There was one map? That's it?
I think it's time we stop worrying about all the uneducated children in America, when there are so many uneducated adults, running the country.
That's right. One map.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Rest Assured
As Republicans have let it be known, psychological disorders are not worthy of the same help as other medical issues.
Take this case. She's normal. Doesn't seem to need much help.
We take all the stories like these; any story where a woman drowns her kids, or a son kills his old mother, etc., and then check with the cable "news" networks as to how much revenue their pulling in while they're pushing these stories. The cable companies will set aside a percentage of all revenues on the shows carrying these stories, which will go into a fund to help those with mental health problems! EVERYONE WINS!
Wait, not everyone. Not the cable companies who are reporting this "news." The fund will actually decrease the amount of events like this one, and then they won't have anymore "news" to cover. But then the fund will dry up and the whole process can repeat itself!
OR, Congress can help those who have mental illnesses pay for their problems.
Both ideas seem so ridiculous.
Take this case. She's normal. Doesn't seem to need much help.
A woman who authorities said was hearing voices tossed her three young children off a pier into San Francisco Bay. Rescuers had found one body, and the other two children were feared dead.Here's the fund I'm proposing. It's called the Ad Revenue Mental Health Fund of Freedom, and it will work like this.
The mother, Lashaun Harris, 23, of Oakland, was booked on three counts of murder, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in Thursday's editions. Her children were identified as Trayshaun Harris, 6, Travante Greely, 3, and Joshua Harris, 1.
We take all the stories like these; any story where a woman drowns her kids, or a son kills his old mother, etc., and then check with the cable "news" networks as to how much revenue their pulling in while they're pushing these stories. The cable companies will set aside a percentage of all revenues on the shows carrying these stories, which will go into a fund to help those with mental health problems! EVERYONE WINS!
Wait, not everyone. Not the cable companies who are reporting this "news." The fund will actually decrease the amount of events like this one, and then they won't have anymore "news" to cover. But then the fund will dry up and the whole process can repeat itself!
OR, Congress can help those who have mental illnesses pay for their problems.
Both ideas seem so ridiculous.
Be Proud
America, best place ever:
Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill that would protect the firearms industry from massive lawsuits brought by crime victims. The White House says President Bush will sign it into law.I know, locks on guns, and having to wait 2 weeks for a weapon really hampers a person's ability to protect.
The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby's power over the Republican-controlled Congress.
"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.
Under the measure, about 20 pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. The Senate passed the bill in July.
Ridiculous
When I first saw this story about the NBA instituting a dress code I thought nothing of it, but then I realized the players have it right: It's racist.
When I was in high school I had to wear a tie for basketball and soccer, and I accepted that. That was HIGH SCHOOL. I can even understand it in college, on some level. But this is the NBA. These men are adults. If they want to wear a hooded sweatshirt, so be it. If they want to wear a dress, SO BE IT. What right does the NBA have to tell them not to? These men are grown professionals. It's ridiculous.
Here's why it's racist. The NBA is going after the "hood" look, as Phil Jackson so delicately pointed out on ESPN the other day. Phil no likie. In other words, they want these players to alter their style, aka, their lifestyle, to conform with that of David Stern and Phil Jackson. These guys are really white, in case you didn't know. They want their players to be in suits, like the people walking to work in the morning every day. In other words, the white guy walking to work every day. They're not concerned with the people who come from the same neighborhoods these guys came from, and what they're wearing to work. It's what "whitey" is wearing that matters.
The NBA wants to re-market itself to "Whitey" because the league has become too "Blackey." They think that's going to change who watches, and what people think of Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson. It's a joke.
You know who is to blame here? DAVID STERN, that's who. Instead of changing the way these players dress, Mr. Stern, you should change the way they play. That's what brings fans to the games, and makes them watch at home.
The NBA has allowed their game to spiral downward into street hoops, so now they'll try to reverse that image with a dress code? Please. The NBA decided to entice fans by allowing players to carry the ball, travel, dunk on every play, and not understand the rules. They thought this was the future of basketball. Had the NBA enforced their rules on the court the game would be a better game, with less thuggery and more real basketball. Instead they have thuggery on the court, and now they want to limit it off the court, as if that's going to make a difference.
David Stern is seen by some as a genius for making the NBA a worldwide product. I think he's a complete jackass. By allowing the refs and coaches to look the other way for years the game has taken a hit at every level, filtering all the way down to the parks. It's boring basketball, and it requires nothing close to the team play needed in some other sports.
Basketball used to epitomize team play, but not in this NBA. It's all about "me" on the court. But now, off the court, it's all about conformity! Yeah, that's going to make a big difference, buddy.
When I was in high school I had to wear a tie for basketball and soccer, and I accepted that. That was HIGH SCHOOL. I can even understand it in college, on some level. But this is the NBA. These men are adults. If they want to wear a hooded sweatshirt, so be it. If they want to wear a dress, SO BE IT. What right does the NBA have to tell them not to? These men are grown professionals. It's ridiculous.
Here's why it's racist. The NBA is going after the "hood" look, as Phil Jackson so delicately pointed out on ESPN the other day. Phil no likie. In other words, they want these players to alter their style, aka, their lifestyle, to conform with that of David Stern and Phil Jackson. These guys are really white, in case you didn't know. They want their players to be in suits, like the people walking to work in the morning every day. In other words, the white guy walking to work every day. They're not concerned with the people who come from the same neighborhoods these guys came from, and what they're wearing to work. It's what "whitey" is wearing that matters.
The NBA wants to re-market itself to "Whitey" because the league has become too "Blackey." They think that's going to change who watches, and what people think of Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson. It's a joke.
You know who is to blame here? DAVID STERN, that's who. Instead of changing the way these players dress, Mr. Stern, you should change the way they play. That's what brings fans to the games, and makes them watch at home.
The NBA has allowed their game to spiral downward into street hoops, so now they'll try to reverse that image with a dress code? Please. The NBA decided to entice fans by allowing players to carry the ball, travel, dunk on every play, and not understand the rules. They thought this was the future of basketball. Had the NBA enforced their rules on the court the game would be a better game, with less thuggery and more real basketball. Instead they have thuggery on the court, and now they want to limit it off the court, as if that's going to make a difference.
David Stern is seen by some as a genius for making the NBA a worldwide product. I think he's a complete jackass. By allowing the refs and coaches to look the other way for years the game has taken a hit at every level, filtering all the way down to the parks. It's boring basketball, and it requires nothing close to the team play needed in some other sports.
Basketball used to epitomize team play, but not in this NBA. It's all about "me" on the court. But now, off the court, it's all about conformity! Yeah, that's going to make a big difference, buddy.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
How Do You Like Them Apples?
I just found out about these apples called "Honey Crisp" last year, and let me tell you something: These are the best fucking apples ever. I've never even had close to a bad one. They must be genetically altered, or something. I'm not even necessarily an apple guy.
All I know is they're the new apple craze, and they're mostly sold in higher end stores, or fruit stands, like the ones we have in JC. Granted, they are slightly more money, but it's probably the first piece of fruit I've ever chosen over a Hershey Bar.
The season ends in two weeks.
They are to apples what Honey Bells are to oranges.
All I know is they're the new apple craze, and they're mostly sold in higher end stores, or fruit stands, like the ones we have in JC. Granted, they are slightly more money, but it's probably the first piece of fruit I've ever chosen over a Hershey Bar.
The season ends in two weeks.
They are to apples what Honey Bells are to oranges.
Drugs
A friend passed this on to me:
Let Those Dopers Be
A former police chief wants to end a losing war by legalizing pot, coke, meth and other drugs
By Norm Stamper
Norm Stamper is the former chief of the Seattle Police Department. He is the author of "Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing" (Nation Books, 2005).
October 16, 2005
SOMETIMES PEOPLE in law enforcement will hear it whispered that I'm a former cop who favors decriminalization of marijuana laws, and they'll approach me the way they might a traitor or snitch. So let me set the record straight.
Yes, I was a cop for 34 years, the last six of which I spent as chief of Seattle's police department.
But no, I don't favor decriminalization. I favor legalization, and not just of pot but of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, meth, psychotropics, mushrooms and LSD.
Decriminalization, as my colleagues in the drug reform movement hasten to inform me, takes the crime out of using drugs but continues to classify possession and use as a public offense, punishable by fines.
I've never understood why adults shouldn't enjoy the same right to use verboten drugs as they have to suck on a Marlboro or knock back a scotch and water.
Prohibition of alcohol fell flat on its face. The prohibition of other drugs rests on an equally wobbly foundation. Not until we choose to frame responsible drug use — not an oxymoron in my dictionary — as a civil liberty will we be able to recognize the abuse of drugs, including alcohol, for what it is: a medical, not a criminal, matter.
As a cop, I bore witness to the multiple lunacies of the "war on drugs." Lasting far longer than any other of our national conflicts, the drug war has been prosecuted with equal vigor by Republican and Democratic administrations, with one president after another — Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush — delivering sanctimonious sermons, squandering vast sums of taxpayer money and cheerleading law enforcers from the safety of the sidelines.
It's not a stretch to conclude that our draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery. Want to cut back on prison overcrowding and save a bundle on the construction of new facilities? Open the doors, let the nonviolent drug offenders go. The huge increases in federal and state prison populations during the 1980s and '90s (from 139 per 100,000 residents in 1980 to 482 per 100,000 in 2003) were mainly for drug convictions. In 1980, 580,900 Americans were arrested on drug charges. By 2003, that figure had ballooned to 1,678,200. We're making more arrests for drug offenses than for murder, manslaughter, forcible rape and aggravated assault combined. Feel safer?
I've witnessed the devastating effects of open-air drug markets in residential neighborhoods: children recruited as runners, mules and lookouts; drug dealers and innocent citizens shot dead in firefights between rival traffickers bent on protecting or expanding their markets; dedicated narcotics officers tortured and killed in the line of duty; prisons filled with nonviolent drug offenders; and drug-related foreign policies that foster political instability, wreak health and environmental disasters, and make life even tougher for indigenous subsistence farmers in places such as Latin America and Afghanistan. All because we like our drugs — and can't have them without breaking the law.
As an illicit commodity, drugs cost and generate extravagant sums of (laundered, untaxed) money, a powerful magnet for character-challenged police officers.
Although small in numbers of offenders, there isn't a major police force — the Los Angeles Police Department included — that has escaped the problem: cops, sworn to uphold the law, seizing and converting drugs to their own use, planting dope on suspects, robbing and extorting pushers, taking up dealing themselves, intimidating or murdering witnesses.
In declaring a war on drugs, we've declared war on our fellow citizens. War requires "hostiles" — enemies we can demonize, fear and loathe. This unfortunate categorization of millions of our citizens justifies treating them as dope fiends, evil-doers, less than human. That grants political license to ban the exchange or purchase of clean needles or to withhold methadone from heroin addicts motivated to kick the addiction.
President Bush has even said no to medical marijuana. Why would he want to "coddle" the enemy? Even if the enemy is a suffering AIDS or cancer patient for whom marijuana promises palliative, if not therapeutic, powers.
As a nation, we're long overdue for a soul-searching, coldly analytical look at both the "drug scene" and the drug war. Such candor would reveal the futility of our current policies, exposing the embarrassingly meager return on our massive enforcement investment (about $69 billion a year, according to Jack Cole, founder and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition).
How would "regulated legalization" work? It would: 1) Permit private companies to compete for licenses to cultivate, harvest, manufacture, package and peddle drugs.
2) Create a new federal regulatory agency (with no apologies to libertarians or paleo-conservatives).
3) Set and enforce standards of sanitation, potency and purity.
4) Ban advertising.
5) Impose (with congressional approval) taxes, fees and fines to be used for drug-abuse prevention and treatment and to cover the costs of administering the new regulatory agency.
6) Police the industry much as alcoholic beverage control agencies keep a watch on bars and liquor stores at the state level. Such reforms would in no way excuse drug users who commit crimes: driving while impaired, providing drugs to minors, stealing an iPod or a Lexus, assaulting one's spouse, abusing one's child. The message is simple. Get loaded, commit a crime, do the time.
These reforms would yield major reductions in a host of predatory street crimes, a disproportionate number of which are committed by users who resort to stealing in order to support their habit or addiction.
Regulated legalization would soon dry up most stockpiles of currently illicit drugs — substances of uneven, often questionable quality (including "bunk," i.e., fakes such as oregano, gypsum, baking powder or even poisons passed off as the genuine article). It would extract from today's drug dealing the obscene profits that attract the needy and the greedy and fuel armed violence. And it would put most of those certifiably frightening crystal meth labs out of business once and for all.
Combined with treatment, education and other public health programs for drug abusers, regulated legalization would make your city or town an infinitely healthier place to live and raise a family.
It would make being a cop a much safer occupation, and it would lead to greater police accountability and improved morale and job satisfaction.
But wouldn't regulated legalization lead to more users and, more to the point, drug abusers? Probably, though no one knows for sure — our leaders are too timid even to broach the subject in polite circles, much less to experiment with new policy models. My own prediction? We'd see modest increases in use, negligible increases in abuse.
The demand for illicit drugs is as strong as the nation's thirst for bootleg booze during Prohibition. It's a demand that simply will not dwindle or dry up. Whether to find God, heighten sexual arousal, relieve physical pain, drown one's sorrows or simply feel good, people throughout the millenniums have turned to mood- and mind-altering substances.
They're not about to stop, no matter what their government says or does. It's time to accept drug use as a right of adult Americans, treat drug abuse as a public health problem and end the madness of an unwinnable war.
Explains Things
Must be why we don't feel the need to be able to buy a gun at any store.
We're probably safe because we're liberal elitists.
Top 10 Safest Cities in AmericaOr, maybe it's because these people all have guns that no one's safe...
1. NY Islip
2. NJ Wayne
3. CT Avon
4. NJ East Brunswick
5. CT Fairfield
6. CT Greenwich
7. NJ Iselin
8. HI Kailua
9. NJ Marlboro
10. HI Mililani
We're probably safe because we're liberal elitists.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Shifting, Shifting, Shifting...
Wait, wait, MIERS DOES HAVE A RECORD! AND IT'S FUCKING RETARDED!
Now that we know Harriet Miers is one of them lets see if Republicans shelve their grandiose comments about how she's not qualified to be judge. I bet she meets those qualifications pretty quickly!
In other words, she would vehemently fight against US Law.
Also, did anyone not think for a second she wasn't a pro-lifer? She's Bush's lawyer. He hangs out with her all the time. He has no brain. He can ask few questions. I'm sure it came up.
I can't wait to see if they act as if "that was years ago..." I mean, this woman was out of the mainstream in 1989!
Now that we know Harriet Miers is one of them lets see if Republicans shelve their grandiose comments about how she's not qualified to be judge. I bet she meets those qualifications pretty quickly!
President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment that would ban abortions except when necessary to save the life of the woman.
Ms. Miers expressed her support for such an amendment in an April 1989 survey sent out by Texans United for Life. The disclosure virtually guarantees that Ms. Miers will be questioned heavily during hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on abortion rights and whether she can separate her personal views from legal issues.
As a candidate for a seat on the Dallas City Council, Ms. Miers answered "yes" to the following question: "If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?"
Ms. Miers answered "yes" to all the organization's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public money for abortion and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.
Ms. Miers also said she would refuse the endorsement of any organization that supported "abortion on demand," would use her influence as an elected official "to promote the pro-life cause," and would participate "in pro-life rallies and special events."
In other words, she would vehemently fight against US Law.
Also, did anyone not think for a second she wasn't a pro-lifer? She's Bush's lawyer. He hangs out with her all the time. He has no brain. He can ask few questions. I'm sure it came up.
I can't wait to see if they act as if "that was years ago..." I mean, this woman was out of the mainstream in 1989!
Faux Bush
Randi Rhodes has been making this case on her radio show, and it's quite obvious: Harriet Miers and John Roberts are corporate attorneys, and that's all Bush cares about.
Take the case the Supreme Court rejected on appeal yesterday against cigarette makers:
I have nothing against corporate attorneys, per se, for I have friends who have actually represented Philip Morris (one quit because he couldn't stomach it, even with the $200,000+ salary), but to think that Miers and Roberts were people who excelled in those positions is scary. A lot of younger people become corporate attorneys to pay off debt, etc, and go on to do other things. Miers and Roberts made their names as corporate attorneys. There are also attorneys who have represented the good side, and bad side of private business, like a David Boies. With Ms. Miers we have someone with no paper trail, experience as a corporate attorney in Texas of all places, and a person who called Bush the "best governor ever." Do you think she's going to rule against big oil in the future?
Forget abortion, affirmative action, and things like that for Bush doesn't care about those things. Never has, never will. He has always USED the Christian right. He's never been a real Christian. His faith is fake. His reference to Jesus in a debate as his most admired philosopher as fake. He can't name another philosopher, so he went with Jesus, who isn't a philosopher. He doesn't even goto church. He prays at home, he says. Yeah, I believe that one. He DOESN'T GO TO CHURCH, Mr. Jesus himself. Pure phony. Karl Rove used the right to win, and the real folks who butter their bread now, and in the future, got the judges they wanted. You can read about it right here.
You've got a prospective judge in love with Bush, and one that will rule in favor of rich folks like him. That's his legacy.
People are right: they won't make a mistake when it comes to the bench. They know exactly what they're doing.
It's bad enough we've had Bush for two terms, but do we really want this guy's stamp on the Supreme Court for an unknown amount of time? I'm talking about Miers here. Do we really want this puppet? Obviously not.
Take the case the Supreme Court rejected on appeal yesterday against cigarette makers:
In the latest setback to the federal government's case against the tobacco industry, the Supreme Court refused today to hear an appeal of a decision that sharply limited the monetary damages the industry can be required to pay if the government prevails in its legal theory that the industry has been run as a "racketeering enterprise" that falsely promoted its product as harmless.The case is not over by any means, but the more corporate attorneys sitting on the Supreme Court the more likely corporations won't ever pay for wrong doing. Whether it's an energy company harming the environment, or class action lawsuits against faulty drug companies, or litigation against tobacco companies, whatever it is, the more corporate attorneys deciding cases the more the public suffers.
A nine-month trial of the government's civil lawsuit concluded in June in Federal District Court here. Judge Gladys Kessler is expected to rule in the coming months both on the tobacco companies' liability and, if she finds them liable, on the remedy to which the government is entitled.
It was the remedy question that was before the Supreme Court today. The government filed its lawsuit in 1999 seeking to recoup what it considers the tobacco industry's ill-gotten gains, estimated at $280 billion.
I have nothing against corporate attorneys, per se, for I have friends who have actually represented Philip Morris (one quit because he couldn't stomach it, even with the $200,000+ salary), but to think that Miers and Roberts were people who excelled in those positions is scary. A lot of younger people become corporate attorneys to pay off debt, etc, and go on to do other things. Miers and Roberts made their names as corporate attorneys. There are also attorneys who have represented the good side, and bad side of private business, like a David Boies. With Ms. Miers we have someone with no paper trail, experience as a corporate attorney in Texas of all places, and a person who called Bush the "best governor ever." Do you think she's going to rule against big oil in the future?
Forget abortion, affirmative action, and things like that for Bush doesn't care about those things. Never has, never will. He has always USED the Christian right. He's never been a real Christian. His faith is fake. His reference to Jesus in a debate as his most admired philosopher as fake. He can't name another philosopher, so he went with Jesus, who isn't a philosopher. He doesn't even goto church. He prays at home, he says. Yeah, I believe that one. He DOESN'T GO TO CHURCH, Mr. Jesus himself. Pure phony. Karl Rove used the right to win, and the real folks who butter their bread now, and in the future, got the judges they wanted. You can read about it right here.
Social conservatives may be upset, but business leaders say U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is likely to be good for them, with her 30-year record as a corporate lawyer.I've said from the beginning I thought Roberts may surprise on social issues, but that does not overshadow these other factors.
"Her business background won't solve all our problems and concerns, but now, with her and (Chief Justice John) Roberts, we'll have two justices who have real-world business experience," said R. Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which he said is set to formally endorse Miers.
Abortion and school prayer capture more attention, but business issues such as government regulation, employment, intellectual property and foreign trade regularly go before the court...
Dallas attorney Fred Baron, a past president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and one of the state's most influential plaintiff lawyers, said he expects that Miers will favor limiting lawsuits that hold corporations accountable. "She is going to be a George Bush tort-reformer. That's where she's been," said Baron, who sees tort reform as a closing of the courthouse to victims of bad business behavior.
Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog group, said Miers' record does not bode well for people hurt by defective products or medical malpractice.
"Her efforts to limit lawsuits and access to the courts are troubling," Claybrook said.
You've got a prospective judge in love with Bush, and one that will rule in favor of rich folks like him. That's his legacy.
People are right: they won't make a mistake when it comes to the bench. They know exactly what they're doing.
It's bad enough we've had Bush for two terms, but do we really want this guy's stamp on the Supreme Court for an unknown amount of time? I'm talking about Miers here. Do we really want this puppet? Obviously not.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Harriet, Oh Harriet
President Bush has called in the troops, in the form of judges, to come to Washington, and convince US Senators that Ms. Miers is someone who should be on the bench.
I hear all the time that Senators just want "an up or down vote" on judges. I hear they don't think things like the filibuster should be used, even though these same people used it. So these same people who supposedly want things done this way are completely happy with the new process: judges lobbying Senators on behalf of a judge who has no paper trail. This to them is how it should be, I guess. Using US laws to your advantage is bad. Using methods like these is good.
I mean, why should Senators take a person's history, examine it, and then decide? These people are clearly not smart enough to do it alone, right? They need judges telling them what to do, right? They need fringe groups sending them memos and papers and stories about the judges for they cannot do it alone, right?
It's so ridiculous. It's bad enough that lobbying in America is as bad as it is, but now we have judges lobbying Senators to push an unqualified candidate to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. Isn't it bad enough that lobbyists leave office and push horrible legislation into law? Now we have the overseers of the laws pushing a possible overseer because her own record doesn't stand on it's own?
That's just fucking fantastic.
And of course, the media will run with these judges. They'll give these judges airtime, or they'll give the Senator who was prodded by the judge airtime. Then the Senator will tell us why he/she changed opinions, and it'll all be good. You know it. You can see it!
Lets get one thing straight here: there are at least 10,000 people qualified to be a Supreme Court judge. This President, the one who hates affirmative action programs, which are synonymous with equal rights, is pushing for a person who isn't qualified, has no record, and is only here because she's a woman without a record. Of course, there were women with records he could have submitted, but they have records, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
This President should have a submarine named after him immediately. Preferably one that doesn't come up.
I hear all the time that Senators just want "an up or down vote" on judges. I hear they don't think things like the filibuster should be used, even though these same people used it. So these same people who supposedly want things done this way are completely happy with the new process: judges lobbying Senators on behalf of a judge who has no paper trail. This to them is how it should be, I guess. Using US laws to your advantage is bad. Using methods like these is good.
I mean, why should Senators take a person's history, examine it, and then decide? These people are clearly not smart enough to do it alone, right? They need judges telling them what to do, right? They need fringe groups sending them memos and papers and stories about the judges for they cannot do it alone, right?
It's so ridiculous. It's bad enough that lobbying in America is as bad as it is, but now we have judges lobbying Senators to push an unqualified candidate to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. Isn't it bad enough that lobbyists leave office and push horrible legislation into law? Now we have the overseers of the laws pushing a possible overseer because her own record doesn't stand on it's own?
That's just fucking fantastic.
And of course, the media will run with these judges. They'll give these judges airtime, or they'll give the Senator who was prodded by the judge airtime. Then the Senator will tell us why he/she changed opinions, and it'll all be good. You know it. You can see it!
Lets get one thing straight here: there are at least 10,000 people qualified to be a Supreme Court judge. This President, the one who hates affirmative action programs, which are synonymous with equal rights, is pushing for a person who isn't qualified, has no record, and is only here because she's a woman without a record. Of course, there were women with records he could have submitted, but they have records, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
This President should have a submarine named after him immediately. Preferably one that doesn't come up.
More of the Liberal Sports Media
The same great liberal media that gave us Rush Limbaugh on ESPN, now tells us that the USC/Notre Dame was possibly the greatest game ever played. PUHHHLEASE. I watched that game, and while it was great, I can think of 3 games off the top of my head that were better (shocker to hear me say it, but the Ohio State/Miami National Title game was a better game).
The same liberal AP media, with their love for all things Catholic, has Notre Dame ranked 9th in the rankings. That's odd since they're the ONLY team with 2 losses in the top ten, and lost both games at home. In fact, Ohio State who started off higher ranked than Notre Dame lost to Texas at home in an equally great game, and then on the road at Penn State. That's right, at home. Michigan State beat Notre Dame in South Bend. Penn State is a better team than Michigan State, yet there's Notre Dame, ranked over Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State.
Notre Dame's big win came over Michigan, a team not even ranked in the Top 25.
So what gives? Is it the media's hatred for all things religious? Yeah, that must be it.
Sports is a right-leaning industry, we know this. A sports guy working in radio sees a few Nawlins cops beating an old black man and they think that it's okay. I know this because I listened to 3 jackasses saying this at work the other day. By the time I was done they were changing their stupid tune, but still, instinct told them to "love thy cop, and hate thy negro."
Anyway, point is, or should I say was, Notre Dame is not that great. The hype is absurd. This team will have 4 losses by the end of the year, and that's not great. So tell me how great it is when USC, who won't even win it all, played in the "greatest game ever" when in the end the team they beat might not even be ranked, and should be ranked today somewhere around 15?
The same liberal AP media, with their love for all things Catholic, has Notre Dame ranked 9th in the rankings. That's odd since they're the ONLY team with 2 losses in the top ten, and lost both games at home. In fact, Ohio State who started off higher ranked than Notre Dame lost to Texas at home in an equally great game, and then on the road at Penn State. That's right, at home. Michigan State beat Notre Dame in South Bend. Penn State is a better team than Michigan State, yet there's Notre Dame, ranked over Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State.
Notre Dame's big win came over Michigan, a team not even ranked in the Top 25.
So what gives? Is it the media's hatred for all things religious? Yeah, that must be it.
Sports is a right-leaning industry, we know this. A sports guy working in radio sees a few Nawlins cops beating an old black man and they think that it's okay. I know this because I listened to 3 jackasses saying this at work the other day. By the time I was done they were changing their stupid tune, but still, instinct told them to "love thy cop, and hate thy negro."
Anyway, point is, or should I say was, Notre Dame is not that great. The hype is absurd. This team will have 4 losses by the end of the year, and that's not great. So tell me how great it is when USC, who won't even win it all, played in the "greatest game ever" when in the end the team they beat might not even be ranked, and should be ranked today somewhere around 15?
Sorta Funny
Over the last few weeks/months the Bush Presidency has taken serious poll hits. They used to be so good at staying on message, but I guess since there's no election for Bush these folks let down their guards a bit. Whatever the case it seems too coincidental that folks like Cheney, Rove, and Libby all might be under investigation, and could be indicted. I'm not saying they all will, won't, or whatever, but they could be. With the luck America has had the last 5 years I won't be shocked if this investigation ends up indicted Hillary Clinton!
Regardless, someone is going to be in hot water when this is all over. You have to wonder if the investigation is making them all concerned with their own asses, and not so much Bush's. Is that why they continue to make mistakes they never made in the past? You have to think it's part of it.
Truth is this group is so shady and corrupt that it's about time they've had to answer for bad policies. It's not like their first 4 years were good, and the results spoke for themselves. The first 4 were pretty damn bad, but they did a great job of covering things up, and tricking people. They seem to have lost their touch, and now they are facing the ire of a public unsatisfied with their bullshit rhetoric and failed promises.
The funniest thing about all of this, and it should surprise no one, is who is supposedly being investigated and who isn't. See, we know Cheney, Libby, and Rove all are, as well as members of the press. But unsurprisingly, Bush's name is never even mentioned. It's all the people he surrounds himself with, but not him. Why? BECAUSE HE'S NOT INVOLVED! IN ANYTHING!!!!
Regardless, someone is going to be in hot water when this is all over. You have to wonder if the investigation is making them all concerned with their own asses, and not so much Bush's. Is that why they continue to make mistakes they never made in the past? You have to think it's part of it.
Truth is this group is so shady and corrupt that it's about time they've had to answer for bad policies. It's not like their first 4 years were good, and the results spoke for themselves. The first 4 were pretty damn bad, but they did a great job of covering things up, and tricking people. They seem to have lost their touch, and now they are facing the ire of a public unsatisfied with their bullshit rhetoric and failed promises.
The funniest thing about all of this, and it should surprise no one, is who is supposedly being investigated and who isn't. See, we know Cheney, Libby, and Rove all are, as well as members of the press. But unsurprisingly, Bush's name is never even mentioned. It's all the people he surrounds himself with, but not him. Why? BECAUSE HE'S NOT INVOLVED! IN ANYTHING!!!!
What a Relief!
I thought for a second investors may not be pleased!
Clinton's plan was so overly detailed it gave the Republicans fodder to go after it. The drug companies, of course, are against it cause they don't want to lose cash since they knew they'll get less from the government than the private market.
Republicans are more concerned with protecting drug and insurance companies profits than they are Americans. There's really no way around it. They care more about those profits than they do the profits of other companies like the auto and airlines industries, who they make sure get billions of government dollars anyway. They can claim this bullshit excuse that "competition breeds" when in fact it does not always, especially when it comes to health care. They care more about political victories over a President than they did the health of Americans.
Even if competition did breed success, and make more efficient markets/companies, etc., it doesn't always have to be the case. Sometimes it's more important to make sure people have something good, like health care, regardless of the costs. It's more important to get results than it is to have profits.
It's a blast, folks.
If this were all false the Republicans would not have pressured industry into not giving Clinton support.
General Motors reached an agreement it had long been pursuing with the United Auto Workers this morning to reduce the company's mounting health care costs. The nation's largest domestic automaker also said it was considering selling its finance business to further reduce expenses and restructure itself.Now try explaining to me why GM wouldn't be satisfied if the government had a health care program? See, you can't because GM, and many other large companies would actually prefer to not have this burden.
The announcements came on the same day that G.M. said it lost $1.6 billion, or $2.89 a share, in the third quarter, even as sales increased by 5 percent, to $47.2 billion, because of deep discounting of cars and trucks in the summer months.
G.M., which is one of the biggest providers of health insurance outside of the federal government, said it would reduce its health care liabilities by about $15 billion, or 25 percent, under the deal with the U.A.W. The company's annual expense for providing medical care for 750,000 employees, retirees and their family members would decrease by $3 billion before taxes.
Clinton's plan was so overly detailed it gave the Republicans fodder to go after it. The drug companies, of course, are against it cause they don't want to lose cash since they knew they'll get less from the government than the private market.
Republicans are more concerned with protecting drug and insurance companies profits than they are Americans. There's really no way around it. They care more about those profits than they do the profits of other companies like the auto and airlines industries, who they make sure get billions of government dollars anyway. They can claim this bullshit excuse that "competition breeds" when in fact it does not always, especially when it comes to health care. They care more about political victories over a President than they did the health of Americans.
Even if competition did breed success, and make more efficient markets/companies, etc., it doesn't always have to be the case. Sometimes it's more important to make sure people have something good, like health care, regardless of the costs. It's more important to get results than it is to have profits.
It's a blast, folks.
If this were all false the Republicans would not have pressured industry into not giving Clinton support.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Not in Vain
This evening CNN ran another program about the people and families affected by the Iraq War. Opinions ranged from "We have to get out of there" and "The President isn't being straightforward" to "I don't want my son to have died in vain" and "We don't want to fight this war here in America."
It's the "died in vain" one that sticks with me.
Some parents think troops have to stay because if we don't "win this war" their child's effort will have been in vain. I think another perspective needs to be examined when that line of reasoning is taken.
Whether or not we "win" this war in Iraq, which of course we won't, isn't the issue when it comes to the death of a soldier. Soldiers who have died in Iraq were sold a bill of goods by President Bush and his cronies. It's terrible it happened, and even worse that he continues to sell it in this never-surrender way. But the truth is all these soldiers and civilians who have passed in Iraq represent something great.
Those who have died are symbols that wars should not be fought under false pretenses. Wars should only be fought out of complete necessity. Wars should be presented to the American public in an honest way. Wars should not be political tools. Wars should be planned correctly. All of these things did not take place in the Iraq War.
The death of any soldier in Iraq serves as an example of how America should not act. It's not the fault of the soldiers they had to fight this war, per se. Let their passing represent how America should not be. We're better than this. Their deaths are not in vain. Their sacrifice puts on display how we should not act, and it's an example that only could have been recognized because this mistake transpired. It's not which could have been learned.
US soldiers have proven their loyalty by doing what has been asked of them. Some have died, and some remain in Iraq. Everyone recognizes on some level how bad this war is for the world. Parents of those who died should not want other parents' children to perish like their own, do they? Do they want other parents to have to deal with the agony they deal with? Would that make it better?
Honor those who have died, and let their deaths represent a way America should never be again. Let their deaths represent that America is a great nation, and that mistakes in war are the grandest of mistakes. Had these soldiers not died this is a lesson none of us would truly feel. But we do feel it, and it's almost more honorable than the deaths of US soldiers during wars of necessity.
It's the "died in vain" one that sticks with me.
Some parents think troops have to stay because if we don't "win this war" their child's effort will have been in vain. I think another perspective needs to be examined when that line of reasoning is taken.
Whether or not we "win" this war in Iraq, which of course we won't, isn't the issue when it comes to the death of a soldier. Soldiers who have died in Iraq were sold a bill of goods by President Bush and his cronies. It's terrible it happened, and even worse that he continues to sell it in this never-surrender way. But the truth is all these soldiers and civilians who have passed in Iraq represent something great.
Those who have died are symbols that wars should not be fought under false pretenses. Wars should only be fought out of complete necessity. Wars should be presented to the American public in an honest way. Wars should not be political tools. Wars should be planned correctly. All of these things did not take place in the Iraq War.
The death of any soldier in Iraq serves as an example of how America should not act. It's not the fault of the soldiers they had to fight this war, per se. Let their passing represent how America should not be. We're better than this. Their deaths are not in vain. Their sacrifice puts on display how we should not act, and it's an example that only could have been recognized because this mistake transpired. It's not which could have been learned.
US soldiers have proven their loyalty by doing what has been asked of them. Some have died, and some remain in Iraq. Everyone recognizes on some level how bad this war is for the world. Parents of those who died should not want other parents' children to perish like their own, do they? Do they want other parents to have to deal with the agony they deal with? Would that make it better?
Honor those who have died, and let their deaths represent a way America should never be again. Let their deaths represent that America is a great nation, and that mistakes in war are the grandest of mistakes. Had these soldiers not died this is a lesson none of us would truly feel. But we do feel it, and it's almost more honorable than the deaths of US soldiers during wars of necessity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
