Friday, August 05, 2005
Really? Why?
I'm reading today the Bush Administration supports the European (Germany, England, France) proposal promissing Iran nuclear technology to make fuel as long as they don't use the technology for weapons.
This may sound really familiar, like the Clinton plan with North Korea, and that's because it's the same damn thing. Yet Republicans hated that plan because afterall, it was the Clinton Plan. The Bush Plan for North Korea is a lot different: it don't be existing.
There aren't many options when it comes to nuclear states like Iran, and the only deal you can really work out is one based on a promise. The Bush White House says it agrees with this plan, although they differ on some of the details. Of course, they won't tell us which details, and I'll tell you why.
First off, they support it because like I said, there's really no other options.
Second, they can't again go against the Europeans publicly because our relations are pretty damn poor as is.
Third, their poll numbers are down all around, and they have to for once be seen as a group of people who can actually get along with allies.
Finally, they support the plan because it's the same plan they'd throw out there, except the Iranians would negotiate a lot tougher with us because we are us. But it's better for the Bush White House to support the plan, and offer no details, then it is to offer a plan and get nothing done.
Agreeing with the European plan allows conservatives around the country to watch the plan, and criticize it when it fails. Then they can say it wasn't their plan. During the failure phase people like Cheney will fall back on, "Well, there were always parts that we didn't agree with, but for the sake of...blah blah blah I'm a dumb fuck..." If succesful, they can say they agreed with the plan, which is why they supported it in the first place.
They'll take all the credit, place all the blame, and allow their talking head idiots to do the same.
Good times, America. Good times.
This may sound really familiar, like the Clinton plan with North Korea, and that's because it's the same damn thing. Yet Republicans hated that plan because afterall, it was the Clinton Plan. The Bush Plan for North Korea is a lot different: it don't be existing.
There aren't many options when it comes to nuclear states like Iran, and the only deal you can really work out is one based on a promise. The Bush White House says it agrees with this plan, although they differ on some of the details. Of course, they won't tell us which details, and I'll tell you why.
First off, they support it because like I said, there's really no other options.
Second, they can't again go against the Europeans publicly because our relations are pretty damn poor as is.
Third, their poll numbers are down all around, and they have to for once be seen as a group of people who can actually get along with allies.
Finally, they support the plan because it's the same plan they'd throw out there, except the Iranians would negotiate a lot tougher with us because we are us. But it's better for the Bush White House to support the plan, and offer no details, then it is to offer a plan and get nothing done.
Agreeing with the European plan allows conservatives around the country to watch the plan, and criticize it when it fails. Then they can say it wasn't their plan. During the failure phase people like Cheney will fall back on, "Well, there were always parts that we didn't agree with, but for the sake of...blah blah blah I'm a dumb fuck..." If succesful, they can say they agreed with the plan, which is why they supported it in the first place.
They'll take all the credit, place all the blame, and allow their talking head idiots to do the same.
Good times, America. Good times.
Intelligent Design?
As conservatives continue to frame the debate, and the media runs with it, we continue to suffer.
"Intelligent Design" is creatonism. Nothing more, nothing less.
But for argument's sake, lets say there was an "Intelligent Designer", wouldn't he be gay?
No, seriously though, why would the "Intelligent Designer" create such a moron like President Bush, and then have him attempt to lead the world through its toughest times? Not too intelligent, right?
Why does the "Intelligent Designer" hate America?
"Intelligent Design" is creatonism. Nothing more, nothing less.
But for argument's sake, lets say there was an "Intelligent Designer", wouldn't he be gay?
No, seriously though, why would the "Intelligent Designer" create such a moron like President Bush, and then have him attempt to lead the world through its toughest times? Not too intelligent, right?
Why does the "Intelligent Designer" hate America?
Bolton
Narm Charmsky asked me why I hadn't commented on the Bolton recess appointment. Well, what's their to say? That the President continues to misuse power?
The receess appointment is supposed to be used when Congress cannot, or will not act on a nomination. Congress was willing to act on the nomination, but the Bush White House would not release pertinent material with regard to the nominee's record. It is the White House that was unwilling to act.
So that's the game now: they don't release information, and then make recess appointments when nothing is done? Love this country. FREEDOM!
I've heard commentators say President Clinton made over 100 recess appointments. Most of those appointments, as well as most of Bushes, were legitimate recess appointments, or at least not sneaky, underhanded appointments like Bolton's.
When President Clinton appointed Bill Lann Lee Assistant Attorney General on Civil Rights, a position that isn't even relevant to many Republicans, they opposed his nomination on grounds that his take on affirmative action was against the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.
The Senate Judiciary Committee never even brought his name up for a vote, and claimed they had the right to not do so.
The big difference between Bolton and Lee, obviously, is nothing about Lee was hidden. Lee was supposedly rejected only after he spoke to the Committee. They formed an opinion about him on the spot. It was all in the open.
With Republicans, these thigns are done behind closed doors, with talking points handed out on the spot. Forget the voice of the people being heard in the Republican Party. They don't even want Senators to have a voice, and the ones that do, like a Chuck Hagel, or a John McCain, well, they got on the TV because they're actually willing to speak their minds.
Imagine that, a Senator, willing to speak his/her mind? What's this world coming to?
The receess appointment is supposed to be used when Congress cannot, or will not act on a nomination. Congress was willing to act on the nomination, but the Bush White House would not release pertinent material with regard to the nominee's record. It is the White House that was unwilling to act.
So that's the game now: they don't release information, and then make recess appointments when nothing is done? Love this country. FREEDOM!
I've heard commentators say President Clinton made over 100 recess appointments. Most of those appointments, as well as most of Bushes, were legitimate recess appointments, or at least not sneaky, underhanded appointments like Bolton's.
When President Clinton appointed Bill Lann Lee Assistant Attorney General on Civil Rights, a position that isn't even relevant to many Republicans, they opposed his nomination on grounds that his take on affirmative action was against the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.
The Senate Judiciary Committee never even brought his name up for a vote, and claimed they had the right to not do so.
The big difference between Bolton and Lee, obviously, is nothing about Lee was hidden. Lee was supposedly rejected only after he spoke to the Committee. They formed an opinion about him on the spot. It was all in the open.
With Republicans, these thigns are done behind closed doors, with talking points handed out on the spot. Forget the voice of the people being heard in the Republican Party. They don't even want Senators to have a voice, and the ones that do, like a Chuck Hagel, or a John McCain, well, they got on the TV because they're actually willing to speak their minds.
Imagine that, a Senator, willing to speak his/her mind? What's this world coming to?
Can This Guy Get Some Camera Time?
Congressman Pete Stark during a Buzzflash.com interview:
BuzzFlash: When you go back to your district in California, what do you hear about the Iraq War?You know if Ted Kennedy said it you'd hear about it for a decade.
Congressman Stark: In my district, I would guess 80% would oppose it, and 60 or 70% would say let's get out now. They would say: Bush, you lied to us when we were going in. Why don't you lie to the Iraqis and leave? They see no reason to stay in there. They see it does nothing to fight terrorism, for heaven sake's.
But 18,000 people a year die from lack of health insurance. Lack of health insurance causes them to be unable to get the medical care that could save them, according to the National Institute of Health. The billions of dollars that we're spending in Iraq could have bought one whole hell of a lot of medical care for those 18,000 Americans who died last year. That's a kind of terrorism I know I could prevent tomorrow.
I can't see that the President has prevented any terrorism. I think he's increased it, from everything we can see in Iraq. I have to thank the troops who put up with this idiot Commander-in-Chief that we have. But that's what you do in the military – you obey orders.
Don't Buy It
Not that I'm up for challenging Islamic Terrorism, but I don't buy this comment at all:
When people think about Islamic Terrorism they think about the World Trade Center. The terrorists were lucky on 9/11. Pulling off an operation as grand as that one is extremenly unlikely. They themselves were incredibly surprised the building fell down. Had they not fallen the damage would have been so much less, especially psychologically. For them to accomplish something even close to the pyschological damage they did on 9/11 seems very unlikely.
In the minds of many because of 9/11's result we tend to give the fanatics a lot more credit than they deserve. Sure, they took advantage of us at a seemingly peaceful time, but they were as lucky as they were good.
He also issued a warning for the United States. "Our message is clear -- what you saw in New York and Washington (in 2001) and what you are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq, all these are nothing compared to what you will see next," said Al Qaeda's number 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahir.For all I know extremists have figured out how to make a nuclear weapon. I find it highly doubtful, and more like impossible. The US Intel Community, for all its flaws, does do a good job of keeping track of all nukes.
When people think about Islamic Terrorism they think about the World Trade Center. The terrorists were lucky on 9/11. Pulling off an operation as grand as that one is extremenly unlikely. They themselves were incredibly surprised the building fell down. Had they not fallen the damage would have been so much less, especially psychologically. For them to accomplish something even close to the pyschological damage they did on 9/11 seems very unlikely.
In the minds of many because of 9/11's result we tend to give the fanatics a lot more credit than they deserve. Sure, they took advantage of us at a seemingly peaceful time, but they were as lucky as they were good.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Never
Did I think I'd be praying for William Rehnquist to remain an active judge, but that's the case.
Hey, Look Who Agrees
I love the conservatives who agree with me, but only when the issue directly affects their own lives.
And the Defense
WILL he shutup already? No, he won't. George Will's defense of Frist, different than mine, and idiotic:
Wait, but there's more:
Now on Clinton. Big difference between liberals and independents versus conservatives. We don't all goose-step behind our leader. There are times when we even disagree with our leaders. In fact, for Democrats it happens all the time. You know why? Because many of us are not automatons like the Bush followers. We think. We recognize facts, science, and things of that nature.
Clinton may have been wrong about stem cells, but he also wasn't working with a pliable Congress. I'm not going to excuse his actions for signing budgets that had limited stem cell financing. But I know he sure wasn't going to hold up the government over the issue. Bush, on the other hand, has Congress, and we see what road he has chosen.
Like the credit I've given Frist, the same can be said for Clinton, with regard to changing his stance on stem cells. However, stem cell research is now a much bigger part of the public discussion, and the science is seemingly more advanced than it was under Clinton's reign. I'm sure he would make the right choice today.
Conservatives certainly call Clinton's stance a flip-flop (ignoring all the other political ramifications of the budget) because they love simple little phrases that couch things nice and neet for Fox News.
Like I've said before, if John Kerry went to bed hungry, and in the morning woke up starving, conservatives would demand that he starve himself to death. For if he doesn't, he's a flip-flopper.
(not editing)
The president's firm policy -- he vows to veto House-passed legislation that would alter it -- is that the federal government will not fund research that involves the destruction of any embryo, so federal funding should support research only on the 78 stem cell lines that existed when he formulated his policy in August 2001. At that time Frist, who before then had proposed a moderately more permissive policy, accepted the president's policy.As if this wasn't being said during the debate the first time? Actually, I think it was, but like everything else, the conservatives know best. For they are all of our parents. Whether it's war, taxes, stem cells, they're always wrong. Oh, but they'll come around, and make excuses like Goerge Will does, as if the issue of how many lines were available was never mentioned.
Now, however, Frist says that only 22 stem cell lines, of uncertain and declining quality, remain eligible for federal funding. So he endorses the House legislation that would expand federal funding of research. But it would encompass only cells from surplus embryos that have been created in vitro and frozen for couples who, having completed their fertility enhancement, donate them for research. These embryos would otherwise remain frozen or be destroyed.
Wait, but there's more:
Beginning in 1996, under President Bill Clinton, federal law said that no funds could be used for any research involving the destruction of a human embryo. And last week Frist noted that four years ago he said Congress should "ban embryo creation for research" and should provide funding for stem cell research only from embryos "that would otherwise be discarded" -- his position now.First on Frist. He may have said that, but he sure as hell didn't vote that. Lots of people say lots of things. In fact, our President says lots of things, and then doesn't do them. In fact, I remember a story, from about, oh, I don't know, a month ago, when the President changed what he said about a certain advisor being fired from the White House. Then he changed what he said.
Now on Clinton. Big difference between liberals and independents versus conservatives. We don't all goose-step behind our leader. There are times when we even disagree with our leaders. In fact, for Democrats it happens all the time. You know why? Because many of us are not automatons like the Bush followers. We think. We recognize facts, science, and things of that nature.
Clinton may have been wrong about stem cells, but he also wasn't working with a pliable Congress. I'm not going to excuse his actions for signing budgets that had limited stem cell financing. But I know he sure wasn't going to hold up the government over the issue. Bush, on the other hand, has Congress, and we see what road he has chosen.
Like the credit I've given Frist, the same can be said for Clinton, with regard to changing his stance on stem cells. However, stem cell research is now a much bigger part of the public discussion, and the science is seemingly more advanced than it was under Clinton's reign. I'm sure he would make the right choice today.
Conservatives certainly call Clinton's stance a flip-flop (ignoring all the other political ramifications of the budget) because they love simple little phrases that couch things nice and neet for Fox News.
Like I've said before, if John Kerry went to bed hungry, and in the morning woke up starving, conservatives would demand that he starve himself to death. For if he doesn't, he's a flip-flopper.
(not editing)
That's Entertainment! (And Frist)
Found this piece of news from Entertainment Weekly to be very interesting(Yes, I read it):
Violence like this is somehow better than a nipple.
The supposed conservative outrage (I say supposed because I'm speaking about their leadership, who really never accomplish anything for their conservative constituents with regard to moral and value issues) only creates a backlash against what they're supposedly fighting for.
When conservatives get uppity about nudity, the networks, media, and entertainment industries will just find another way to shock their audiences. Where conservatives run into a wall, but what also helps them push on with the hope something will be done, is with regard to actual laws.
The FCC, especially with radio, has only a few rules you cannot cross. Consitutionally, broadcasters can get away with a lot more than they try to. Most of them try to keep it close to the vest to avoid lawsuits, but truth is, no lawsuit against Howard Stern's references, or Janet's nipple is really going to hold up in court, which is exactly the reason conservatives in government don't want to do anything about it.
It is true that a Supreme Court case against a FCC rule would probably favor a broadcaster like Stern, in my opinion. If this were to happen conservatives would be worked up in a tizzy, railing harder against Supreme Court Justices they didn't elect. However, they would also realize their elected officials cannot really do anything for them. Therefore, it's better to keep the issues alive, festering, than have them be settled.
Back to the shows themselves. It's really ridiculous the violence either shown, or assumed on these programs. It's over the top. I don't watch them, and that's my right, which really should decide whether or not they're shown, especially for conservatives. These numbnuts praise the marketplace at all times, defending it every which way possible, but not when it comes to entertainment. Then there has to be a law about this thing, that thing, or the other thing. Hate government they do, but love the laws they want (and love the money Blue States send them).
I would never suggest putting limits on network television programs that do not cross a graphic, violent, or verbal line, but I also don't have to watch them. I agree that pressuring the networks to avoid sexuality has resulted in more shows taking license to show violence, and use harsher language. They have to find a way to make their shows different; on the edge.
Of course, the conservatives will eventually freak out about the violence and language too, and one day the FCC will be defending themselves in court. FCC rules, and the conservatives' desires, will both be swept aside, and the backlash will only make the conservatives crazier. Eventually, this will actually weaken the Republican party, which is currently having in its heyday.
Normal, rationale, real republicans, good or bad, who support things like limited government intrusion, and limited spending, will start to acknowledge (they already realize) how crazy a major part of their party really is, and the sides will split.
Obviously the country has shifted right, but I also believe the conservatives are going to fracture the Republican party bigtime in the not-too-distant future, especially if another Republican were to win the Presidency in '08.
----
Digressing.
The other day I commented about Senator/Doctor/Tool Bill Frist shifting to the right on the stem cell issue since it's obvious he is going to be running for President. I also made a similar point about George Pataki's shift with regard to the "morning after" pill.
I realized last night that Pataki is clearly the bigger jackass then Frist, even though Frist is more closely identified with Bush, and Pataki is clearly seen as more the moderate.
Before we go further I want to say I think they're both huge tools who will do or say anything to further their careers. Frist was once a Democrat, but then jumped at the chance to run as a Republican (similar to Bloomberg, but obviously different), and Pataki will take the endorsement of Howard Stern, pariah of the right, to get elected. Again, both tools of someone, or something.
Pataki's stance on the pill is just flat out weak. Here's a guy who is supposedly pro-choice, but when it comes to the least intrusive, and yet responsible method of birth control, he chooses the path which would make it harder for whose need the pill to get it. That's a real asshole for you. There was no reason for this stance, except to lean to the right for the sake of votes.
Frist, on the other hand, who has moved against President Bush on stem cells, is shifting to the left, so maybe I'm slightly more sympathetic based on that alone. I think there's something more to it though.
Certainly, Frist is a jackass for having signed along with Bush the first time, but you have to appreciate it on some level when a guy/gal moves to the "right" position, regardless of the reason. I'm sure Frist's reason to move right in the first place was political, and to come back it sorta is as well, but the issue that actually brings him back is an issue he truly believes in: science that benefits mankind.
Again, I can kill Frist for being such a douchebag the first go round, but since he's moving back to the stance he never should've left, I have to give him the slight benefit of the doubt for doing so. Whether or not he'll shift on a billion other issues remains to be seen. I'm sure he will. He's one of them, but when it comes down to it, Frist is as much like a Blue Stater as he is a Red Stater.
Red Staters hate elite Ivy League education, professionals like doctors, scientists, and professors, and just science in general. Frist is a doctor, who understands science, etc. Before I write this guy off as one of the bigger douchebags around, I'm going to have to give him a bit more time.
I repeat, I believe in a Republican party splitting away from hardcore conservatives at some point, and this could be a bit of the beginning of such things. It could also be wishful thinking.
What's behind the surge in female abuse? Much as we hate to bring up that whole Janet Jackson incident, Sconce thinks her little nipple infraction played a part. ''Since the American broadcasting system has more restrictions against sexuality, you can get away more with amplifying violence than you can with amplifying sexuality. It results in this weird sadistic element. Putting women in these sexual situations is a backdoor way of getting more flesh in.''Guess what Network is running this show? Yeah, Fox.
Violence therefore becomes one place where the broadcast networks can compete with cable. And it's hard to imagine cable topping the following: When the aforementioned spiders crawl across a sleeping woman's legs and face in the opening of Killer Instinct, the camera lingers on the fangs sinking into her flesh. Turns out she's the victim of a sadist who paralyzes his prey with the poisonous bites, then rapes them as they slowly die. (When the detectives determine this, they helpfully explain that there's an ''absence of vaginal trauma'' because ''she couldn't tense her muscles.'' Thanks for the details.)
Violence like this is somehow better than a nipple.
The supposed conservative outrage (I say supposed because I'm speaking about their leadership, who really never accomplish anything for their conservative constituents with regard to moral and value issues) only creates a backlash against what they're supposedly fighting for.
When conservatives get uppity about nudity, the networks, media, and entertainment industries will just find another way to shock their audiences. Where conservatives run into a wall, but what also helps them push on with the hope something will be done, is with regard to actual laws.
The FCC, especially with radio, has only a few rules you cannot cross. Consitutionally, broadcasters can get away with a lot more than they try to. Most of them try to keep it close to the vest to avoid lawsuits, but truth is, no lawsuit against Howard Stern's references, or Janet's nipple is really going to hold up in court, which is exactly the reason conservatives in government don't want to do anything about it.
It is true that a Supreme Court case against a FCC rule would probably favor a broadcaster like Stern, in my opinion. If this were to happen conservatives would be worked up in a tizzy, railing harder against Supreme Court Justices they didn't elect. However, they would also realize their elected officials cannot really do anything for them. Therefore, it's better to keep the issues alive, festering, than have them be settled.
Back to the shows themselves. It's really ridiculous the violence either shown, or assumed on these programs. It's over the top. I don't watch them, and that's my right, which really should decide whether or not they're shown, especially for conservatives. These numbnuts praise the marketplace at all times, defending it every which way possible, but not when it comes to entertainment. Then there has to be a law about this thing, that thing, or the other thing. Hate government they do, but love the laws they want (and love the money Blue States send them).
I would never suggest putting limits on network television programs that do not cross a graphic, violent, or verbal line, but I also don't have to watch them. I agree that pressuring the networks to avoid sexuality has resulted in more shows taking license to show violence, and use harsher language. They have to find a way to make their shows different; on the edge.
Of course, the conservatives will eventually freak out about the violence and language too, and one day the FCC will be defending themselves in court. FCC rules, and the conservatives' desires, will both be swept aside, and the backlash will only make the conservatives crazier. Eventually, this will actually weaken the Republican party, which is currently having in its heyday.
Normal, rationale, real republicans, good or bad, who support things like limited government intrusion, and limited spending, will start to acknowledge (they already realize) how crazy a major part of their party really is, and the sides will split.
Obviously the country has shifted right, but I also believe the conservatives are going to fracture the Republican party bigtime in the not-too-distant future, especially if another Republican were to win the Presidency in '08.
----
Digressing.
The other day I commented about Senator/Doctor/Tool Bill Frist shifting to the right on the stem cell issue since it's obvious he is going to be running for President. I also made a similar point about George Pataki's shift with regard to the "morning after" pill.
I realized last night that Pataki is clearly the bigger jackass then Frist, even though Frist is more closely identified with Bush, and Pataki is clearly seen as more the moderate.
Before we go further I want to say I think they're both huge tools who will do or say anything to further their careers. Frist was once a Democrat, but then jumped at the chance to run as a Republican (similar to Bloomberg, but obviously different), and Pataki will take the endorsement of Howard Stern, pariah of the right, to get elected. Again, both tools of someone, or something.
Pataki's stance on the pill is just flat out weak. Here's a guy who is supposedly pro-choice, but when it comes to the least intrusive, and yet responsible method of birth control, he chooses the path which would make it harder for whose need the pill to get it. That's a real asshole for you. There was no reason for this stance, except to lean to the right for the sake of votes.
Frist, on the other hand, who has moved against President Bush on stem cells, is shifting to the left, so maybe I'm slightly more sympathetic based on that alone. I think there's something more to it though.
Certainly, Frist is a jackass for having signed along with Bush the first time, but you have to appreciate it on some level when a guy/gal moves to the "right" position, regardless of the reason. I'm sure Frist's reason to move right in the first place was political, and to come back it sorta is as well, but the issue that actually brings him back is an issue he truly believes in: science that benefits mankind.
Again, I can kill Frist for being such a douchebag the first go round, but since he's moving back to the stance he never should've left, I have to give him the slight benefit of the doubt for doing so. Whether or not he'll shift on a billion other issues remains to be seen. I'm sure he will. He's one of them, but when it comes down to it, Frist is as much like a Blue Stater as he is a Red Stater.
Red Staters hate elite Ivy League education, professionals like doctors, scientists, and professors, and just science in general. Frist is a doctor, who understands science, etc. Before I write this guy off as one of the bigger douchebags around, I'm going to have to give him a bit more time.
I repeat, I believe in a Republican party splitting away from hardcore conservatives at some point, and this could be a bit of the beginning of such things. It could also be wishful thinking.
Slow Down...
Are you trying to tell me that Roberts' firm had a case, and he helped them try to win it? What a guy!
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.He's a real man's man.
Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.
Gay rights activists at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important legal victory. The dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Roberts' work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.
There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf.
Class
Not that Rush Limbaugh has any, but it's amazing he even has an audience:
Here's the convo (btw, I believe many of Limbaugh's callers are liars and plants, so who even knows. Afterall, they don't mind fake letters on behalf of the soldiers, so why not fake calls?)
It's ridiculous enough when conservatives attack anyone with a degree as being part of the "intellectual elite", but now it seems the only military personal worth their salt are those who choose to kill people on the battlefield. Anyone who joins the military and does anything but become a battlefield soldier is worthless, I guess.
Afterall, there haven't been any diplomats killed in Iraq, right? There haven't been any civilians killed in Iraq, right? Or reporters, right? And the "Green Zone", a place I can only assume military affairs people would be, is never under attack, right? Riiiiiiiight.
Long story short, he was educated, which is the selling point of the military, and walked around Iraq without a weapon. Plus he's white. Seems pretty safe, right?
Limbaugh went all out against Hackett today, including calling him a "staff puke" because he served as a civil affairs officer.
Midway in the third hour, Limbaugh was talking to an active duty Navy officer from Houston and asked what "civilian" affairs officers do. The Navy guy said they are liaison with the local authorities.
"So he wasn't in combat," the anal-pimple chickenhawk asked.
The Navy guy said yes, then Limbaugh said Hackett was just a "staff puke," several times.
Made me want to puke all over the steering wheel.
Here's the convo (btw, I believe many of Limbaugh's callers are liars and plants, so who even knows. Afterall, they don't mind fake letters on behalf of the soldiers, so why not fake calls?)
RUSH: Clark in Houston, you're next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush. It's an absolute pleasure and honor to speak with you today.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Well, as an active duty Navy lieutenant, I've had the opportunity to work side by side with many Marines, and I tell you if all this is true, this is about as inconsistent as you can get with the ideals that are upheld by the Marine Corps, and I'd like to hear from anyone that has served with this guy to see what kind of Marine he was.
RUSH: Well, that I don't know. The only thing I've heard is that he was in the -- well, let me find it. He was in the Civilian Affairs Unit, and this is a Washington Post story (it says here) from July 30th. "A lawyer and a major in the Marine reserves, Hackett volunteered last year to serve in Iraq and spent seven months there in the civilian affairs job, including service around Ramadi and Fallujah. He returned to Ohio in March, decided to jump into the race for Portman's seat, seeking to become the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress." So he volunteered to serve, spent seven months in a civilian affairs job. What is that, since you're -- did you say you're a Marine?
CALLER: I'm in the Navy, sir, Navy lieutenant.
RUSH: Navy. What is a civilian affairs job? You tell me.
CALLER: Civilian affairs is just basically a public affairs job where they interact with the civilian authorities from a military perspective. It's a military liaison, if you will.
RUSH: Oh, it's a military liaison. Is it a combat position or not?
CALLER: Negative. It is not a combat position.
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: I just can't get over how... You know, Marines from day one, whether reserves or active duty, are taught to uphold the ideals of honor and courage and commitment, and not to mention the way he was so disrespectful to someone who was very recently his commander-in-chief.
RUSH: You mean by calling him an SOB?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Well, he's out now. He can do whatever he wants.
CALLER: "Once a Marine, always a Marine." Isn't that what they say? That doesn't mean all those things that you learned... Those things are supposed to stay with you and it doesn't seem like -- he either never had them in the first place or he's not being true and have any integrity like you've already mentioned.
RUSH: Okay, call him a staff puke if that's what you want, but civilian affairs, staff puke. Bottom line is he's running a fraudulent, deceptive campaign, and the Democrats are saying this is a bellwether election. We've got two instances of huge fraud being perpetrated here, and I'm bound and determined they're not going to get away with this, whether the guy wins or not, they're not going to get away with mis-portraying the results of this when the whole campaign has been one of total fraud and lying and deceit, fooling people.
It's ridiculous enough when conservatives attack anyone with a degree as being part of the "intellectual elite", but now it seems the only military personal worth their salt are those who choose to kill people on the battlefield. Anyone who joins the military and does anything but become a battlefield soldier is worthless, I guess.
Afterall, there haven't been any diplomats killed in Iraq, right? There haven't been any civilians killed in Iraq, right? Or reporters, right? And the "Green Zone", a place I can only assume military affairs people would be, is never under attack, right? Riiiiiiiight.
Long story short, he was educated, which is the selling point of the military, and walked around Iraq without a weapon. Plus he's white. Seems pretty safe, right?
Ouch
Great while it lasted. Glad it never became overplayed. There's almost something refreshing about this:
Time to face the facts: Dave Chappelle's hit Comedy Central series isn't coming back, says one of its stars.
" 'Chappelle's Show' is over, man. Done," comic Charlie Murphy told TV Guide. "It took me a long time to be able to say those words, but I can say it pretty easy now, because it's the truth."
Chappelle's sudden "spiritual retreat" to South Africa on the eve of his show's third season has left the series in limbo since May. About half of a new season had been filmed before Chappelle left, Murphy said.
"I'm disappointed it ended the way it did, but I'm not angry with anybody," he said. " 'Chappelle's Show' was like the Tupac of TV shows. It came out, it got everybody's attention, it was a bright shining star, but it burned out and for some strange reason, it burned out quick."
Comedy Central has always said the door is open for Chappelle to return, spokeswoman Aileen Budow said Wednesday.
Mr. President!!! Mr. President!!!
"Yes, Bob."
"Mr. President, with your hands, do you think it's possible to show us how big of a jackass you are?"
Seriously, on a scale of 1-10, how much do you think Bush hates Jews? 10 being Nazi, 1 being a member of the ACLU, and 4 being NAACP. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
"Mr. President, with your hands, do you think it's possible to show us how big of a jackass you are?"
Seriously, on a scale of 1-10, how much do you think Bush hates Jews? 10 being Nazi, 1 being a member of the ACLU, and 4 being NAACP. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Love Him
I love how ESPN tries to frame the Terrell Owens situation in the worst light possible. They did a little piece on Tuesday night going around the city, and parts of Southern Jersey, asking local folk what they thought of TV. The fans were mixed, but the loudest, and most pronounced fans were the local laborers who were not likely to support a guy who doesn't "work hard" like the local Philly guy.
Blah blah blah blah.
Ever been to an Eagles game? Ever seen or heard their fans? Seriously, the biggest scumbags in all of sports. I'm sure when they leave the stadium they're fine people, but 9 cans of Coors Light and a flask later these people should be wrapped in Glad bags and tossed over the top of the stadium.
At old Veteran's Stadium Eagles fans used to spit on people wearing oppossing teams' jerseys. Two Giants fans I know were standing next to a car which was not their own, and the Eagles fans FLIPPED IT OVER! Yes, that's right, they FLIPPED THE CAR OVER AFTER THE GIANTS WON!
Is this what Eagles fans do at work?
I think Terrell Owens is completely in the right for doing what he has done. He's in camp, practicing, preparing for the upcoming season. He has taken his case to the fans and the media because on its face, he's in the right. He deserves to get paid more money, and that is that. Sure, he makes millions, but relative to every other player in the league, he works harder than any I've seen, and should be paid that way.
There's not a worker in Philly who wouldn't demand more money, regardless of contract, to be paid more if they were far and away the best at what they did.
Blah blah blah blah.
Ever been to an Eagles game? Ever seen or heard their fans? Seriously, the biggest scumbags in all of sports. I'm sure when they leave the stadium they're fine people, but 9 cans of Coors Light and a flask later these people should be wrapped in Glad bags and tossed over the top of the stadium.
At old Veteran's Stadium Eagles fans used to spit on people wearing oppossing teams' jerseys. Two Giants fans I know were standing next to a car which was not their own, and the Eagles fans FLIPPED IT OVER! Yes, that's right, they FLIPPED THE CAR OVER AFTER THE GIANTS WON!
Is this what Eagles fans do at work?
I think Terrell Owens is completely in the right for doing what he has done. He's in camp, practicing, preparing for the upcoming season. He has taken his case to the fans and the media because on its face, he's in the right. He deserves to get paid more money, and that is that. Sure, he makes millions, but relative to every other player in the league, he works harder than any I've seen, and should be paid that way.
There's not a worker in Philly who wouldn't demand more money, regardless of contract, to be paid more if they were far and away the best at what they did.
WOW WOW WOW!
Honestly, in my life I never thought I'd read and Op/Ed from a supposedly serious paper like the Wall Street Journal as retarded as this one, and of course it comes from the Queen of All Things Retarded, Peggy Noonan. Are you kidding me, bitch?
I have so much I want to say, but it's really just pointless. I will say her effort to portray West Virginia as some counter to the Northeast is typical of every conservative from David Brooks to Peggy Noonan to the more backward talk radio hosts across the country. However, I'm not sure any sound as ridiculous as Noonan, a woman famous for being wrong about almost everything.
The only strange thing about all of this, which she fails to mention, is how both US Senators are Democrats, as is Governor Joe Manchin.
This entire fluff/bullshit piece is intended to show how West Viriginia has certain "values" we here in the Northeast don't have, but she fails to point out who these value voters elect. Strange. Or, not strange, considering she's as big a bullshitter there is. Looking at it this way, Noonan may be correct in pointing out what a goldmine the state actually is.
Truth be told, West Virginians must be smarter than their brethren (the implied red states), as assumed by Noonan, since they know who butters their daily bread. They vote for the federal dollars that keep coming in from the Northeast, as opposed to voting against their self-interest by electing some lying, god-fearing jackass, who will cut the state's funding (not that Rockefeller is a prize). West Virginia is 4th in Federal Spending, where as neighbor Pennsylvania is 27th, and Ohio 31st. Of course, Virginia is 8th, being so close to DC. New Jersey, obvious home to the world's elitist, is dead last: 50th. So maybe the people of West Virginia are really damn smart. But this isn't about them at all.
This is about a stupid "bitch" who doesn't have a clue.
For the record, the "church-state thing" is the ACLU's, not America's.
Oh, and be glad America was able to create a man like John Henry...via SLAVERY!
I could go on all day, as could anyone who reads this joke. I just want to know who the target audience is. I know the WSJ is the biggest collection of bullshit push papers, but seriously, even they can do better.
Almost Heaven
A visit to West Virginia.
BY PEGGY NOONAN
Thursday, August 4, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
It's summer, the country's traveling, and the great pleasure to be had from leaving home is meeting and falling in love with a place you've never been to. I end that sentence with a preposition to segue into my favorite story this summer of cultural tensions and differences as navigated by two American women. A Southern lady sees a vacationing society lady from the Northeast. The Southern lady is gregarious: "Where y'all from?" Society lady is put off: "I'm from a place where they don't end sentences with a preposition." Southern lady smiles, nods her head: "Beg your pardon. Where y'all from, bitch?"
It's fun to see cultures collide, because that's one of the ways you know they still exist. America continues to be full of differentness, in spite of the samening effect of national media. (I made up samening. It refers to the tendency of different, small and localized pockets of culture to take on the ways and values of national culture as it is imposed by television, music and movies.)
Local survives. Particular and distinctive survive. Especially in West Virginia.
I have just been there for the first time, and it is a jewel of a state. It is like an emerald you dig from a hill with your hands.
You know when you've passed into it from the east because suddenly things look more dramatic. You get the impression you're in a real place. All around you are mountains and hills and gullies, gulches and streams. The woods wherever I went were thick and deep. From Morgantown to Ballengee a squirrel can jump from tree to tree. It is a tall state--the hills, trees and mountains--and shadowy-dark, with winding roads, except for where it's broad and beige and full of highway, courtesy of Robert Byrd. The highways are perfect looking, unstained by wear and tear, and not many people seem to use them.
There are little churches in every town, where the highest thing is the steeples, and road signs with exhortations to follow Jesus, and big crosses made of white wood on the side of the road. The ACLU would do well not to come here and do their church-state thing. Three hours into our drive west, a police car drove by, and someone mentioned that was the first one he'd seen since we crossed the state line. Someone else said, approvingly, "Everyone keeps a gun in West Virginia. Crime is low." Later I would be told it has the lowest violent crime per capita in the United States. It is very nice, when traveling, to see your beliefs and assumptions statistically borne out.
Few people I met seemed interested in politics. I got the impression they see is as something dull and faraway, as a normal person would. I was in the southwest corner of the state, in the Fayetteville area of Fayette County, named for the Marquis de Lafayette. When I asked a man tending the grass in front of the statue of Lafayette on the courthouse lawn why they left the "La" off, he said he didn't know but "maybe it was a little lah dee dah." West Virginia has a town named Artie and a town named Bud.
When you are from the Northeast, the talk always goes inevitably to the niceness of the people. "They're real," as a new resident of Charleston, the state capital, told me. People are nice in the Northeast, too, but there seems a particular dignity and humility to West Virginians. Because it has been left so alone by history, so hard to get to and get out of, West Virginia's people seem to be largely what they were, of Scots-Irish descent, and have remained vividly so.
After a week I told a longtime resident of Charleston that the people I was meeting were kind and easygoing, but something tells me you don't want to get them mad. "You are correct," she said. She was a tall and gallant lady who was a veteran of state politics. She told me of a meeting years ago when she went to a high official with the United Mine Workers to ask him for support as she ran for office. She was a Democrat and supported the UMW but had reservations about large parts of its recent agenda. The UMW official told her, "I know you are better educated than I am, and I am willing to believe you are smarter than I am, but I am not willing to believe that I am wrong about everything and you are right about everything." (does anyone believe this actually happened? - weinish) She said she got thinking about that and concluded he had a point. He didn't support her. She won anyway.
We went to a little old coal-mining town, where we visited what used to be the company store and is now an antique shop. I saw the scrip with which the operators paid the miners. I thought scrip was paper money, but it's thin metal ovals like quarters and nickels, with the number of the mine the miner works in stamped through. In a side room was a picture of the company store as it had been circa 1900. The whole right side of the store was a long polished bar, with rows of whiskey bottles along the walls. This in a place that was relatively impoverished. The other half of the store sold dry goods.
You can see the whole beginning of the Ladies Christian Temperance Union right in this picture, I thought: Maybe Prohibition was a Protestant movement and not a Catholic one in some part because the Catholics of the East weren't paid in scrip but with green money, so an edge of coercion--We'll work you to death and then force you to pay high prices for our whiskey as you pour out your woes--and the resentment coercion brings, was missing.
At the store the man behind the counter was friendly, intelligent and missing an eye. He had no artificial eye, no eye patch, just a red space where the eye would be. When I asked his name he said, "Jack, but my friends call me One Eye." I nodded at this information and remembered what a friend told me. He works with a local man who was complaining about his lazy brother-in-law who's on welfare. "He wouldn't take a job in a pie factory!"
And there was the New River. They aren't sure why it's called the New and think Lewis and Clark were surprised to come upon its broad gray power, its falls and whitewater, and called it New because its existence was news to them. It cuts through the bottom of a great Appalachian gorge. Its beauty is as striking as the Hudson, only with more trees and wildness and rafts bouncing down the rapids. On River Day once a year the bungee jumpers and parachutists come. The New River is alive.
One night we went to an outdoor restaurant overlooking the gorge and ate pork chops and macaroni mustard chicken, and a waitress told us people are buying up the land nearby and prices are going up.
They're buying up the land in a lot of West Virginia from what I could see, and why wouldn't they, with so much natural beauty and beautiful people? But having just come upon it as an outsider, I don't want more outsiders like me to come. This feeling was echoed by a doctor from India who has worked for many years at a local hospital. He told me the state is changing and about to change more. It used to be a long and dangerous trip to Washington on narrow, winding roads, but now it's all been paved and broadened, and now more people can get in and more people can get out. "It used to be impossible," he said. He both welcomed and mourned this. He is a modern man and appreciates change and the good it can bring, but he didn't want his pocket of authenticity--he's the one who called it "a jewel"--to change.
I read local periodicals and history magazines. I couldn't get enough of the great mining wars of the early 20th century, about the operators and union men and the nonunion workers and hired detectives and the shots in the night. I read about and heard about the Civil War battles fought down the road. Lee was here. The friend whose house I stayed in had a collection of almost a hundred Indian arrowheads dug up from the backyard. The Shawnee had been here, too. Shawnee warriors had made these sharp flint heads of gray and blue and black, had held them in their hands, and I was inspecting them closely just six inches away, in the year 2005.
And I rediscovered the legend of John Henry, the steel-driving man. When I was in grade school in New York they taught us the ballad of John Henry, and I had thought of it over the years but never learned his story.
When the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad was being built in the mountains just after the Civil War (last week I walked on its old tracks), the work crews were worked hard. The most famous worker was John Henry, a steel driver who hammered spikes into the mountainside to make space for sticks of dynamite that would blow away mountain to make room for the tracks. The steel driver and the man who placed and turned the spikes had to work with speed and split-second precision. The men laying down the tracks worked to their rhythm. Words came out of this, out of the rhythm of the hit and the hammer and haul, and the words became chants and poems and folk songs, and they spread from the tracks to the town and then out to the country.
John Henry was a young man, black, about 6-foot-2, 190 pounds of muscle. He is said to have been a former slave, and might have been a convict assigned to manual labor. His might and capacity were becoming famous throughout Appalachia when something new happened. During the blasting of the Big Bend Tunnel in the mountains near the town of Talcott, a rival crew captain brought in a steam drill. He said a machine would pound steel better than a man. John Henry vowed to beat it; nothing's better than a man. And so the contest commenced.
There are many versions of the ballad of John Henry--early versions, folk versions, chain-gang versions, Gand Ol' Opry. I like this one:
When John Henry was a little baby
Sittin' on his mama's knee
He picked up a hammer and a little piece of steel,
and said, "This'll be the death of me,"
Lord, Lord, this'll be the death of me.
The captain says to John Henry
"Gonna bring a steam drill 'round
Gonna take that steam drill out on the job
Gonna whop that steel on down,"
Lord Lord, gonna whop that steel on down.
John Henry told the captain,
"A man ain't nothing but a man,
Before I let your steam drill beat me down,
I'll die with a hammer in my hand."
Sun shine hot and burnin'
Wasn't no breeze at all
Sweat ran down like water down a hill
The day John Henry let his hammer fall,
John Henry went to the tunnel
And they put him in the lead to drive
The rock so tall and John Henry so small
He laid down his hammer and he cried
Lord Lord, he laid down his hammer and he cried.
John Henry started on the right hand,
That steam drill started on the left--
"Before I'd let this steam drill beat me down,
I'd hammer myself to death,"
Lord Lord, I'd hammer myself to death.
John Henry said to his shaker,
"Shaker, why don't you sing?
I'm throwin' twelve pounds from my hips on down,
Just listen to that cold steel ring,"
Lord Lord, listen to that cold steel ring."
Oh the cap'n said to John Henry,
"I believe this mountain's sinkin' in",
John Henry said to his captain, "Oh my,
That's nothin' but my hammer suckin' win' "
Lord lord, aint nothin' but my hammer suckin' win'
That man that invented the steam drill
Thought he was mighty fine.
John Henry drove his hammer fourteen foot
And the steam drill only made nine.
John Henry was hammerin' the mountain,
And his hammer was striking fire,
He drove so hard till he broke his pore heart
And he laid down his hammer and he died,
Lord Lord, he laid down his hammer and he died.
They took John Henry to a hillside,
He looked to the heavens above;
He said, "Take my hammer and wrap it in gold,
And give it the girl I love,"
Lord, Lord, Give it to the girl I love.
Well they took John Henry to the white house,
And they buried him deep in the sand,
And every locomotive come a roarin' by
Says "There lies a steel drivin' man"
Lord lord, there lies a steel drivin man.
No one knows exactly how much of the story of John Henry is true. But it's a wonderful country that makes such men, and if he wasn't real it's a wonderful country that makes such stories. Thank you, West Virginia, of reminding me of this one, and others.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
I have so much I want to say, but it's really just pointless. I will say her effort to portray West Virginia as some counter to the Northeast is typical of every conservative from David Brooks to Peggy Noonan to the more backward talk radio hosts across the country. However, I'm not sure any sound as ridiculous as Noonan, a woman famous for being wrong about almost everything.
The only strange thing about all of this, which she fails to mention, is how both US Senators are Democrats, as is Governor Joe Manchin.
This entire fluff/bullshit piece is intended to show how West Viriginia has certain "values" we here in the Northeast don't have, but she fails to point out who these value voters elect. Strange. Or, not strange, considering she's as big a bullshitter there is. Looking at it this way, Noonan may be correct in pointing out what a goldmine the state actually is.
Truth be told, West Virginians must be smarter than their brethren (the implied red states), as assumed by Noonan, since they know who butters their daily bread. They vote for the federal dollars that keep coming in from the Northeast, as opposed to voting against their self-interest by electing some lying, god-fearing jackass, who will cut the state's funding (not that Rockefeller is a prize). West Virginia is 4th in Federal Spending, where as neighbor Pennsylvania is 27th, and Ohio 31st. Of course, Virginia is 8th, being so close to DC. New Jersey, obvious home to the world's elitist, is dead last: 50th. So maybe the people of West Virginia are really damn smart. But this isn't about them at all.
This is about a stupid "bitch" who doesn't have a clue.
For the record, the "church-state thing" is the ACLU's, not America's.
Oh, and be glad America was able to create a man like John Henry...via SLAVERY!
I could go on all day, as could anyone who reads this joke. I just want to know who the target audience is. I know the WSJ is the biggest collection of bullshit push papers, but seriously, even they can do better.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Almost
Pretty soon we'll have lost more troops in Iraq than we did on 9/11, yet Bush will be seen by those who have never been anywhere close to the WTC grounds as a heroic leader:
Fourteen marines were killed early today when their troop carrier struck a gigantic roadside bomb in the western town of Haditha, one of the single deadliest bomb attacks on American troops since the invasion here in March 2003. An Iraqi civilian interpreter working with the marines was also killed in the blast.
The attack brought the number of dead marines in Haditha to 20 in less than two days. On Monday, guerrillas ambushed and killed a group of six marine snipers who were moving through the town on foot. The insurgent group, Ansar Al Sunna, claimed responsibility for that attack, and also claimed that it had beheaded one of the marines.
Record Setter
Is our fearless leader:
Very involved.
President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.Gotta love it. Longest retreat during some of our worst times.
The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening for a stretch of clearing brush, visiting with family and friends, and tending to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.
"I'm looking forward to getting down there and just kind of settling in," Bush told reporters from Texas newspapers during a roundtable interview at the White House on Monday. "I'll be doing a lot of work. On the other hand, I'll also be kind of making sure my Texas roots run deep."The article goes on to say he'll be working, and kept abreast of all that's going on. Sorta like the time he was jogging while a plane was heading towards the White House, but Dick Cheney didn't feel the need to fill him in until he returned an hour later.
Very involved.
It's Amazing...
...what Republicans don't want to, or care to know about their own party:
The Washington Monthly added, soon thereafter:Ignorance is truly blissful.
"Speaking of phones and doorkeepers, it's widely understood that to have real influence in Washington, one must be on good terms, not so much with Cabinet secretaries, as with White House secretaries--that is, the assistants who sit in the outer offices of the president's senior advisors. As with much else in this town, uber-lobbyist/anti-tax activist Grover Norquist seems to understand this rule as well as anybody. Norquist had a deal with Susan Ralston, who until recently was the assistant to Karl Rove. An unnamed Republican lobbyist recently told Salon.com: "Susan took a message for Rove, and then called Grover to ask if she should put the caller through to Rove. If Grover didn't approve, your call didn't go through."
How did Norquist attain such influence over Ralston? Flowers every Friday? Redskins tickets? The answer, actually, is what the White House ethics lawyers call a "preexisting relationship." Ralston had formerly worked for lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a close friend of Norquist's and a top fundraiser for House majority whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
Ralston has since left the pressure cooker White House job for possibly the most isolated island in Washington. She is now executive assistant to Eddy R. Badrina, the senior advisor of the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders."
Truly Bizarro World
Here is a comment by Jean Schmidt of Ohio's 2nd District after defeating Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett in a special election:
The scary thing is people in Ohio believe comments like this, and believe Saddam Hussein was going to come to shores...again...
"Voters declared that they support our president and approve of his leadership," Ms. Schmidt, 53, told supporters gathered at a suburban Holiday Inn late Tuesday evening. "They want us to stay the course so the enemies of freedom cannot bring their terrorism to our shores again."They call this the "Irony of Defeat."
The scary thing is people in Ohio believe comments like this, and believe Saddam Hussein was going to come to shores...again...
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Great Stuff
Howard Stern audio of Rush Limbaugh railing against drug users.
The beat goes on, but it will never matter to his followers. Any excuse is the right excuses.
The beat goes on, but it will never matter to his followers. Any excuse is the right excuses.
One of Those Days
I stare at the papers and just say, "Nothing ever changes..." So, I've decided to change and not post on such a day.
I will post a new song from the latest Ween release, SHINOLA. Hopefully they won't sue me for this.
The album is great stuff. A collection of lost, or unreleased material.
Transitions.
Also, in honor of Brak I'm going to toss up the MF Doom & Ghostface track.
The Mask.
I will post a new song from the latest Ween release, SHINOLA. Hopefully they won't sue me for this.
The album is great stuff. A collection of lost, or unreleased material.
Transitions.
Also, in honor of Brak I'm going to toss up the MF Doom & Ghostface track.
The Mask.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Hmmm
What happens to a 14 year old girl who gets pregnant, but whose father is a dead beat, and mother is strung out on crack? What if she's the oldest girl in her family capable of even making this decision? What does she do then?
George Pataki is such an enormous jackass it's amazing. One week after testing the waters for his Presidential bid he's taking a slight stand on abortion.
In cities around the state of New York there are girls under the age of 18 who are having sex, and possibly becoming pregnant. When it comes to life experiences, burdens, and even maturity, many of these girls are years ahead of where they probably want to be. Making a decision to take a pill the day after sex is a more mature decision than the sex itself. Why a girl has to get parental notification is ridiculous.
Is it because Pataki himself as two daughters who were once minors, and he would never want them making that decision without his advice/consent? Even if that's the case, and Pataki had to deal with it, would he tell his 14 year old daughter to have a child? Would he want to be involved to help counsel her through the anguish she may face? Sure, but so many don't have that option.
Whatever the case, his daughter wouldnt be having a baby at 14, and that's a fact. That would abort daddy's ambitions for sure. Many of the girls who need this pill don't have responsible parents to help them through such a situation, but Pataki doesn't care. He's more concerned with the politics of this than the problems resulting from young girls having to deal with this situation alone. Fear not, post-child, he'll be right there to cut aid for families, and poor working moms, like he has throughout his time as Governor of New York.
The morning-after pill is probably the least intrusive, and most private method a girl has for dealing with a possible pregnancy. George Pataki wants to make it more difficult, and less private.
For years this guy is a supposed abortion-rights supporter, but the moment he explores the national stage things start to change ever so slightly.
Another self-righteous, ambition first, fucking jackass.
George Pataki is such an enormous jackass it's amazing. One week after testing the waters for his Presidential bid he's taking a slight stand on abortion.
In cities around the state of New York there are girls under the age of 18 who are having sex, and possibly becoming pregnant. When it comes to life experiences, burdens, and even maturity, many of these girls are years ahead of where they probably want to be. Making a decision to take a pill the day after sex is a more mature decision than the sex itself. Why a girl has to get parental notification is ridiculous.
Is it because Pataki himself as two daughters who were once minors, and he would never want them making that decision without his advice/consent? Even if that's the case, and Pataki had to deal with it, would he tell his 14 year old daughter to have a child? Would he want to be involved to help counsel her through the anguish she may face? Sure, but so many don't have that option.
Whatever the case, his daughter wouldnt be having a baby at 14, and that's a fact. That would abort daddy's ambitions for sure. Many of the girls who need this pill don't have responsible parents to help them through such a situation, but Pataki doesn't care. He's more concerned with the politics of this than the problems resulting from young girls having to deal with this situation alone. Fear not, post-child, he'll be right there to cut aid for families, and poor working moms, like he has throughout his time as Governor of New York.
The morning-after pill is probably the least intrusive, and most private method a girl has for dealing with a possible pregnancy. George Pataki wants to make it more difficult, and less private.
For years this guy is a supposed abortion-rights supporter, but the moment he explores the national stage things start to change ever so slightly.
Another self-righteous, ambition first, fucking jackass.
United
If there's an article that tells a better story about America right now, I haven't read it.
It's long, but not as long as it is sad.
It's long, but not as long as it is sad.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Should I Feel Better?
Am I supposed to feel better when the countervailing view is a religious education supported by a broader array of sects?
When the school board in Odessa, the West Texas oil town, voted unanimously in April to add an elective Bible study course to the 2006 high school curriculum, some parents dropped to their knees in prayerful thanks that God would be returned to the classroom, while others assailed it as an effort to instill religious training in the public schools.Yeah!
Hundreds of miles away, leaders of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools notched another victory. A religious advocacy group based in Greensboro, N.C., the council has been pressing a 12-year campaign to get school boards across the country to accept its Bible curriculum...
In the latest salvo, the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group for religious freedom, has called a news conference for Monday to release a study that finds the national council's course to be "an error-riddled Bible curriculum that attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles."
...Another organization, the Bible Literacy Project, supported by a broad range of religious groups, expects to release its own textbook in September.
Whaddya Think of That?
What if Bush's first EVER veto was a veto against stem cell research?
I told you, the man hates science because science is factual.
I told you, the man hates science because science is factual.
Ho Hum
There was a golden age, when the rule of law mattered to our nation's leaders:
An FBI agent warned superiors in a memo three years ago that U.S. officials who discussed plans to ship terror suspects to foreign nations that practice torture could be prosecuted for conspiring to violate U.S. law, according to a copy of the memo obtained by NEWSWEEK. The strongly worded memo, written by an FBI supervisor then assigned to Guantanamo, is the latest in a series of documents that have recently surfaced reflecting unease among some government lawyers and FBI agents over tactics being used in the war on terror. This memo appears to be the first that directly questions the legal premises of the Bush administration policy of "extraordinary rendition"—a secret program under which terror suspects are transferred to foreign countries that have been widely criticized for practicing torture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
