything, even if you are telling the truth NO ONE believes you)
Considering the Bushies are doing the same thing with Iran that they did with Iraq (ignore the war they are fighting to start another one without finishing the first; Afghanistan) I'm pretty skeptical of anything they say. Now that they have a hard-on to invade Iran, they will say anything, just like they did with Iraq.
Even without the Bush WH's inability to tell the truth about ANYTHING, you must also consider some facts. Iran hates the Taliban, Iran helped the US overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, Afghanistan said they have no evidence that Iran is supplying the Taliban AND 4 months ago the General leading the NATO forces in Afghanistan said there was no evidence that Iran was helping the Taliban.
Oh yeah, and the Bushies lie about everything and they have a hard-on for Iran right now, so let's just say given all the evidence and their pathological aversion to the truth, I would bet this is NOT true. (that's a consequence of lying about everything, even if you are telling the truth NO ONE believes you)
Rudy talking out of his ass
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/giuliani.immigration.ap/index.html
Talk about making promises you can’t keep.
I used to like Rudy, but the more he panders, makes ridiculous claims and continues to run solely on 9/11 the less I like him.
Talk about making promises you can’t keep.
I used to like Rudy, but the more he panders, makes ridiculous claims and continues to run solely on 9/11 the less I like him.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
War with Turkey?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/23/turkey.kurds/index.html
If Turkey invades Iraq (Kurdistan), which was predicted 5 years ago, would the US have to defend Iraq against the invasion. Bush DID disband their army and obviously the Iraqi Army that exists today can’t even keep the country from descending into civil war and chaos (as all you Bushies and Neo-Cons continue to tell everyone is the reason we can’t leave), so it SURELY can’t defend itself against a foreign invasion by a well-armed neighbor.
Does America have to go to war with Turkey or does the US let the Iraqis and Kurds go it alone?
If Turkey invades Iraq (Kurdistan), which was predicted 5 years ago, would the US have to defend Iraq against the invasion. Bush DID disband their army and obviously the Iraqi Army that exists today can’t even keep the country from descending into civil war and chaos (as all you Bushies and Neo-Cons continue to tell everyone is the reason we can’t leave), so it SURELY can’t defend itself against a foreign invasion by a well-armed neighbor.
Does America have to go to war with Turkey or does the US let the Iraqis and Kurds go it alone?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Bush ruining "conservatism"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/10/23/conservatism/
Someone asked this question the other day, can’t remember who and it’s probably been said by others: Wouldn’t it be ironic if for all the efforts Bush made (and Bushies whole-heartedly supported) to make the American President above the law and beyond the reach of Congress’s oversight made Hilary Clinton the most powerful President in US history?
Just a thought.
Someone asked this question the other day, can’t remember who and it’s probably been said by others: Wouldn’t it be ironic if for all the efforts Bush made (and Bushies whole-heartedly supported) to make the American President above the law and beyond the reach of Congress’s oversight made Hilary Clinton the most powerful President in US history?
Just a thought.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
This is on Turkey...all of it
It’s well-established that Turkey tried to annihilate the Armenians in the early 20th Century, but Bush doesn’t even want America to acknowledge because of political reasons. Doesn’t that prove that EVERYTHING about his war is political? It’s a meaningless gesture by the Congress, but the WH still opposes it. Turkey opposes it b/c they don’t want to be seen as murderers even if the shoe fits.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21221278/
The proclamation is pretty useless, but for Turkey to be threatening to stop supporting the US in the Middle East is so lame. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
Also notice how Turkey is working to invade Kurdistan, just as I mentioned here about 5 years ago.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21221278/
The proclamation is pretty useless, but for Turkey to be threatening to stop supporting the US in the Middle East is so lame. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
Also notice how Turkey is working to invade Kurdistan, just as I mentioned here about 5 years ago.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21111931/
Of course Bush wouldn’t want to provide medical care for Children, he has to spend all that money trying to keep the Iraq war going until Jan 2009 so Bushies can blame the inevitable civil war on whoever follows him.
$30 Billion to make children healthy or three months of killing people in Iraq ... obvious Choice for the Compassionate Conservative.
And Bushies…no need to comment, we all know what you’re going to say. Something about Germany in 1939, keith hates America , I love children except if it costs me a nickel, yada yada yada.
Of course Bush wouldn’t want to provide medical care for Children, he has to spend all that money trying to keep the Iraq war going until Jan 2009 so Bushies can blame the inevitable civil war on whoever follows him.
$30 Billion to make children healthy or three months of killing people in Iraq ... obvious Choice for the Compassionate Conservative.
And Bushies…no need to comment, we all know what you’re going to say. Something about Germany in 1939, keith hates America , I love children except if it costs me a nickel, yada yada yada.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
"Baseless"? I don't think so
A baseless allegation would be me claiming that you kick puppies. Given what the Iraqi Government, Iraqi Police and Congress have shown to be evidence of what Blackwater has done, these allegations seem to have some “BASE”.
The CEO may dispute the allegations, but to say they are “baseless” is just crap.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21095964/
The CEO may dispute the allegations, but to say they are “baseless” is just crap.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21095964/
Friday, September 28, 2007
should Bush be helping?
Oh yeah, I forgot. They have the same problem as Sudan .
Sorry citizens, God didn’t bless you with natural resources the West needs, so you’re freedom and democracy is less important to us. (Oh yeah, I said it)
If we stand for democracy and freedom, shouldn’t Bush be doing something to help these people who are taking up arms against one of the most brutal regimes in the world? These people are fighting for their freedom right now, rising up will result in a certain death for them, shouldn’t America help?
Just asking…
Sorry citizens, God didn’t bless you with natural resources the West needs, so you’re freedom and democracy is less important to us. (Oh yeah, I said it)
If we stand for democracy and freedom, shouldn’t Bush be doing something to help these people who are taking up arms against one of the most brutal regimes in the world? These people are fighting for their freedom right now, rising up will result in a certain death for them, shouldn’t America help?
Just asking…
Rush hates soldiers
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Where is the President’s condemnation of Rush? He is actually attacking soldiers, attacking them. MoveOn.org attacked the political show man for the Bush war, while maybe not the right thing to do, let’s not pretend that Patreaus is anything but a Bush Spokesman now, as never before has a US Military leader been trotted out for such a dog and pony show. Anyway, this is about Rush attacking soldiers. Disgusting, but typical of all the Chicken Hawks.
Where is the President’s condemnation of Rush? He is actually attacking soldiers, attacking them. MoveOn.org attacked the political show man for the Bush war, while maybe not the right thing to do, let’s not pretend that Patreaus is anything but a Bush Spokesman now, as never before has a US Military leader been trotted out for such a dog and pony show. Anyway, this is about Rush attacking soldiers. Disgusting, but typical of all the Chicken Hawks.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The sham that is the "sanctity of marriage"
I was looking for an article that caught my eye when I was browsing some news site. Couldn't find it again, but I came across this story from June where the Vatican REVERSED the annulment of Joe Kennedy Jr.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/21/vatican_reverses_kennedy_ruling/
It's old news, but this goes to the sham that the sanctity of marriage (and all that tradition and Godly grace CB keeps putting on it) is. You can get married by the Church, then if you're rich and/or powerful enough you can get it "annulled", meaning it was flawed in some way and then they wipe the slate clean. Then they can change their minds again. Seems like if it was such a holy union human beings wouldn't be able to break it and unbreak it so easy, not to mention that such a sacred institution could be "flawed" in some way even with the sanction of the Church.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/21/vatican_reverses_kennedy_ruling/
It's old news, but this goes to the sham that the sanctity of marriage (and all that tradition and Godly grace CB keeps putting on it) is. You can get married by the Church, then if you're rich and/or powerful enough you can get it "annulled", meaning it was flawed in some way and then they wipe the slate clean. Then they can change their minds again. Seems like if it was such a holy union human beings wouldn't be able to break it and unbreak it so easy, not to mention that such a sacred institution could be "flawed" in some way even with the sanction of the Church.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Proof how little control the Iraqi government has over Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/21/blackwater/index.html
This goes to show how very little influence and control Iraq ’s so-called government has over Iraq . I'm sure Condi straightened them out after they tried to ban Blackwater. I'm sure she let them know who is REALLY calling the shots in Iraq and that those in "power" shouldn't delude themselves with thinking they are actually governing Iraq themselves. (not that a handpicked and approved slate of politicians "governing" a country that is being policed by the army of another country is really sovereign anyway)
This goes to show how very little influence and control Iraq ’s so-called government has over Iraq . I'm sure Condi straightened them out after they tried to ban Blackwater. I'm sure she let them know who is REALLY calling the shots in Iraq and that those in "power" shouldn't delude themselves with thinking they are actually governing Iraq themselves. (not that a handpicked and approved slate of politicians "governing" a country that is being policed by the army of another country is really sovereign anyway)
more of that Bush magic
For all of the bitching they do about “the media” not reporting good things, you have to seek out columns like this to understand the truth depth of their incompetence, arrogance and immorality.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20892483/site/newsweek/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20892483/site/newsweek/
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Chrisitian-Correctness...always more forceful than Poltical Correctness
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20888502/from/ET/
And before someone points out how under siege straight white Christians are (while their religious doctrine is being put into law all over this country) think about the following and tell me it’s not true. This country will elect a woman, an African America, a Muslim and maybe even a gay person to be President before it EVER elects an Athiest.
The irony of all of this is Griffin was pointing out (in her special way) the very Unchristian way that people ostentatiously thank Jesus for their Emmy, Grammy, Touchdown or Homerun.
As I’m sure you are well aware, the Bible is pretty clear on this ostentatious display of religion/faith:
Matthew 6:1-16
Concerning Almsgiving
6‘Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 ‘So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 3But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.*
Concerning Prayer
5 ‘And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.*
Concerning Fasting
16 ‘And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.*
And before someone points out how under siege straight white Christians are (while their religious doctrine is being put into law all over this country) think about the following and tell me it’s not true. This country will elect a woman, an African America, a Muslim and maybe even a gay person to be President before it EVER elects an Athiest.
The irony of all of this is Griffin was pointing out (in her special way) the very Unchristian way that people ostentatiously thank Jesus for their Emmy, Grammy, Touchdown or Homerun.
As I’m sure you are well aware, the Bible is pretty clear on this ostentatious display of religion/faith:
Matthew 6:1-16
Concerning Almsgiving
6‘Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 ‘So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 3But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.*
Concerning Prayer
5 ‘And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.*
Concerning Fasting
16 ‘And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.*
Monday, September 17, 2007
Now what?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.main/index.html
If Blackwater is banned from Iraq , how will Bush keep his troop counts low and more importantly since the death of Blackwater employees don’t count, keep his death toll of American soldiers lower?
If Blackwater is banned from Iraq , how will Bush keep his troop counts low and more importantly since the death of Blackwater employees don’t count, keep his death toll of American soldiers lower?
Friday, September 14, 2007
That MBA comes in handy ...again
I recall someone going on and on and on about how our President had that very valuable MBA from the Ivy League and how that would be put to good use. Well, once again Bush's administration fails the most basic requirements for running a business. (Although, borrowing extensively so you can spend more while causing a decrease in revenue is the most anti-business thing you can do, but fortunately he's done that too.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20780840/
And for those people that feel that welfare and social security are so rife with abuse and fraud, like the horrors of paying $1.65 to feed poor kids on the East Side of Seattle, I would think this mismanagement and failure to maintain the most basic of business fundamentals would be appalling.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20780840/
Ten years after Congress ordered federal agencies to have outside auditors
review their books, neither the Defense Department nor the newer Department of Homeland Security has met even basic accounting
requirements, leaving them vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse.
And for those people that feel that welfare and social security are so rife with abuse and fraud, like the horrors of paying $1.65 to feed poor kids on the East Side of Seattle, I would think this mismanagement and failure to maintain the most basic of business fundamentals would be appalling.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
"miracle" or science?
Bills TE Kevin Everett may very well walk again thanks to quick thinking doctors, the fact that the injury occurred with some fantastic Emergency Responders and trainers literally feet away and due to years of scientific research.
Now, Kevin's mom claims it could be a miracle and I don't begrudge her that. If her son walks again, she can claim whatever she wants.
But what I find most interesting (and ironic) is that the very same people who would claim that his possible recovery is the hand of God, are the very same people who will do everything they can to halt the very types of research that gave him the chance to walk again. Much of the research into spinal cord injuries has occurred in recent years and thanks to the work and focus of Christopher Reeves. A man who called for more money, more research including research into stem cells.
So, don't you find it ironic that those who would claim incredible advances in medical science as "miracles" are the very same people who are doing everything they can to stop medical science progress.
I for one would prefer to rely on medical science and not wait for the miracle if I'm ever in need of medical care. I'll accept any miracles that come my way, but it seems like a better bet to focus on medical research.
Now, Kevin's mom claims it could be a miracle and I don't begrudge her that. If her son walks again, she can claim whatever she wants.
But what I find most interesting (and ironic) is that the very same people who would claim that his possible recovery is the hand of God, are the very same people who will do everything they can to halt the very types of research that gave him the chance to walk again. Much of the research into spinal cord injuries has occurred in recent years and thanks to the work and focus of Christopher Reeves. A man who called for more money, more research including research into stem cells.
So, don't you find it ironic that those who would claim incredible advances in medical science as "miracles" are the very same people who are doing everything they can to stop medical science progress.
I for one would prefer to rely on medical science and not wait for the miracle if I'm ever in need of medical care. I'll accept any miracles that come my way, but it seems like a better bet to focus on medical research.
Friday, September 07, 2007
The GOP...restoring integrity every single day since 2001
This isn’t a big deal to me, but it just shows how just about every single day a member of the Republican Party that ran on “restoring integrity” is involved in some immoral, illegal, unethical behavior and that they can’t even follow even the lowest standard and that is to abide by House/Senate rules.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-wellersep07,1,83079.story?track=rss
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-wellersep07,1,83079.story?track=rss
Weller, a southwest suburban congressman with a fondness for Latin America, has
sunk a large share of his investment capital into a land development in
Nicaragua . But he didn't declare the extent of his holdings on his required
congressional disclosures, and he indicated dramatically different purchase
prices for the land in American and Nicaraguan
records.
…
What he didn't say was that, while he
publicly pushed CAFTA, Weller privately was pursuing his land development, some
2,000 miles away. The House approved the trade pact in July 2005 by only two
votes, 217-215.Besides not mentioning his Nicaraguan investments during the
CAFTA debate on the House floor, Weller did not give anywhere close to a
complete accounting of them in his required 2005 financial disclosure statement.
House ethics rules require representatives to disclose all property they own
except for their personal residences.
…
The
congressman listed only one Nicaraguan property purchase on his 2005 disclosure
form, but property records in Nicaragua show that he bought or sold at least
eight pieces of land.
…
For example, Weller's first disclosed
purchase in the coastal town of San Juan del Sur appeared on his 2002 financial
filing, listing a lot with a purchase price of between $50,001 and $100,000. But
in property records at the Registrar's office in Rivas, the department seat for
San Juan , Weller is reported paying 78,000 cordobas, or about $4,333, for
four-tenths of an acre in a transaction on Dec. 7, 2002.Records indicate that
Weller sold the same property in February 2005 for about $95,000. That sale does
not appear on Weller's 2005 House disclosure.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
SUBJECT: And all along I thought things in Iraq were not going so well.
My response to a friend's email:
SUBJECT: And all along I thought things in Iraq were not going so well.
Now I see how wrong I was.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Subject: RE: And all along I thought things in Iraq were not going so well.
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:31:51 -0700
FROM:
Well, you see. If you had your head up your butt, you might think things were going well. But those who actually look at the real situation may disagree with this assessment.
The best part of being him, is that he’s never proclaimed what “success” is in Iraq , so that he can just walk around one day and say “we’ve been successful” and call it a win. Even if global terrorism continues to rise, Iraqi’s have no government, no police, no army, no electricity, no water, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s are dead, there is a full scale civil war taking place, 3000 Americans are dead, the middle east is more unstable now than it has been since the 70s, Iran is now unchecked, bin Laden is still alive, the Taliban controls 90% of Afghanistan and the war that was going to cost America a few million dollars is going to cost a TRILLION.
For all we know, that may have been his definition of success, and therefore we ARE indeed “kicking ass”.
SUBJECT: And all along I thought things in Iraq were not going so well.
Now I see how wrong I was.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Subject: RE: And all along I thought things in Iraq were not going so well.
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:31:51 -0700
FROM:
Well, you see. If you had your head up your butt, you might think things were going well. But those who actually look at the real situation may disagree with this assessment.
The best part of being him, is that he’s never proclaimed what “success” is in Iraq , so that he can just walk around one day and say “we’ve been successful” and call it a win. Even if global terrorism continues to rise, Iraqi’s have no government, no police, no army, no electricity, no water, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s are dead, there is a full scale civil war taking place, 3000 Americans are dead, the middle east is more unstable now than it has been since the 70s, Iran is now unchecked, bin Laden is still alive, the Taliban controls 90% of Afghanistan and the war that was going to cost America a few million dollars is going to cost a TRILLION.
For all we know, that may have been his definition of success, and therefore we ARE indeed “kicking ass”.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Lobbyists and Puritans win...children lose
I’m sure this doesn’t surprise anyone, especially Bushies, who would fully support politics over science and lobbyists determining US policy even if it’s to the detriment of America ’s children. (the GOP’s concern for children only extends to election cycles)
The funny thing about this story (and it’s not really in the story, but we all know it’s there) is the GOP’s fear of a women’s naked breast is so overwhelming that they would prefer to ban breast feeding even though it’s better for children. Which is MOST ironic since this same faction that is so fearful of a breast are the same people who use “nature” to defend their hatred of gays. “It’s not natural” they will say about boys kissing, but as soon as a boob comes out, they turn into the Taliban to make sure no one sees a nipple. I’m pretty sure that Nestlé’s formula wasn’t mentioned in the Bible…
The funny thing about this story (and it’s not really in the story, but we all know it’s there) is the GOP’s fear of a women’s naked breast is so overwhelming that they would prefer to ban breast feeding even though it’s better for children. Which is MOST ironic since this same faction that is so fearful of a breast are the same people who use “nature” to defend their hatred of gays. “It’s not natural” they will say about boys kissing, but as soon as a boob comes out, they turn into the Taliban to make sure no one sees a nipple. I’m pretty sure that Nestlé’s formula wasn’t mentioned in the Bible…
I wonder why
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/31/craig.arrest/index.html
is the GOP abandoning him because of: ?
A) He might be gay
B) He appears to have solicited sex in a public restroom
C) He pleaded guilty to a charge he is innocent of without advice from a lawyer (which makes him dumb)
Just wondering. What is the Bushie take on this?
is the GOP abandoning him because of: ?
A) He might be gay
B) He appears to have solicited sex in a public restroom
C) He pleaded guilty to a charge he is innocent of without advice from a lawyer (which makes him dumb)
Just wondering. What is the Bushie take on this?
Monday, August 27, 2007
Some more of that GOP morality...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347/
I love how the Good Senator, who is a member of the most august body in our land, wasn’t smart enough not to plead guilty even though he was innocent. I think if you’re that dumb you shouldn’t be in the Senate.
Unbelievable.
I love how the Good Senator, who is a member of the most august body in our land, wasn’t smart enough not to plead guilty even though he was innocent. I think if you’re that dumb you shouldn’t be in the Senate.
Unbelievable.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Strange what the Bushie's new definition of "Victory" is
My Bushie friend saw a report today that claimed Baghdad was safer than it was a few months ago, you would have that it was V-J day from his cheering. So, I posed this to him....he of course ignored me pointing out his obvious low standard for victory here in 2007.
I said:
I said:
If I said to you 4 years ago that "In the summer of 2007, nearly 4000
America soldiers will be dead, Iraq as a whole will be near anarchy, there will
be NO oil flowing, no consistent electricity and water in Baghdad, we will spend
nearly a TRILLION dollars and there is no functioning government in Iraq AND the
US is willing to allow ANY form of government as long as Bush can say it’s
“secure enough”, global terrorism will be increasing, bin Laden will still
alive, the Taliban will control most of Afghanistan” You would have said
that was absurd and that we were idiots.
Now, you call that
victory.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Well this clear's up Rudy's contention...he was by no stretch at ground zero very much AT ALL
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/18/rudy_yankees/
Obviously, Rudy is running totally on 9/11, which is sickening to me. Because of most of the GOP he's probably the most likely to get any of my support.
Obviously, Rudy is running totally on 9/11, which is sickening to me. Because of most of the GOP he's probably the most likely to get any of my support.
Friday, July 20, 2007
"Conspiracy of Fools"
Currently reading "Conspiracy of Fools"
It sat on my shelf for a long time and I don't even remember buying it, but at over 700 pages it seemed too daunting. Anyway, I started it on my trip to Texas and it is really hard to put down. I think it's the somewhat annoying way the author tells the story, with various anecdotes of things that are happening concurrently. So, each little snippet may only be a half a page, maybe a whole page. Again, while annoying, its hard to stop reading it.
I am surprised to find myself less harsh of Kenny Lay (but some people have said the author is too easy on Lay). Although he was VERY guilty of failing in his fiduciary duty to stockholders (including employees) for being clueless, I'm much more convinced of the guilt of Fastow and Skilling, especially Fastow. That guy was sleezy. As for Arthur Anderson, I used to wonder if they took too much flack, but they weren't just negligent, they were co-conspirators in much of Fastow's schemes.
There were many people who tried to raise flags, but when the CFO is the criminal and has all the power, it's hard to stand up to that. But you have to wonder why NO ONE had the balls to do anything more substantial (maybe it was the rising stock price??)
It sat on my shelf for a long time and I don't even remember buying it, but at over 700 pages it seemed too daunting. Anyway, I started it on my trip to Texas and it is really hard to put down. I think it's the somewhat annoying way the author tells the story, with various anecdotes of things that are happening concurrently. So, each little snippet may only be a half a page, maybe a whole page. Again, while annoying, its hard to stop reading it.
I am surprised to find myself less harsh of Kenny Lay (but some people have said the author is too easy on Lay). Although he was VERY guilty of failing in his fiduciary duty to stockholders (including employees) for being clueless, I'm much more convinced of the guilt of Fastow and Skilling, especially Fastow. That guy was sleezy. As for Arthur Anderson, I used to wonder if they took too much flack, but they weren't just negligent, they were co-conspirators in much of Fastow's schemes.
There were many people who tried to raise flags, but when the CFO is the criminal and has all the power, it's hard to stand up to that. But you have to wonder why NO ONE had the balls to do anything more substantial (maybe it was the rising stock price??)
Does God Love America best?
I recieved this email today showing an American flag with what appears to be a cross in it created by sunlight. It stuck me a bit offensive that this email was saying that God Loves America more than others. Here is my response
Sorry, I had to speak up. This message seems to say that "God Loves America best". Which seems like a short-sighted and possibly a very unChristian thing to say.
Actually, this photo is quite believable and to be expected (see this article on the subject http://www.snopes.com/photos/patriotic/azflag.asp)
1- the cross is a symbol that was created by man to represent Christianity, although some Faiths don't celebrate the cross as much as others. (Not to mention the debate that has been going on in Christianity for 2000 years on what the 10 COmmandments say in regard to "Graven Images". (For an interesting look at just how much man has played a hand in the "Divine Word" read the 2nd commandment as it appears in various versions of the Bible, say King James vs. New Revised...). My point, would God show his existence to the world by tricks of fabric and sunlight? Would God show this in the form of a Cross (a man-made device)?
2- The more offensive part of this email, at least for Christians, should be...that God loves America best. Why would God show a particular allegiance to one country over another. Are Americans better than Canadians? Are Americans better than Italians? Are Americans better by virtue of the location of their birth??? These country affiliations are, again, man-made political boundaries. it would seem that God, having existed for all time, wouldn't have "a favorite team", especially one that has only been around 225 years. For an interesting read on God and Politics, here's a quote from the book of John:
Likewise, the Christian does not become involved in the affairs of earthly governments but represents the heavenly kingdom to them. He is in this world but is not of this world (John 17:16).
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:59 PM
To:
Subject: FW: FW: UNBELIEVABLE PHOTO!!!!!!!]
This is a beautiful photo of a giant American flag in Arizona The photo is authentic, UN-Touched and was taken on regular Kodak 35mm film. The person who took the picture couldn't believe the image created by the suns rays.
Nice of them to share it with the world!
Read what is says under the picture....
For those that prefer to think that God is not watching over us...go ahead and delete this.
For the rest of us...pass this on.
Sorry, I had to speak up. This message seems to say that "God Loves America best". Which seems like a short-sighted and possibly a very unChristian thing to say.
Actually, this photo is quite believable and to be expected (see this article on the subject http://www.snopes.com/photos/patriotic/azflag.asp)
1- the cross is a symbol that was created by man to represent Christianity, although some Faiths don't celebrate the cross as much as others. (Not to mention the debate that has been going on in Christianity for 2000 years on what the 10 COmmandments say in regard to "Graven Images". (For an interesting look at just how much man has played a hand in the "Divine Word" read the 2nd commandment as it appears in various versions of the Bible, say King James vs. New Revised...). My point, would God show his existence to the world by tricks of fabric and sunlight? Would God show this in the form of a Cross (a man-made device)?
2- The more offensive part of this email, at least for Christians, should be...that God loves America best. Why would God show a particular allegiance to one country over another. Are Americans better than Canadians? Are Americans better than Italians? Are Americans better by virtue of the location of their birth??? These country affiliations are, again, man-made political boundaries. it would seem that God, having existed for all time, wouldn't have "a favorite team", especially one that has only been around 225 years. For an interesting read on God and Politics, here's a quote from the book of John:
Likewise, the Christian does not become involved in the affairs of earthly governments but represents the heavenly kingdom to them. He is in this world but is not of this world (John 17:16).
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:59 PM
To:
Subject: FW: FW: UNBELIEVABLE PHOTO!!!!!!!]
This is a beautiful photo of a giant American flag in Arizona The photo is authentic, UN-Touched and was taken on regular Kodak 35mm film. The person who took the picture couldn't believe the image created by the suns rays.
Nice of them to share it with the world!
Read what is says under the picture....
For those that prefer to think that God is not watching over us...go ahead and delete this.
For the rest of us...pass this on.
More stuff that must stop
I've spoke of my disgust for people who can't say the word "Sandwich" without putting an "M" in the middle. (SAMWICH) but I've yet to discuss these two other gems.
1- STOP USING THE WORD "SURREAL" TO DESCRIBE EVERY GODDAMN LITTLE THING THAT IS A BIT STRANGE.
Every time some 3rd tier celebrity gets interviewed every thing in their life is "So Surreal". No! It's NOT!. Just b/c the time you walked into the Burger King and Lindsey Lohan was there doesn't make it "Surreal".
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9379935
"Surreal" - (Mid-20th century. Back-formation surrealism])>from Merriam Websterke
2 - WORLDWIDE BAN ON BANDS WITH NUMBERS IN THEIR NAMES.
The world has had enough. Using a number in your name is just lazy and it's beyond STUPID now. Blink 183, Maroon 5, Three Doors Down, Sum41, and on and on and on. STOP it. Get a real name like "Brian Jonestown Massacre" or hell, even "the Monkees".
1- STOP USING THE WORD "SURREAL" TO DESCRIBE EVERY GODDAMN LITTLE THING THAT IS A BIT STRANGE.
Every time some 3rd tier celebrity gets interviewed every thing in their life is "So Surreal". No! It's NOT!. Just b/c the time you walked into the Burger King and Lindsey Lohan was there doesn't make it "Surreal".
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9379935
"Surreal" - (Mid-20th century. Back-formation surrealism])>from Merriam Websterke
2 - WORLDWIDE BAN ON BANDS WITH NUMBERS IN THEIR NAMES.
The world has had enough. Using a number in your name is just lazy and it's beyond STUPID now. Blink 183, Maroon 5, Three Doors Down, Sum41, and on and on and on. STOP it. Get a real name like "Brian Jonestown Massacre" or hell, even "the Monkees".
The Worst Nightmare
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/20/bush.colonoscopy/
CHeney to run the world for 150 minutes...do you know how much damage a man that evil can do? WOW.
CHeney to run the world for 150 minutes...do you know how much damage a man that evil can do? WOW.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Comedy at the Texas Capital or "That's right, you're not from Texas"
Just returned from Austin and visiting my brother, but there was a little something that happened on our tour of the Capital Building that I must share with you.
We were walking around the building just taking in the history and when we went into the Senate Chamber we came upon a tour group. The guy leading the tour looked very Texas (whatever that means) , about mid 40s, dressed in a suit and quite authoritative on the building and Texas history. So, he going through his stuff about the Senate and then he points out the portraits on the wall. Sam Houston, Stephen F Austin, etc. various state senators. And he points out the HUGE painting of LBJ on the wall. Explains that LBJ is there b/c he was the only President who TRULY called Texas his home and he goes on and on. Finally, he says "you know there are 4 Presidents with ties to Texas, do you know who they are?" Someone says "LBJ and the Bushes". The guy says, "right...of course LBJ, who always called Texas home and was very proud of Texas. And the Bushes, but they were born and raised and educated in New England, not in Texas. They just have had homes here, that's why their portraits are not hung in this room".
DAMNNNNNNN
It was quite obvious that this guy, this expert on Texas and proud Texan was pointing out the fallacy the Bushes are "Texans". And when the guy leading the tour of the building where the former governor's portrait hangs points that out, it was PURE COMEDY. Delicious. I don't think it was a comment on either of their political legacies, it was just that they are not considered Texans by Texans.
btw- turns out Dwight Eisenhower was born in Texas, but moved to Kansas when he was there, so he ain't no Texan either.
We were walking around the building just taking in the history and when we went into the Senate Chamber we came upon a tour group. The guy leading the tour looked very Texas (whatever that means) , about mid 40s, dressed in a suit and quite authoritative on the building and Texas history. So, he going through his stuff about the Senate and then he points out the portraits on the wall. Sam Houston, Stephen F Austin, etc. various state senators. And he points out the HUGE painting of LBJ on the wall. Explains that LBJ is there b/c he was the only President who TRULY called Texas his home and he goes on and on. Finally, he says "you know there are 4 Presidents with ties to Texas, do you know who they are?" Someone says "LBJ and the Bushes". The guy says, "right...of course LBJ, who always called Texas home and was very proud of Texas. And the Bushes, but they were born and raised and educated in New England, not in Texas. They just have had homes here, that's why their portraits are not hung in this room".
DAMNNNNNNN
It was quite obvious that this guy, this expert on Texas and proud Texan was pointing out the fallacy the Bushes are "Texans". And when the guy leading the tour of the building where the former governor's portrait hangs points that out, it was PURE COMEDY. Delicious. I don't think it was a comment on either of their political legacies, it was just that they are not considered Texans by Texans.
btw- turns out Dwight Eisenhower was born in Texas, but moved to Kansas when he was there, so he ain't no Texan either.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
It's NOTHING like Clinton
While defending the President's latest lame and pathetic move, his buddies have trotted out the "Well, Clinton did it" excuse...which KILLS me b/c when Bush ran he was going to "repair the damage done to the Office by Clinton", but now he continually defends his actions by saying Clinton did the same thing.
That would just be funny if it weren't so incredibly irrelevant. Clinton's pardon of Rich was for Rich's crimes. the Libby affair still stems from the knowning outing of a secret agent of the CIA, I still say that's treason. and the fact that it came from the Executive branch should be grounds for everyone one of them going to prison, but I'll let that go. Libby committed a crime to further the political aims of the President and the President is letting him get away with it. All this bullshit about damage to reputation (how hard to you think it will be for Libby to get a job with some GOP thinktank????), the bullshit about the fine (he has over $5 million dollars in his defense fund)...so Libby suffers very little consequence. All for doing the President's bidding (well, actually Cheney's we all know ). It's not a stretch to see this all being part of the plan. Libby taking the fall with the pre-arranged deal that he'd NEVER do time.
I also understand that there is a good reason NOT to pardon him completely. from what I've heard Libby would lose his ability to use the 5th amendment b/c he could not incriminiate himself, or more importantly he COULD incriminate Bush, Cheney, et al. Disgusting.
ANd just for some context. EVeryone trots out Clinton's record on pardons...it's nearly IDENTICAL to Reagan's.
Once again, Bush proves he's the worst President we've ever had.
Thanks CNN:
Pardons and Commutations
George W. Bush (2001 - ) Pardons -- 13 Commutations -- 4
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) Pardons -- 396 Commutations -- 61
George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) Pardons -- 74 Commutations: 3
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) Pardons -- 393 Commutations -- 13
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) Pardons -- 534 Commutations -- 29
Gerald Ford (1974-1977) Pardons -- 382 Commutations -- 22
Richard Nixon (1969-1974) Pardons -- 863 Commutations -- 60
Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) Pardons -- 960 Commutations -- 226
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) Pardons -- 472 Commutations -- 100
Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961) Pardons -- 1,110 Commutations -- 47
Harry Truman (1945-1953) Pardons -- 1,913 Commutations -- 118
That would just be funny if it weren't so incredibly irrelevant. Clinton's pardon of Rich was for Rich's crimes. the Libby affair still stems from the knowning outing of a secret agent of the CIA, I still say that's treason. and the fact that it came from the Executive branch should be grounds for everyone one of them going to prison, but I'll let that go. Libby committed a crime to further the political aims of the President and the President is letting him get away with it. All this bullshit about damage to reputation (how hard to you think it will be for Libby to get a job with some GOP thinktank????), the bullshit about the fine (he has over $5 million dollars in his defense fund)...so Libby suffers very little consequence. All for doing the President's bidding (well, actually Cheney's we all know ). It's not a stretch to see this all being part of the plan. Libby taking the fall with the pre-arranged deal that he'd NEVER do time.
I also understand that there is a good reason NOT to pardon him completely. from what I've heard Libby would lose his ability to use the 5th amendment b/c he could not incriminiate himself, or more importantly he COULD incriminate Bush, Cheney, et al. Disgusting.
ANd just for some context. EVeryone trots out Clinton's record on pardons...it's nearly IDENTICAL to Reagan's.
Once again, Bush proves he's the worst President we've ever had.
Thanks CNN:
Pardons and Commutations
George W. Bush (2001 - ) Pardons -- 13 Commutations -- 4
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) Pardons -- 396 Commutations -- 61
George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) Pardons -- 74 Commutations: 3
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) Pardons -- 393 Commutations -- 13
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) Pardons -- 534 Commutations -- 29
Gerald Ford (1974-1977) Pardons -- 382 Commutations -- 22
Richard Nixon (1969-1974) Pardons -- 863 Commutations -- 60
Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) Pardons -- 960 Commutations -- 226
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) Pardons -- 472 Commutations -- 100
Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961) Pardons -- 1,110 Commutations -- 47
Harry Truman (1945-1953) Pardons -- 1,913 Commutations -- 118
Thursday, June 21, 2007
New White Stripes...best Zeppelin album since Physical Graffiti
Bought the new White Stripes CD yesterday. I like it well enough. Some songs I really like others...eh...
It does appear that Jack listened to A LOT of Zeppelin before laying this one down. If you've heard Icky Thump you know of what I speak. There are other songs that are very derivative of Zeppelin, even a song with Middle Eastern sounds. Much of the rest is straight up rock and roll.
I would say that this the best Zeppelin CD since Physical Graffiti, even better than Wolfmother's attempt at a Zeppelin CD, but they lose points for sounding a lot like AC/DC too.
It's probably the best rock album in a long time, it's just that Jack has a higher standard to live up to, so at this point after 2 listens, I'd give it a B+.
It does appear that Jack listened to A LOT of Zeppelin before laying this one down. If you've heard Icky Thump you know of what I speak. There are other songs that are very derivative of Zeppelin, even a song with Middle Eastern sounds. Much of the rest is straight up rock and roll.
I would say that this the best Zeppelin CD since Physical Graffiti, even better than Wolfmother's attempt at a Zeppelin CD, but they lose points for sounding a lot like AC/DC too.
It's probably the best rock album in a long time, it's just that Jack has a higher standard to live up to, so at this point after 2 listens, I'd give it a B+.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Why atheists are "better" people
I've been tossing this idea around in my head for a while, so here goes.
Virtue, it is said, is doing the right thing when NO ONE is looking.
Yet, many so-called "Christians" act in a decent way because they believe they will be rewarded for that behavior by entrance into Heaven. Isn't that the same as seeking a reward for your good behavior?
While atheists, the ones I know, are some of the most "christian" in their actions. They do unto others, etc. They live according to the Golden Rule. Not because they seek a reward in the afterlife, but because it's just the right thing to do. Doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing, not for gain.
Even if Pascal was correct with his wager, and you behave according to that thinking, atheists are still more "pure" in their actions.
Ironically, enough this occurred to me as I was putting a shopping cart back into the rack of carts at the entrance to a grocery store. I ALWAYS do that, yet as I walked back through the lot I saw dozens of carts left in the middle of the parking lot by those either too lazy or too selfish to walk 20 feet to put them into one of those cart corrals. Carts that will have to be rounded up by an employee, carts that will block parking spots, or dent other cars. Why do people feel so important that they are above fulfilling this little part of the Social Contract with their neighbors? Surely, this is a small, but telling, behavior amongst our fellow citizens.
I understand that people turn to God for all sorts of reasons. To fill emptiness in their lives. For comfort. To remove accountability for their own failures, to have someone to "blame" or to credit. But, I have such a difficult time believing that one religion has it "right". For these Bible thumpers to assume that by the chance of birth (being born into a Christian country as opposed to India or Japan) that they KNOW they have the correct understanding and version of God.
With "religion" existing in countless forms among all people and through time, whether is it Aboriginal Creation myths, Greek mythology, Islam, Jainism or Christianity. Through their existence humans have sought to seek understanding of what they do not know, "what causes thunder?". "How was the earth formed?" I have always found it fascinating that old religions are now called "Mythology" while current religion is gospel, but it seeks the answers to the same questions.
While a Christian finds it laughable that earth was created on the back of a tortoise, it's inconceivable that God did not create earth in 6 days. Genesis is just as likely to be right as the creation stories of Inuits or Buddhists, no? How arrogant is it for anyone to believe that they have the RIGHT version of God? Again, often just by the luck of the location of their birth or who their parents are.
Some people take the Bible as the literal word of God, but it wasn't written by God. it was written by men. and other men EDITED the book, left out whole sections. The people that are most upsetting are the ones who like to quote the Old Testament for justifying their hatreds while they completely ignore the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Christ (at least he should have for Christians) changed the game. the Bible went from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek", but the most zealous "Christians" are the ones least likely to follow the words of Christ.
That's what I call ironic.
Virtue, it is said, is doing the right thing when NO ONE is looking.
Yet, many so-called "Christians" act in a decent way because they believe they will be rewarded for that behavior by entrance into Heaven. Isn't that the same as seeking a reward for your good behavior?
While atheists, the ones I know, are some of the most "christian" in their actions. They do unto others, etc. They live according to the Golden Rule. Not because they seek a reward in the afterlife, but because it's just the right thing to do. Doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing, not for gain.
Even if Pascal was correct with his wager, and you behave according to that thinking, atheists are still more "pure" in their actions.
Ironically, enough this occurred to me as I was putting a shopping cart back into the rack of carts at the entrance to a grocery store. I ALWAYS do that, yet as I walked back through the lot I saw dozens of carts left in the middle of the parking lot by those either too lazy or too selfish to walk 20 feet to put them into one of those cart corrals. Carts that will have to be rounded up by an employee, carts that will block parking spots, or dent other cars. Why do people feel so important that they are above fulfilling this little part of the Social Contract with their neighbors? Surely, this is a small, but telling, behavior amongst our fellow citizens.
I understand that people turn to God for all sorts of reasons. To fill emptiness in their lives. For comfort. To remove accountability for their own failures, to have someone to "blame" or to credit. But, I have such a difficult time believing that one religion has it "right". For these Bible thumpers to assume that by the chance of birth (being born into a Christian country as opposed to India or Japan) that they KNOW they have the correct understanding and version of God.
With "religion" existing in countless forms among all people and through time, whether is it Aboriginal Creation myths, Greek mythology, Islam, Jainism or Christianity. Through their existence humans have sought to seek understanding of what they do not know, "what causes thunder?". "How was the earth formed?" I have always found it fascinating that old religions are now called "Mythology" while current religion is gospel, but it seeks the answers to the same questions.
While a Christian finds it laughable that earth was created on the back of a tortoise, it's inconceivable that God did not create earth in 6 days. Genesis is just as likely to be right as the creation stories of Inuits or Buddhists, no? How arrogant is it for anyone to believe that they have the RIGHT version of God? Again, often just by the luck of the location of their birth or who their parents are.
Some people take the Bible as the literal word of God, but it wasn't written by God. it was written by men. and other men EDITED the book, left out whole sections. The people that are most upsetting are the ones who like to quote the Old Testament for justifying their hatreds while they completely ignore the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Christ (at least he should have for Christians) changed the game. the Bible went from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek", but the most zealous "Christians" are the ones least likely to follow the words of Christ.
That's what I call ironic.
This pisses me off
Before I start...let's be clear. I am saddened that they have lost three children and I hope the other three live.
So, tragically, the third of six sextuplets has passed in MN, but the family is going to "continue to trust in the lord". Yet they didn't trust the lord enough to have him help them have a child. No, they turned to science and a science that created 6 babies. Something that God very rarely does on his own. So now that the family has lost half of their children they are going to put it on God?
You wonder why the parents decided to keep all 6 embroyos. I'm sure it was some religous conviction that wouldn't allow them to keep only a more reasonable number of embroyos and carry them to term with a MUCH greater chance of survival and success for the children.
I find it astounding that they will speak of this being in the Lord's hands when they used science to create a litter of children all of whom have a very slim chance of thriving. The human body was not meant to have litters, but science has enabled that. If God has anything to do with conception of every human being, why mess with his process if you're only going to turn to God as your children die.
"We continue to trust in the Lord and are hopeful for a good outcome for
Cadence, Lucia and Sylas," the statement said.
So, tragically, the third of six sextuplets has passed in MN, but the family is going to "continue to trust in the lord". Yet they didn't trust the lord enough to have him help them have a child. No, they turned to science and a science that created 6 babies. Something that God very rarely does on his own. So now that the family has lost half of their children they are going to put it on God?
You wonder why the parents decided to keep all 6 embroyos. I'm sure it was some religous conviction that wouldn't allow them to keep only a more reasonable number of embroyos and carry them to term with a MUCH greater chance of survival and success for the children.
I find it astounding that they will speak of this being in the Lord's hands when they used science to create a litter of children all of whom have a very slim chance of thriving. The human body was not meant to have litters, but science has enabled that. If God has anything to do with conception of every human being, why mess with his process if you're only going to turn to God as your children die.
One of two guys I can get behind
As a Libertarian, Ron Paul is an obvious choice. He says a lot of the things I believe. He'll never get elected or even taken seriously, but hopefully his principled ideas of limited government will get attention by both parties after 8 years of the most invasive, unprincipled, corrupt administration in 100 years, if not ever.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
I also like Richardson on the other side. If only for his fantastic resume. I don't know if there has been a person with such a varied and complete resume with the skills to run the country (Maybe John Quincy Adams?)
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/
He's been a Congressman, a Cabinet Secretary, UN Ambassador and Governor (or a border state) and if Immigration is going to be a big issue, a guy who grew up in Mexico City might be in the best position to understand the issue.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
I also like Richardson on the other side. If only for his fantastic resume. I don't know if there has been a person with such a varied and complete resume with the skills to run the country (Maybe John Quincy Adams?)
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/
He's been a Congressman, a Cabinet Secretary, UN Ambassador and Governor (or a border state) and if Immigration is going to be a big issue, a guy who grew up in Mexico City might be in the best position to understand the issue.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Re: Sopranos...shut up
I'm growing weary of all this belly-aching about the Soprano's finale. before I saw the last episode I had low expectations, mostly due to David Chase's own arrogant comments. Basically, he said (I paraphrase) "don't expect tidy endings, b/c life isn't full of tidy endings". So, I expected a finale with NO answers to anything and Chase sitting smugly at his home feeling all full of himself. But my immediate reaction to his comments leading up to the finale are this: "hey Dave, it's a TV show. it's not "life" or "real"". So, I expected some answers and the one that I decided I needed was "who lives: Tony or Phil?"...I got that answer ...repeatedly thru a combo of gun shots and SUV tires.
The last scene in the finale is genius. You've seen Tony making peace with his life both family life and "work" life. His looking off into the distance while raking the leaves showed that contentment. As they sit at the diner later, the family is all together. AJ has his shit together (although the fact that he got "all better" after watching his car go up in flames was one of the most unreal and lame course corrections in the history of the show). Meadow, while a poor parker has her shit together and TOny understands why she wants to go into law ...and maybe even defend Daddy once she passes the bar.
Carmela is fine. She has made her peace with the life she leads. She's had her chances to leave, and surely she has enough reasons, but she likes the nice cars, espresso makers and expensive watches that this life affords, she's going nowhere.
The guy in the Member's Only jacket going to the bathroom bring fantastic tension for anyone who knows The Godfather movies. It's an obvious shout out and there to make you think what could happen.
So, as the screen goes black does Tony look up to see Meadow walk in? Does he see a gun held at him by the guy coming out of the bathroom? Do those kids who walked in right before Meadow create some issue. It's all there, I was literally (and I NEVER use that term incorrectly) on the edge of recliner.
At first, I felt a little ripped off, but after an hour or so, I realized the genius of the ending. It was nearly the exact opposite of how "Six Feet Under" ended with it's litany of what happened to everyone over the next few decades by describing how they died. Chase went exactly the other way.
Your left thinking what you want to believe. If Tony lives on, does Paulie become his number two? Paulie who seemed to be the person most likely to be killed next for about the past 3 years, with his dealings with New York, the tension b/t he and Chris and basically his going bat-shit over the past year. Is this what Tony is left with? How can he hold on to power with such a young crew and no one left but Paul from the old school.
If he is dead, what happens to AJ? Remember how he wanted to avenge his father's shooting by going after Uncle Jun? AJ would surely end up in the family business, if only to avenge his father's death, but AJ too likes the comforts that life brings (remember his complete and instantaneous 180 about caring too much for the pain in the world to loving the new BMW dad bought????).
So many other things to consider, so many what ifs. A brilliant end, to a brilliant series. And a fitting end. It did not cheat fans, it gave enough answers, not all, but enough. Kudos Mr. Chase.
The last scene in the finale is genius. You've seen Tony making peace with his life both family life and "work" life. His looking off into the distance while raking the leaves showed that contentment. As they sit at the diner later, the family is all together. AJ has his shit together (although the fact that he got "all better" after watching his car go up in flames was one of the most unreal and lame course corrections in the history of the show). Meadow, while a poor parker has her shit together and TOny understands why she wants to go into law ...and maybe even defend Daddy once she passes the bar.
Carmela is fine. She has made her peace with the life she leads. She's had her chances to leave, and surely she has enough reasons, but she likes the nice cars, espresso makers and expensive watches that this life affords, she's going nowhere.
The guy in the Member's Only jacket going to the bathroom bring fantastic tension for anyone who knows The Godfather movies. It's an obvious shout out and there to make you think what could happen.
So, as the screen goes black does Tony look up to see Meadow walk in? Does he see a gun held at him by the guy coming out of the bathroom? Do those kids who walked in right before Meadow create some issue. It's all there, I was literally (and I NEVER use that term incorrectly) on the edge of recliner.
At first, I felt a little ripped off, but after an hour or so, I realized the genius of the ending. It was nearly the exact opposite of how "Six Feet Under" ended with it's litany of what happened to everyone over the next few decades by describing how they died. Chase went exactly the other way.
Your left thinking what you want to believe. If Tony lives on, does Paulie become his number two? Paulie who seemed to be the person most likely to be killed next for about the past 3 years, with his dealings with New York, the tension b/t he and Chris and basically his going bat-shit over the past year. Is this what Tony is left with? How can he hold on to power with such a young crew and no one left but Paul from the old school.
If he is dead, what happens to AJ? Remember how he wanted to avenge his father's shooting by going after Uncle Jun? AJ would surely end up in the family business, if only to avenge his father's death, but AJ too likes the comforts that life brings (remember his complete and instantaneous 180 about caring too much for the pain in the world to loving the new BMW dad bought????).
So many other things to consider, so many what ifs. A brilliant end, to a brilliant series. And a fitting end. It did not cheat fans, it gave enough answers, not all, but enough. Kudos Mr. Chase.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Bushie admits most of this is true
My Bushie friend sent this to me under the sub: line "I'm afraid a lot of this is true"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
I responded with:
I agree, especially b/c the Bush tactic of insulting, questioning the intelligence and patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them goes way back. Now that he’s insulting the GOP, you guys are noticing that this tactic is childish and offensive. Bush has NEVER debated or encouraged discussion of his positions. His position is you agree with me or you’re an idiot and unpatriotic. It’s been done by all the Bushies, but now that he’s doing it to you, Peggy and the other faithful are having an epiphany.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
I responded with:
I agree, especially b/c the Bush tactic of insulting, questioning the intelligence and patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them goes way back. Now that he’s insulting the GOP, you guys are noticing that this tactic is childish and offensive. Bush has NEVER debated or encouraged discussion of his positions. His position is you agree with me or you’re an idiot and unpatriotic. It’s been done by all the Bushies, but now that he’s doing it to you, Peggy and the other faithful are having an epiphany.
So much for being like the "Business World"
Republicans are always going on about how Government should be run like a business (Bush's INCREDIBLE deficits are ignored while they say this...SURPRISE)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18553053/
I can’t speak for your employers, but I’m pretty sure it’s the same way with regard to ethics. You can’t date a subordinate, and you sure as hell can’t bend the rules to get your significant other promotions out of cycle and raises beyond guidelines. That would get you fired at here in about 10 minutes. I’ve seen it happen twice.
Why shouldn’t the president of the World Bank be held to the same ethical standard as the majority of American businesspeople?
I know why, b/c the current administration is absent any sense of morality and ethics. Most of Washington is ethically challenged, but this WH is beyond compare especially since they ran on restoring integrity to the office.
Shameful
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18553053/
I can’t speak for your employers, but I’m pretty sure it’s the same way with regard to ethics. You can’t date a subordinate, and you sure as hell can’t bend the rules to get your significant other promotions out of cycle and raises beyond guidelines. That would get you fired at here in about 10 minutes. I’ve seen it happen twice.
Why shouldn’t the president of the World Bank be held to the same ethical standard as the majority of American businesspeople?
I know why, b/c the current administration is absent any sense of morality and ethics. Most of Washington is ethically challenged, but this WH is beyond compare especially since they ran on restoring integrity to the office.
Shameful
Friday, June 01, 2007
More shameful behavior (AND THE MEDIA IGNORES IT)
The behavior of a 2 bit dictator from the third world, not the President of the United States .
Just more of Bush bringing shame upon the Office. Just who is Dick Cheney meeting with? Will we find out the Abrahmoff has been there dozens of times?
It’s like they think we serve him, but he serves America …and you Bushies know damn well if this was a Democrat you’d be losing your shit right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/01/cheney.secrecy.ap/index.html
Just more of Bush bringing shame upon the Office. Just who is Dick Cheney meeting with? Will we find out the Abrahmoff has been there dozens of times?
It’s like they think we serve him, but he serves America …and you Bushies know damn well if this was a Democrat you’d be losing your shit right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/01/cheney.secrecy.ap/index.html
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Friday, May 04, 2007
Dark Age Candidates
Kansas Sen. Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raised their hands when moderator Chris Matthews asked who did not believe in evolution.
Was the follow up: “do you believe in Gravity?”
I would think any member of the Republican party who has an inkling of scientific knowledge (or who was educated beyond the 6th grade) and has moved beyond a world ruled by superstition and witchcraft would cringe at this.
I suppose that belief in biblical rationales for human existence would also preclude one from accepting a heliocentric universe as well, no? The bible is full of some of fantastic explanations, I’d like to know how these guys pick which ones are “true” and which ones are not?
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Bush Doctrine failure #346
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/
Iraq and Afghanistan the top terrorist targets... kinda makes it hard to say
the Bush is protecting their citizens when his foreign policy has caused more of
their deaths. But I already know that the Bushie will say he doesn’t care about
Iraqis…that is until he likes to point out that Saddam is gone and that Iraqi’s
are better off even if they are dying by the thousands every month and then he
says it doesn’t matter. That’s the tragically circular dance.
The data proves (again) what a miserable failure Bush is. Corruption, immorality and a less safe world….the Bush Legacy.
In its annual global survey of terrorism to be released later Monday, the
department says about 14,000 attacks took place in 2006, mainly in Iraq and
Afghanistan , claiming more than 20,000 lives. That is 3,000 more attacks
than in 2005 and 5,800 more deaths, it says.
Iraq and Afghanistan the top terrorist targets... kinda makes it hard to say
the Bush is protecting their citizens when his foreign policy has caused more of
their deaths. But I already know that the Bushie will say he doesn’t care about
Iraqis…that is until he likes to point out that Saddam is gone and that Iraqi’s
are better off even if they are dying by the thousands every month and then he
says it doesn’t matter. That’s the tragically circular dance.
The data proves (again) what a miserable failure Bush is. Corruption, immorality and a less safe world….the Bush Legacy.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Bushie immorality...you can't make this stuff up
Another week, another shameful revelation. If this was a book, no one would buy it b/c there is NO WAY one Administration could be this corrupt and amoral.
Another Bushie engaging in "immoral" (by their own standards), illegal and ridiculous behavior. Unbelievable how corrupt and amoral this group is.
it's a good thing they ran on restoring integrity to the WH. Can you imagine how bad it would be if they ran on something other than morality and integrity?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18359307/
Honestly, the amout of corruption, immorality and illegal behavior is astounding. It's behavior I wouldn't expect in anyone, but these people are supposed to be the best and brightest that the GOP has to offer. I guess that's what happens when you reward blind loyalty instead of actuallly choosing people based on merit and integrity.
I can't wait to hear howthe bushies approve of this or at least blames it on gay, immigrants, the poor, liberals, the media or people who actually have read a book in their lifetime.
Another Bushie engaging in "immoral" (by their own standards), illegal and ridiculous behavior. Unbelievable how corrupt and amoral this group is.
it's a good thing they ran on restoring integrity to the WH. Can you imagine how bad it would be if they ran on something other than morality and integrity?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18359307/
Honestly, the amout of corruption, immorality and illegal behavior is astounding. It's behavior I wouldn't expect in anyone, but these people are supposed to be the best and brightest that the GOP has to offer. I guess that's what happens when you reward blind loyalty instead of actuallly choosing people based on merit and integrity.
I can't wait to hear howthe bushies approve of this or at least blames it on gay, immigrants, the poor, liberals, the media or people who actually have read a book in their lifetime.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Business as usual for the Bushies
From CATO:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency on Monday defended how it awarded contracts to maintain trailers for hurricane victims, but Democratic
lawmakers said they'd press for further investigations," the Jackson
Clarion-Ledger reports. "In a report that will be made public later this week,
the inspector general found that FEMA gave many of the contracts to politically
connected firms -- including Shaw Inc. of BatonRouge. Shaw hired former FEMA
Director Joe Allbaugh, one of PresidentBush's friends, as its lobbyist."
Just another example of the Bushies turning other people's misery into financial windfall for themselves and friends. I would say "making lemonade out of lemons", but for this group a more appropriate saying would be "when life gives you lemons, the Bush WH will take your lemons(without a search warrant) and make lemonade under a no-bid contract and sell it back to the government at a 600% mark up."
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Response to a Bushie's email
My Bushie friend called me and someone out as a wimpy liberal and somehow those of us who oppose the Iraq war and more accurately it's horrifying mismanagement by this administration were responsible for Iran getting nukes:
My response:
The fact that you are 100% wrong (as usual) is becoming scary. If someone like you, with an advanced degree is so woefully uniformed about the world, how the hell can America compete let alone defend itself.
You're always talking about results (that is until we point out that Bush has produced zero results in nearly 7 years and we provide the data to prove it and then you start with the race baiting or name calling).
BUSH RESULT #1: The facts are...whatever problems you had with Clinton's plan, NorthKorea STOPPED making nukes. Then under Bush's watch NK made many ofthem, and launched a few missiles into the Sea of Japan. Finally, Bush did what you said he would never do and that was give NK some gasolinefor them to stop making nukes. His pissing contest not only didn't work, but it made the world less safe.
BUSH RESULT#2: Bush's folly into Iraq based on lies of WMD has "emboldened" Iran to the point that they not only make nukes at will, but are taking our allies sailors prisoner without concern. Bush has showed his hand and proven to the world that he is incompetent and impotent...so much so that a common thug like the President of Iran has NO concern that Bush can or will do anything while he makes nukes.
BUSH RESULT #3: Remember when Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul? Too bad he didn't realize the Putin is every bit a despot that Stalin was. Sure he's not killing millions, but Putin's pushing the line with stifling freedoms and basically rolling back every gain made by Gorbachov.
BUSH RESULT #4 The Taliban controls 95% of Afghanistan. Hezbollah and Hamas arerunning major parts of the middle east. Genocide in Sudan, terrorism upglobally, etc. You want to call people "mush heads"...you should look at your hero.
Worst president ever.
My response:
The fact that you are 100% wrong (as usual) is becoming scary. If someone like you, with an advanced degree is so woefully uniformed about the world, how the hell can America compete let alone defend itself.
You're always talking about results (that is until we point out that Bush has produced zero results in nearly 7 years and we provide the data to prove it and then you start with the race baiting or name calling).
BUSH RESULT #1: The facts are...whatever problems you had with Clinton's plan, NorthKorea STOPPED making nukes. Then under Bush's watch NK made many ofthem, and launched a few missiles into the Sea of Japan. Finally, Bush did what you said he would never do and that was give NK some gasolinefor them to stop making nukes. His pissing contest not only didn't work, but it made the world less safe.
BUSH RESULT#2: Bush's folly into Iraq based on lies of WMD has "emboldened" Iran to the point that they not only make nukes at will, but are taking our allies sailors prisoner without concern. Bush has showed his hand and proven to the world that he is incompetent and impotent...so much so that a common thug like the President of Iran has NO concern that Bush can or will do anything while he makes nukes.
BUSH RESULT #3: Remember when Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul? Too bad he didn't realize the Putin is every bit a despot that Stalin was. Sure he's not killing millions, but Putin's pushing the line with stifling freedoms and basically rolling back every gain made by Gorbachov.
BUSH RESULT #4 The Taliban controls 95% of Afghanistan. Hezbollah and Hamas arerunning major parts of the middle east. Genocide in Sudan, terrorism upglobally, etc. You want to call people "mush heads"...you should look at your hero.
Worst president ever.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
GOP Syndrome...lie about EVERYTHING
Sorry, hunting twice in sixty years does not make you a "hunter". I would imagine the people he's pandering to would clearly agree with myassessment.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/05/romney.hunting.ap/index.html
I used to fish when I was a kid...doesn't make me a fisherman. I'vealso played Lazer Tag 3 times, it doesn't make me a Laser Tager Guy. Oh yeah, I've raced go-carts on a track a few times, that doesn't make me Michael Schumacher.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/05/romney.hunting.ap/index.html
I used to fish when I was a kid...doesn't make me a fisherman. I'vealso played Lazer Tag 3 times, it doesn't make me a Laser Tager Guy. Oh yeah, I've raced go-carts on a track a few times, that doesn't make me Michael Schumacher.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The WH hates this...
Diplomacy again...
I can't wait to hear the Bushies talk about why Syria talking withIsrael about peace is a bad thing.
After all, Bush's little invasion of Iraq that was going to cause Democracy to flower in theMiddle East has worked out so damn well, why wouldn't invading Syria. This has got to kill the Bushies. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070404/ts_nm/syria_usa_pelosi_dc_10
I can't wait to hear the Bushies talk about why Syria talking withIsrael about peace is a bad thing.
After all, Bush's little invasion of Iraq that was going to cause Democracy to flower in theMiddle East has worked out so damn well, why wouldn't invading Syria. This has got to kill the Bushies. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070404/ts_nm/syria_usa_pelosi_dc_10
It just keeps getting better
Terror Watch: A fired U.S. attorney strikes back
The Justice Department called David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in
NewMexico, an 'absentee landlord'-a key reason listed for his firing
lastDecember. Just one problem: Iglesias, a captain in the Navy Reserve, was off
teaching classes as part of the war on terror. Now Iglesias is striking back,
arguing he was improperly dismissed.
WEB EXCLUSIVE By Michael Isikoff and Mark HosenballNewsweekUpdated: 12:26
p.m. MT
April 4, 2007April 4, 2007 - When he wasn't doing his day job as U.S.
attorney in NewMexico, David Iglesias was a captain in the Navy Reserve,
teachingforeign military officers about international terrorism.But Iglesias's
military service in support of what the Pentagon likes tocall the Global War on
Terror (GWOT) apparently didn't go down well withhis superiors at the Justice
Department. Recently released documentsshow that one reason aides to Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales cited injustifying the decision to fire Iglesias as U.S
attorney late last yearwas that he was an "absentee landlord" who was spending
too much timeaway from the office.That explanation may create new legal problems
for Gonzales and Justice.Iglesias confirmed to NEWSWEEK that he was recently
questioned bylawyers for the Office of Special Counsel, an independent
federalwatchdog agency, to determine if his dismissal was a violation of
theUniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), afederal
law that prohibits job discrimination against members of theU.S. military.At the
encouragement of Office of Special Counsel director Scott Blochand his deputies,
Iglesias said he is this week filing a formal legalcomplaint with OSC against
the Justice Department over his dismissal onthis and other grounds. (While the
Justice Department normallyprosecutes USERRA violations, the OSC, an independent
federal agencythat protects the rights of whistle-blowers, takes the case when
thepotential violator is the federal government itself.) "I want to makesure
they didn't fire me because of my military duty," Iglesias said."When I was away
from the office, it wasn't like I was going on vacationin Europe." (A Justice
Department spokesman did not respond for arequest for comment on whether
Iglesias's firing might have been aviolation of the law.)
Monday, March 26, 2007
Why the lies if they did nothing wrong?
Attorney’s do serve at the pleasure of the president…no argument there. But if there was nothing nefarious going on why did they lie about it?
1- “The attorney’s were fired for performance”. (Many had stellar reviews and Gonzales’s chief of staff has admitted that he NEVER saw performance evaluations of at least one of the attorney’s fired for “Performance” issues)
2- Gonzales said he didn’t know about the firings (In fact, he approved them)
If there is no story here, why all the lying? That is why they are in trouble with America. The lying. If the Attorney General is a liar with the full support of the President it makes it even clearer to Americans that the White House if full of liars.
1- “The attorney’s were fired for performance”. (Many had stellar reviews and Gonzales’s chief of staff has admitted that he NEVER saw performance evaluations of at least one of the attorney’s fired for “Performance” issues)
2- Gonzales said he didn’t know about the firings (In fact, he approved them)
If there is no story here, why all the lying? That is why they are in trouble with America. The lying. If the Attorney General is a liar with the full support of the President it makes it even clearer to Americans that the White House if full of liars.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Making them hate Democracy...good job
Here is some more data on the impacts of Bush's policy.
He's making them Hate Democracy: (well done GW)
A 43% plurality say democracy would be the best political system for Iraq, a marked decline in 16 months. In an ABC News survey beforeelections in 2005, 57% chose democracy.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-19-iraq-poll-day2_N.htm?csp=34
and more data:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-18-poll-cover_N.htm?csp=34
Face-to-face interviews with 2,212 Iraqis - a survey sponsored jointlyby USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD, a GermanTV network - find a nation that in large measure has fragmented intofear. Six in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going badly.
Only one-third expect things to improve in the next year...Even some of those whose sect suffered under Saddam recall that time fondly. "I miss those good old days," said Jasim Mahmood Rajab, 60, aShiite businessman. "I had my work and my social life, and now -nothing. I'm ready to pay everything I have to sit at Abo Nowas Streetand eat fish at night."Before the war, Abo Nowas Street, which runs along the Tigris River, was lined with outdoor cafes. They are shuttered now>"
"I always talk to other girls in the bank remembering our old days when we were going shopping, or even walking in the streets," Solaf MohamedAli said. "Now we speak about all those things like a nice dream that is hard to get."And the next generation? Shiites are the most optimistic that their children will have a betterlife than they have had; two-thirds express optimism about that. So do half of the Kurds polled. But seven of 10 Sunnis predict that their children's lives will be worse.The pessimism was universal among the Sunnis who live in Baghdad: 100%of those surveyed said their children would have a worse life than theyhave had.
He's making them Hate Democracy: (well done GW)
A 43% plurality say democracy would be the best political system for Iraq, a marked decline in 16 months. In an ABC News survey beforeelections in 2005, 57% chose democracy.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-19-iraq-poll-day2_N.htm?csp=34
and more data:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-18-poll-cover_N.htm?csp=34
Face-to-face interviews with 2,212 Iraqis - a survey sponsored jointlyby USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD, a GermanTV network - find a nation that in large measure has fragmented intofear. Six in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going badly.
Only one-third expect things to improve in the next year...Even some of those whose sect suffered under Saddam recall that time fondly. "I miss those good old days," said Jasim Mahmood Rajab, 60, aShiite businessman. "I had my work and my social life, and now -nothing. I'm ready to pay everything I have to sit at Abo Nowas Streetand eat fish at night."Before the war, Abo Nowas Street, which runs along the Tigris River, was lined with outdoor cafes. They are shuttered now>"
"I always talk to other girls in the bank remembering our old days when we were going shopping, or even walking in the streets," Solaf MohamedAli said. "Now we speak about all those things like a nice dream that is hard to get."And the next generation? Shiites are the most optimistic that their children will have a betterlife than they have had; two-thirds express optimism about that. So do half of the Kurds polled. But seven of 10 Sunnis predict that their children's lives will be worse.The pessimism was universal among the Sunnis who live in Baghdad: 100%of those surveyed said their children would have a worse life than theyhave had.
Lies Lies and more lies
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17702224/"
Sure, they'll talk but we need them to lie so we won't let them speakunder oath.
Disgusting.
The problem with their use of "executive privilege" is that they trot it out every time they do something illegal or immoral. Like, say the King of England would have in 1638, or some South American despot 50 years ago. The President is not above the law, he answers to the people and Congress when he's asked to. He should read the Constitution, or at least have someone read it too him. For all his spouting off about Democracy and ridding the world of dictators he spends a hell of lot of time acting like a dictator with a true disdain for the People's Checks on his power.
Sure, they'll talk but we need them to lie so we won't let them speakunder oath.
Disgusting.
The problem with their use of "executive privilege" is that they trot it out every time they do something illegal or immoral. Like, say the King of England would have in 1638, or some South American despot 50 years ago. The President is not above the law, he answers to the people and Congress when he's asked to. He should read the Constitution, or at least have someone read it too him. For all his spouting off about Democracy and ridding the world of dictators he spends a hell of lot of time acting like a dictator with a true disdain for the People's Checks on his power.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Under the Bus
It looks like they might be preparing for just that (under the bus). Alberto has been with the President a VERY long time, I don't think he does much with out talking to him (or at least Cheney), so to talk of this growing divide between them is hard to believe. More likely that he's just taking the blame.
Hey, remember when George Bush forget completely that he and Ken Lay were really good friends? "Ken Lay? Rings a bell, but not sure I know him". Or Jack Abramoff "He came to the WH once for a Hanukah party"So there is a pattern.
Hey, remember when George Bush forget completely that he and Ken Lay were really good friends? "Ken Lay? Rings a bell, but not sure I know him". Or Jack Abramoff "He came to the WH once for a Hanukah party"So there is a pattern.
Don't you feel safer?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/14/med.marijuana.ap/index.html
Our ports are unprotected, and yet our government wants to prosecute thedying for smoking weed. The puritanical drive behind this effort would make the Taliban proud. Thank god, the government is there to protect this dying woman from hurting herself.
Our ports are unprotected, and yet our government wants to prosecute thedying for smoking weed. The puritanical drive behind this effort would make the Taliban proud. Thank god, the government is there to protect this dying woman from hurting herself.
The problem with torture
The problem with torture is that people don't necessarily tell the truth, they say what you want to hear so the torture will stop (Interrogation 101).
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/14/guantanamo.mohammed/index.html
In addition to confessing to every terrorist plot of the past 15 years. Mohammed also confessed to the Kennedy Assassination, being the Zodiac killer and kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. He also confessed to being tangentially involved in the Lincoln Assassination by providing horses to Booth and others.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/14/guantanamo.mohammed/index.html
In addition to confessing to every terrorist plot of the past 15 years. Mohammed also confessed to the Kennedy Assassination, being the Zodiac killer and kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. He also confessed to being tangentially involved in the Lincoln Assassination by providing horses to Booth and others.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Bushie version of accountability
In the Bush WH all you have to do is say "I accept responsibility" and let your underlings go to prison, get fired, etc and somehow you'reaccountable.
"I'm accept full responsibility, which is why I've fired mysubordinate". Is a classic Bushie line.
Not only are they immoral and criminal, but they are cowards too.
Shameful:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/fired.attorneys/index.html
"I'm accept full responsibility, which is why I've fired mysubordinate". Is a classic Bushie line.
Not only are they immoral and criminal, but they are cowards too.
Shameful:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/fired.attorneys/index.html
Monday, March 12, 2007
Dick Cheney's future employer or Why does Halliburton hate America?
No bid contracts, war profiteering, shoddy work, endangering the lives of American Soldiers and NOW maybe trying to avoid paying taxes. Why does Halliburton hate America?
Another proud day for the Bush administration and it's personal money making machine. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17577926/
Another proud day for the Bush administration and it's personal money making machine. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17577926/
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Has there ever been a more amoral and corrupt administration?
Sure, Nixon was corrupt, but at least he did something good in foreign policy with China. Bush has done nothing postivie in any area. He didn't meet any of his promises to the people that elected him and his party is in shambles due to the corruption and immorality that he not only allowed but embraced and encouraged.
His will go down as the worst Presidency ever. It effects will be felt for years to come. I have NO DOUBT that Scooter Libby is not the last Bushie to be found guilty of crimes.
The corruption and depravity knows no bounds. It permeates this administration and he ran on "restoring integrity to the Office". He's nearly destroyed it.
His will go down as the worst Presidency ever. It effects will be felt for years to come. I have NO DOUBT that Scooter Libby is not the last Bushie to be found guilty of crimes.
The corruption and depravity knows no bounds. It permeates this administration and he ran on "restoring integrity to the Office". He's nearly destroyed it.
Hypocritical Bastards
Is there a single member of the GOP who isn't an adulterous hypocrite criminal?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17527506/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17527506/
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
YIKES
Cheney said the attackers were trying "to find ways to question the authority of
the central government."
Let me suggest, that if the Taliban can drive up to the entrance of a US Military installation, I’d say the central government is already in question. But we’ve been saying that for years. If Bush had only finished the job in Afghanistan, then our hand picked president might actually have some legitimacy outside of the capital. Not to mention, the Taliban must have had knowledge of where and when Cheney would be, that should be the scariest part of all. How would they get that information?
And to think, Afghanistan is the one that is going "well". --------------
Afghan blast kills 23; Taliban says Cheney targeted
By ALISA TANG The Associated Press BAGRAM, Afghanistan -- A suicide bomber
attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan today during
a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing up to 23 people and wounding
20.
Cheney was unhurt in the attack, which was claimed by the Taliban and was
the closest that militants have come to a top U.S. official visiting
Afghanistan. At least one U.S. soldier, an American contractor and a South
Korean solder were among the dead, NATO said.
Cheney said the attackers were
trying "to find ways to question the authority of the central government." A
Taliban spokesman said Cheney was the target.
About two hours after the
blast, Cheney left on a military flight for Kabul to meet with President Hamid
Karzai and other officials, then left Afghanistan.
The vice president had
spent the night at the sprawling Bagram Air Base, ate breakfast with the troops,
and met with Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, the commander of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan.
He was preparing to leave for a meeting with Karzai when the
suicide bomber struck about 10 a.m., sending up a plume of smoke visible by
reporters accompanying him. U.S. military officials declared a "red alert" at
the base.
"I heard a loud boom," Cheney told reporters. "The Secret Service
came in and told me there had been an attack on the main gate."
Thursday, February 15, 2007
They don't care about cheating
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17136318/
If NASCAR was serious about stopping cheating they wouldn't suspend crewchiefs they'd suspend drivers. You send Jeff Gordon home for cheatingat Daytona, people will take notice, especially the sponsors. Right now there is NO incentive not to cheat. I have no doubt that these crews can still change tiresand understand gas consumption without their chief trackside.
NASCAR's current actions make about as much sense as suspending theDefensive Line coach of San Diego for Shawne Merriman's steroid use...or maybe the team doctor.
If NASCAR was serious about stopping cheating they wouldn't suspend crewchiefs they'd suspend drivers. You send Jeff Gordon home for cheatingat Daytona, people will take notice, especially the sponsors. Right now there is NO incentive not to cheat. I have no doubt that these crews can still change tiresand understand gas consumption without their chief trackside.
NASCAR's current actions make about as much sense as suspending theDefensive Line coach of San Diego for Shawne Merriman's steroid use...or maybe the team doctor.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
This is a nice switch on the "I don't remember" defense to the "He don't remember" offense. The halls of Washington are supposed to be filled with the best minds in America, if not the world. Sure, many elected officials can't claimthat but for the people who work there it should be true. YET, everysingle time someone gets in trouble they "Can't remember anything".This isn't a partisan slam, b/c it works for both parties. As if beingan incompetent idiot is a defense for being corrupt.
When asked about this stuff, it's always "I don't recall". That's bullshit. I guarantee you that any one us could be questioned about infinitely more mundane matters and remember 95% better than any politico that ever gotinto trouble. Whether it's Reagan or Bush selling Arms to our enemies or Clinton getting some in the oval office. There is NO WAY those men get to power without having some intelligence, and memory would be at the most basic level.
No doubt when George Bush goes on trial for his crimes, he'll forget everything even though this guy supposedly can remember everysingle nickname he ever handed out.
New rule: if you use "I don't remember" as a defense for your corrupt actions, you should be deemed "mentally incompetent", removed from office and forever banned from working in any position of governmentalresponsibility.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17128427/
When asked about this stuff, it's always "I don't recall". That's bullshit. I guarantee you that any one us could be questioned about infinitely more mundane matters and remember 95% better than any politico that ever gotinto trouble. Whether it's Reagan or Bush selling Arms to our enemies or Clinton getting some in the oval office. There is NO WAY those men get to power without having some intelligence, and memory would be at the most basic level.
No doubt when George Bush goes on trial for his crimes, he'll forget everything even though this guy supposedly can remember everysingle nickname he ever handed out.
New rule: if you use "I don't remember" as a defense for your corrupt actions, you should be deemed "mentally incompetent", removed from office and forever banned from working in any position of governmentalresponsibility.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17128427/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Shins New CD ...disappoints (and it pains me to say it)
The fine people at SubPop were nice enough to send out the new Shins CD
a few days early and I got it yesterday (hits the streets today). So,
I've given it a listen and a half and maybe my expectations were too
high, but I'm disappointed. As you may know, I don't think bands
should necessarily "grow" or "move in new directions". If it ain't broke
don't fix it. It's a small group of bands that can change it up and pull it
off. (think Stones doing Country or the Beatles doing whatever they
want)
That said, the new CD has a few (2 or 3) songs with the "classic" Shins
sound; guitar-driven popiness with very abstruse lyrics. The ambiguous
lyrics are there, but the guitars are missing. At times it feels like
Beck broke into the Studio and added synthesizers. I also think (and I
mentioned this when the single was released) that James Mercer was
listening to a lot of Beach Boys, and I still think he did try to
channel Brian Wilson on a few tracks.
When "Chutes Too Narrow" came out, I didn't love that either, but it
grew on me. It's still no "Oh, Inverted World", but it's a great CD.
At this point "Wincing the Night Away" is not and it hurts me to say
that.
What will Zach Braff do?
a few days early and I got it yesterday (hits the streets today). So,
I've given it a listen and a half and maybe my expectations were too
high, but I'm disappointed. As you may know, I don't think bands
should necessarily "grow" or "move in new directions". If it ain't broke
don't fix it. It's a small group of bands that can change it up and pull it
off. (think Stones doing Country or the Beatles doing whatever they
want)
That said, the new CD has a few (2 or 3) songs with the "classic" Shins
sound; guitar-driven popiness with very abstruse lyrics. The ambiguous
lyrics are there, but the guitars are missing. At times it feels like
Beck broke into the Studio and added synthesizers. I also think (and I
mentioned this when the single was released) that James Mercer was
listening to a lot of Beach Boys, and I still think he did try to
channel Brian Wilson on a few tracks.
When "Chutes Too Narrow" came out, I didn't love that either, but it
grew on me. It's still no "Oh, Inverted World", but it's a great CD.
At this point "Wincing the Night Away" is not and it hurts me to say
that.
What will Zach Braff do?
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
New Shins CD
I pre-ordered my Shins CD months ago directly from SubPop. Have you? When I ordered it I also order two CD singles. Oh James, why so long b/t CDs?
Also, the past week...I can't get enough of The New Pornographers "Twin Cinema". I liked it when I bought it, but I have seriously listened to that CD a dozen times all the way through in the past week and it is pure brilliance.
Also, the past week...I can't get enough of The New Pornographers "Twin Cinema". I liked it when I bought it, but I have seriously listened to that CD a dozen times all the way through in the past week and it is pure brilliance.
Some more of that ""Bush is doing everything he can to protect America"
"Bush is doing everything he can to protect America" (that's how the Bushies always explain when they are imprisoning Americans while ignoring the COnstitution)
OR
"Just following in Daddy's footsteps by selling arms to our enemy, Iran."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648850/
OR
"Just following in Daddy's footsteps by selling arms to our enemy, Iran."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648850/
Will Bush use this to invade Syria
Are these the Weapons that my Bushie friend has been talking about for four years?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16655063/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16655063/
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Which Romney?
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/10/video_of_liberal_mitt_romney_quotes_surfaces
I'm confused. Which Romney do you like?
I'm confused. Which Romney do you like?
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
The "unchanging institution of marriage"
A Bushie friend got his shorts in a bundle over gays in the military. When I asked him why he chose to put America in danger b/c boys kissing made him feel icky, he got onto gay Marriage (a tactic he's no doubt learned from watching America's most dangerous idiot, Sean Hannity, on a loop). That thread had started when the article about retired General Shalikashvili wrote in the NY Times that he felt gays should serve openly in the military.
_______________
In response to his claim that Marriage was an institution that was thousands of years old and was "the basis for our civilization and culture".
My response:
Again, Marriage wasn’t the topic, so I’ll just assume you put your “icky feelings” about gays above the safety of America.
With that established, you need to do some research on marriage. The concept of “civil” marriage is relatively new. Marriage as a religious sacrament is quite older, so if you’re supporting a Libertarian solution that states should completely get out of the civil marriage game, they’ll be glad to have you.
Additionally, since you’ve brought up “thousands of years” you’ve opened up this debate to the globe (since the United States did not exist thousands of years ago). What about other parts of marriage, polygamy, arranged marriage, daughters sold into marriage and assorted other practices that have existed as “marriage” for thousands of years, do you also support those for the mere sake of nostalgia? That seems to be your argument. “Because we did it that way, that’s the way we should continue to do it” That is your position, no? Fortunately, most of the world doesn’t hold on to things b/c that’s how we’ve always done it. If so, we’d still be riding horses and reading by candlelight.
I don’t even need to get into the dissolution of marriage and how that has changed.
As for your belief (wrong as usual) that the “institution of marriage” is this unchanging bedrock here’s just a few points to challenge your mind:
1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
1848 - Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
1854 - The Republican party referred in its platform to polygamy as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (in addition to slavery). At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons. See plural marriage.
1862 - The United States Congress enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln, which made bigamy a felony in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
1874 - Congress passed the Poland Act, which transferred jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah, which were not controlled by Mormons.
1879 - The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States
1882 - Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which prohibited not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allowed polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
1890 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto.
1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
1904 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy again, excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
1907 - All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
1920 - Right of women to vote.
1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
1976 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
1996 - President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
2004 - Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage.
_______________
In response to his claim that Marriage was an institution that was thousands of years old and was "the basis for our civilization and culture".
My response:
Again, Marriage wasn’t the topic, so I’ll just assume you put your “icky feelings” about gays above the safety of America.
With that established, you need to do some research on marriage. The concept of “civil” marriage is relatively new. Marriage as a religious sacrament is quite older, so if you’re supporting a Libertarian solution that states should completely get out of the civil marriage game, they’ll be glad to have you.
Additionally, since you’ve brought up “thousands of years” you’ve opened up this debate to the globe (since the United States did not exist thousands of years ago). What about other parts of marriage, polygamy, arranged marriage, daughters sold into marriage and assorted other practices that have existed as “marriage” for thousands of years, do you also support those for the mere sake of nostalgia? That seems to be your argument. “Because we did it that way, that’s the way we should continue to do it” That is your position, no? Fortunately, most of the world doesn’t hold on to things b/c that’s how we’ve always done it. If so, we’d still be riding horses and reading by candlelight.
I don’t even need to get into the dissolution of marriage and how that has changed.
As for your belief (wrong as usual) that the “institution of marriage” is this unchanging bedrock here’s just a few points to challenge your mind:
1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
1848 - Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
1854 - The Republican party referred in its platform to polygamy as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (in addition to slavery). At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons. See plural marriage.
1862 - The United States Congress enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln, which made bigamy a felony in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
1874 - Congress passed the Poland Act, which transferred jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah, which were not controlled by Mormons.
1879 - The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States
1882 - Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which prohibited not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allowed polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
1890 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto.
1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
1904 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy again, excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
1907 - All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
1920 - Right of women to vote.
1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
1976 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
1996 - President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
2004 - Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)