Lionboi Blues & News

I Think Therefore I Am

2009-01-21T18:21:00.000-05:00

Has anyone ever told you that you think too much? I never know how to respond to this profound statement. I’ve tried, “Yeah maybe you’re right. How often do you think? I’ll try to cut back to your level”, but for some reason that answer seems to offend. Seriously though, exactly how much thinking is too much? How do you stop thinking and why is it that every time someone says this to me, it always seems to come from someone who I wish would think more? Am I over thinking this?

Wisdom

2009-01-13T17:39:00.001-05:00

There is a common expression in our society, which goes something like, “with age comes wisdom”. As I rapidly approach middle age I’ve begun to realize just how true the adage is and perhaps more importantly how ironic the truth of it is. When I was young, say a teenager or even a twenty something, I realized to a certain degree that I had a lot to learn, but I didn’t guess, nor could I even have conceived of the truth which I now suspect.

That truth is a simple one and yet somehow all encompassing, it is this; the wisdom which comes with age is the slowly dawning realization of just how little you know. You think, you in fact believe when you’re young that some things are certain knowledge, things like, ‘you have a fairly firm grip on who you are and what you believe’, or subconsciously at least ‘you can have and keep a sense of security in this world’. Most of us, I believe, in our youth see this world and our own personal worlds as solid and stable. It never occurs to us that seismic shifts can and will happen in our lives that will leave us quaking in bewilderment, unable to comprehend not only what happened, but how it was even possible. These life altering experiences take our senses, our realities, our supposed knowledge and shake them as if we’d been living in a giant snow globe of which we were completely unaware. It is then I believe that we begin to comprehend the truth, lose our innocent illusions and thus gain wisdom. The price for our new found knowledge is often times high, and our old, yet freshly opened eyes do not find much comfort in what we now perceive, but once seen we can not unsee, we can only move forward in the ironic certainty that we do not know much of anything.

What Can We Trust In?

2007-08-09T12:40:00.000-04:00

This cartoon sums up my feelings on the Minnesota bridge collapse. It's a sad world, when we can't trust our governments; local, state, nor federal to show even the most basic sense of responsibility in keeping us safe. Put simply, the people who died in the bridge collapse, were killed because their lives weren't valued a priority when it came time to crunch out a budget. Our elected officials choose to gamble every day with all of our lives, betting time and again that, our bridges, roads etc. will hold up fine for another year or two or twenty. We hear on a weekly basis how scared and worried we should be about the threat of terrorism, but personally I think we have a lot more to fear from the very people we put in charge of keeping us safe.

The Puddycat of Death

2007-07-28T20:29:00.000-04:00

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island (AP) -- Oscar the cat seems to have an uncanny knack for predicting when nursing home patients are going to die, by curling up next to them during their final hours.

His accuracy, observed in 25 cases, has led the staff to call family members once he has chosen someone. It usually means the patient has less than four hours to live.
"He doesn't make too many mistakes. He seems to understand when patients are about to die," Dr. David Dosa said in an interview. He describes the phenomenon in a poignant essay in Thursday's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

"Many family members take some solace from it. They appreciate the companionship that the cat provides for their dying loved one," said Dosa, a geriatrician and assistant professor of medicine at Brown University.

The 2-year-old feline was adopted as a kitten and grew up in a third-floor dementia unit at the Steere House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. The facility treats people with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and other illnesses.
After about six months, the staff noticed Oscar would make his own rounds, just like the doctors and nurses. He'd sniff and observe patients, then sit beside people who would wind up dying in a few hours.

Dosa said Oscar seems to take his work seriously and is generally aloof. "This is not a cat that's friendly to people," he said.
Oscar is better at predicting death than the people who work there, said Dr. Joan Teno of Brown University, who treats patients at the nursing home and is an expert on care for the terminally ill.

She was convinced of Oscar's talent when he made his 13th correct call. While observing one patient, Teno said she noticed the woman wasn't eating, was breathing with difficulty and that her legs had a bluish tinge, signs that often mean death is near.
Oscar wouldn't stay inside the room, though, so Teno thought his streak was broken. Instead, it turned out the doctor's prediction was roughly 10 hours too early. Sure enough, during the patient's final two hours, nurses told Teno that Oscar joined the woman at her bedside.

Doctors say most of the people who get a visit from the sweet-faced, gray-and-white cat are so ill they probably don't know he's there, so patients aren't aware he's a harbinger of death. Most families are grateful for the advance warning, although one wanted Oscar out of the room while a family member died. When Oscar is put outside, he paces and meows his displeasure.

No one's certain if Oscar's behavior is scientifically significant or points to a cause. Teno wonders if the cat notices telltale scents or reads something into the behavior of the nurses who raised him.

Nicholas Dodman, who directs an animal behavioral clinic at the Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine and has read Dosa's article, said the only way to know is to carefully document how Oscar divides his time between the living and dying.
If Oscar really is a furry grim reaper, it's also possible his behavior could be driven by self-centered pleasures like a heated blanket placed on a dying person, Dodman said.
Nursing home staffers aren't concerned with explaining Oscar, so long as he gives families a better chance at saying goodbye to the dying.

Oscar recently received a wall plaque publicly commending his "compassionate hospice care."

Oscar the cat sounds like a sweetie, but if I see him coming I'm running the other way!-lol

Iraqi's Vacation

2007-07-24T22:15:00.000-04:00

Hi people! I probably won't be posting for the next couple of days as I have tons of stuff to do, including painting my dining and living rooms. I'll get back to blogging asap, until then I hope all of you have a great week.

Injured Iraq War Vets Sue VA

2007-07-23T16:20:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Frustrated by delays in health care, a coalition of injured Iraq war veterans is accusing VA Secretary Jim Nicholson of breaking the law by denying them disability pay and mental health treatment.The class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, filed Monday in federal court in San Francisco, seeks broad change in the agency as it struggles to meet growing demands from veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Suing on behalf of hundreds of thousands of veterans, it charges that the VA has failed warriors on several fronts -- from providing prompt disability benefits, to adding staff to reduce wait times for medical care to boosting services for post-traumatic stress disorder.

The lawsuit also accuses the VA of deliberately cheating some veterans by allegedly working with the Pentagon to misclassify PTSD claims as pre-existing personality disorders to avoid paying out benefits. The VA and Pentagon have generally denied such charges.

VA spokesman Matt Smith said Monday he could not comment on a pending lawsuit. But he said the agency is committed to meeting the special needs of Iraq war veterans.

I'm glad to see that some veterans are feed up with waiting for this country to fix the problems that have plagued the VA for years. What type of country doesn't take proper care of its' military veterans? I'd say a piss poor one with some seriously confused priorities.

A Taste of His Own Medicine

2007-07-21T15:01:00.000-04:00

I am completely disgusted by the cruel actions of NFL quarterback Michael Vick. People like him are enough to make you ashamed to be a human being. How anyone can treat dogs with such callousness and cruelty is beyond me. If you're equally appalled, sign this petition to urge the NFL commissioner to suspend Vick: Suspend Vick

GOP Hopefuls Outspending Democrats So Far

2007-07-20T15:09:00.000-04:00

The top Republican presidential candidates spent more than their Democratic counterparts in the first six months of the year, even though the Republican contenders raised less money, the latest campaign-finance reports show.

Republicans Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain outspent Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards by more than $20 million, a USA TODAY analysis found. The three Republicans lag the top Democrats in total receipts by $40 million and have $61 million less in the bank.

The Republicans "are running Cadillac campaigns," said Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University in Virginia. He cautioned that they will "have to re-engineer their campaigns and downsize to a more efficient vehicle" if they are to compete effectively when more than 20 states hold primaries or caucuses Feb. 5.

It looks like the GOP's latest batch of wannabee leaders, is just as "fiscally" conservative as good ole' George W.!! I'm thinking that if their campaigns have to sign up for some sort of government assistance (welfare) down the road, they may be in trouble-lmao.

President Bush & Republicans Attempt to Screw Our Troops Again!

2007-07-19T03:09:00.000-04:00

Talk about lousy timing. With President Bush's popularity scraping bottom in opinion polls, with U.S. casualties rising in Iraq in a force surge that has stretched tours to 15 months, the Bush administration has said it "strongly opposes" key military pay and benefit gains tossed into the fiscal 2008 defense bill.

Initiatives the administration opposes include:
· A military pay raise for next January of 3.5 percent versus 3 percent endorsed by the White House.

· Lowering the age-60 start of reserve retirement annuities for reserve component members by the length of their future mobilizations.

· Expanding eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to service members forced by combat disabilities to retire short of 20 years.

· Directing pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide the Department of Defense with same-price discounts for Tricare retail pharmacy network that are provided on medicines dispensed from base pharmacies.

The administration also grumbled that the Senate intends to block for another year Tricare fee increases for under-65 retirees and dependents.

The objections appear in a "Statement of Administration Policy" from the White House's Office of Management and Budget delivered to Senate leaders as they opened floor debate on the defense authorization bill.

A day later, Senate Republicans, at White House urging, blocked amendments that would have shortened Iraq tours for U.S. ground forces and slowed the frequency of war deployments.

Bush and his sycophant followers in Congress love having their pictures taken with our men and women in uniform. They love to pretend that they care and truly support our military personnel, but when it gets right down to it, when they have chances to actually show that “support and caring”, to prove that their words aren’t just hollow, political rhetoric designed to further their own careers, this is how they act. They vote and push constantly and consistently to screw the very people they trumpet as heroes. If you apply the old adage, “actions speak louder than words” to the republican’s treatment of our troops, the truth of how much they really care is obvious, very little, if at all.

Fort Lewis To Consolidate Memorials For the Dead

2007-07-17T21:43:00.000-04:00

Michael Gilbert The News Tribune
Fort Lewis, which this month has suffered its worst losses of the war, will no longer conduct individual memorial ceremonies for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Instead, the post will hold one ceremony for all soldiers killed each month, the Fort Lewis acting commanding general, Brig. Gen. William Troy, wrote in a memo to commanders and staff last week.

“As much as we would like to think otherwise, I am afraid that with the number of soldiers we now have in harm’s way, our losses will preclude us from continuing to do individual memorial ceremonies,” Troy wrote in the memo, according to a copy obtained by United for Peace Pierce County and posted on the group’s Web site. A post spokesman confirmed the policy change Tuesday. It will start in June.

There are 10,000 Fort Lewis troops in Iraq, more than at any other time since the March 2003 invasion. The post has reported 16 soldiers killed there so far in May, by far the most in any month of the war. The previous worst month was December 2004, when nine soldiers were killed, including six in the Mosul chow hall bombing. In all overseas deployments since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, 124 Fort Lewis soldiers have died.

In his memo dated May 22, Troy said he asked the post’s senior chaplain, Col. Jack Van Dyken, to work out the details of the new policy.

“I see this as a way of sharing the heavy burdens our spouses and rear detachments bear, while giving our fallen warriors the respect they deserve,” Troy wrote. “It will also give the families of the fallen the opportunity to bond with one another, as they see others who share their grief.”

Other Army posts already consolidate soldier memorials into one or two ceremonies per month.

My girlfriend's nephew is currently serving in Iraq. He's stationed out of Ft. Lewis, in Washington. His wife brought this new Ft. Lewis policy to my attention and I must say I think it's a sad day in America when our troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan can't get their own individual funerals/memorials. I realize that it's more financially practical to hold a monthly ceremony for all the soldiers at once but, I personally think honoring each and every soldier, who's given his/her life for the nation, is the least we can do and a more than worthwhile expense.

Death Row

2007-07-16T15:13:00.000-04:00

Our "Friends", The Saudis'

2007-07-15T14:52:00.000-04:00

Los Angeles Times

BAGHDAD — Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.

The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.The problem casts a spotlight on the tangled web of alliances and enmities that underlie the political relations between Muslim nations and the U.S.

Let’s put this in perspective, nine of the eleven terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, zero were from Iraq. So we invaded Iraq and Saudi Arabia is our “friend and ally”?! Now, Bush and company want to bomb Iran because it’s helping insurgents in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is helping the insurgency in Iraq, but they’re still our “friend and ally”?! With logic like this is it any wonder that Bin Laden is free and rebuilding Al Qaeda’s strength in Pakistan and we're caught in a unwinnable quagmire in Iraq? I’ll tell you what my prayer for this country is, “God, please give us leader’s with some common sense and at least a few working brain cells”!

Impeachment Now!

2007-07-14T19:58:00.000-04:00

Saw this at People in the Sun. Spread it around. Let's get this thing out there.

We the people want impeachment NOW

The other day, George Bush decided to let Scooter Libby, the one man who was convicted for the lies around the Iraq war, avoid serving out his prison sentence. Even Paris Hilton served more jail time than he will. And letting Libby off the hook is only the most recent example of a consistent Bush administration pattern of obstruction of justice. Warrantless wiretaps, Alberto Gonzalez, the original outing of Valerie Plame; we're all familiar with the numerous past transgressions by these criminals.As they say in civics class, America is a country of laws, not of men. It's time for Congress to stand up and use those laws to rid our country of the men who are systematically dismantling our constitution and ignoring the checks and balances that have always protected our democracy. Bush and Cheney think their administration is above the law. That's un-American, and this July 4th it's time for Congress to re-assert its constitutional authority and stop the administration's obstruction of justice.Congress can start by demanding answers from the Bush administration about the Iraq war and their illegal spying program, and not backing down until they get them. Cheney won't testify? Subpoena him. He won't come? Hold him in contempt of Congress and send over the police. And if that doesn't work, impeach the guy. We just can't let President Bush and his administration continue to wipe their feet on our Constitution.Let's celebrate Independence Day by reaffirming the basic, founding idea of our government: No one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law. Sign this petition to urge Congress to act NOW! If enough of us make enough noise, and for long enough, and from all corners of our country, then perhaps this Congress will stiffen it's spine and move to remedy the poison that has seeped into our land for far too long now.After you've signed the petition and pestered your own Congress critter, join me by copying this post to your own blog, and adding your blog to the list below. Let's take this message of unity and support to every corner of America, and show just how many of us are ready to take back America!- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Instructions:1.- Copy and paste this message as a new post on your own blog.2. - Replace one of the “Impeach NOW” tags in the matrix below with your anchor text (Blog name) of choice with your blog’s URL (Don't hesitate to e-mail me if you have questions about this!). Please keep anchor text to a max of 3 words to keep the matrix size manageable.3. - Encourage and invite your readers to do the same and soon this can grow virally.
4.- The above steps will not only add your voice to the chorus for impeachment, but will also increase your Technorati stats as an added bonus.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We, the undersigned bloggers of America, agreeing that dissent is the truest form of patriotism, hereby publicly voice our unanimous discontent with the Bush administration and beseech the Congress of the United States of America to provide redress by immediately initiating impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.

Left in Aboite Fort Wayne Left Left of Centrist Monticello America Weeps Get Your Own Der Parson's Rant The Katrinacrat Let's Talk About It Carol for Peace Divided States bu$hmeriKa Dizzy Dayz Anti-bush pro-usa States-a-Mind Life’s Journey A Poetic Justice The Peace Tree Poets For Peace The Anti-War Theatre APJ Photomontage LeftwingNutJob The Sirens Chronicles Sumo Merriment People in the Sun Moondanzer Delivers Lionboi Blues & News ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW

The Light Bulb

2007-07-14T06:06:00.000-04:00

How many George W. Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None.

There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; it's condition is improving every day.
Any reports of it's lack of incandescence are totally unfounded, and the result of delusional "spin" assaults from the fanatic, elitist, liberal media.
.
That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect and dims it's ego.

Why do you hate freedom?

This had me laughing hard!

Humpty Dumpty

2007-07-13T14:56:00.000-04:00

When I was a kid one of my favorite nursery rhymes was Humpty Dumpty. I don’t know if Barbara Bush read this one to little Georgie or not, but it might be good for him to brush up on it either way, because it’s a simple, yet accurate metaphor for Iraq and maybe even he could understand it. It’s a sad truth of life that sometimes no matter how hard you want to fix something, no matter how much time, energy and man power you put into accomplishing it, it’s broken and you can’t put it back together again. Such was the case with Humpty and such is the case in Iraq. Unfortunately, President Bush, much like a small child who broke his toy, doesn’t want to hear this and ignores anyone who tries to tell him. He stubbornly insists it can be fixed, and much like a spoiled four year old on a rampage with crazy glue, he continues to make a bigger and bigger mess which someone will have to clean up, probably after Georgie goes to bed.

Bush's New I-raq Phone

2007-07-13T05:02:00.000-04:00

The Schmooze Award Goes To.....

2007-07-12T15:39:00.000-04:00

According to Mariuca, schmoozing is the natural ability “to converse casually, especially in order to gain an advantage or make a social connection.” Good schmoozers effortlessly weave their way in and out of the blogosphere, leaving friendly trails and smiles, happily making new friends along the way. They don’t limit their visits to only the rich and successful, but spend some time to say hello to new blogs as well.

Well today is the day you lucky people! I want to hand out the Schmooze Award to a few of my well deserving fellow bloggers.

The first Schmoozy goes to Larry over at Let’s Talk. Larry runs a couple of wonderful political blogs, yet always manages to find the time to comment on everyone else’s. He definitely leaves a trail of smiles behind where ever he goes and is an all around cool guy.

The next Schmooze Award goes to Tom, from Who Hijacked Our Country. Tom’s way with words and passion make his blog a must read. He brings those qualities to his comments as well, which improves the quality of the blogosphere in general.

Last, but certainly not least, the Schmoozy goes to David, author of D.C. Podhaskie. David’s blog is bipartisan and while I don’t always agree with all of his opinions, he brings some superb writing, a seriously witty humor, and a pleasant reasonable manner to each of his posts. His blog is the type that, I believe, makes the blogosphere a great place to visit.

There are many other well deserving bloggers out there, but I decided to pick just three, and these three are some of my favorites. If you haven’t already checked out there blogs, I highly recommend doing so, as they won’t disappoint!

The Oath

2007-07-11T18:08:00.000-04:00

During her testimony today in front of Congress, Sara Taylor, former White House Political Director, said something that I found both frightening and quite telling. At one point in her testimony she stated that, “I took an oath and I take that oath to the President very seriously”. Senator Patrick Leahy immediately corrected her, pointing out that the oath she had sworn was to the Constitution, not to the President. Was this a harmless misstatement on Ms. Taylor’s part? Neocons will surely argue that it was, but while it was certainly a misstatement, I believe that rather than a harmless faux pas it was a chilling glimpse into the mindset of those who have served and those who continue to serve in the Bush administration.

It doesn’t take a very close examination of our current Presidential administration to see the obvious, that it’s minion work and act under the guise that an oath to uphold our Constitution is synonymous with an oath to uphold the President They seem to believe that no matter what happens their first responsibility, whether as government employees or private citizens, is to serve the will of President Bush, to loyally follow him and do his bidding, even if it’s illegal or diametrically opposed to the Constitution. This is a patently false and dangerous misconstruction of duty. In America, as opposed to say Nazi Germany, our government employees, do not and can not swear allegiance to any one man, or the office he/she may hold. This is one of the fundamental differences between a democracy and a dictatorship. When people start confusing the basic tenets that make this a democracy with those that form a dictatorship that is, to put it mildly, some scary shit!

The people who support President Bush, Dick Cheney and company in their unprecedented grab for overwhelming executive branch power, either do not understand or do not care the risk and inherent danger they are exposing our country to. Neocons will tell you that liberals are paranoid and that it’s no big deal, but they couldn’t be more wrong. By thinking and acting as if the President and the executive branch is the sole end all and be all of this nation, they are complicit in severely damaging the very fiber of our democracy and that is a very big deal indeed.

Last Breathe

2007-07-11T05:02:00.000-04:00

It started as a barely audible murmur, but as time past and frustrations grew, more and more people took up the cry and the low rumble became a roar, a roar of discontent and outrage. A roar that even now sweeps across the land, swelling in volume as it goes. It’s loud, incessant, and demanding and it can be heard all over America. It’s the sound of the people. The ordinary citizens of this country standing up and crying out for an end to this war without merit, this war that has drained America, this war that offers only new terrorists, stronger enemies and more dead Americans to fill the empty coffers and coffins of our land.

Have no doubt America, we the people have done our job. We have raised our voices, first whispering then shouting our dissent. We have communicated our message over the airwaves, across the internet, in the streets and from the ballot box. We continue to yell, but our leaders plug their ears even as they nod in acknowledgement to us. They pretend to hear our pleas; they feign interest in our concerns, but most our deaf to our loudest screams. They patronize the people, the average Americans of our nation, with their mimicked agreement, but once tucked back into the presumed safety of their cocoons of power they continue to vote to fund this war with no deadline for withdrawal in sight.

Yes, the halls of Congress are well insulated from the noise of the people and the White House is utterly sound proof. So the din, the cacophony we’ve raised so loudly falls to silence as it reaches this nations capitol. It dies not slowly, not naturally, oh no, it is slain. Stabbed and pierced through the very heart, our democracy gasps for breathe.

The Schmooze Award

2007-07-10T16:25:00.000-04:00

I’ve been awarded the Schmooze Award by the wonderful Raven, over at Stuperhero Extraordinaire I just want to say, thank you so much Raven, it’s an honor. I will be handing it out to some of my favorite blogging friends sometime soon. I borrowed the schmoozing definition from Raven, thanks. I hope you don’t mind.

One last note, a little while ago I was honored by the Blog Thinking Award by Larry at Let’s Talk. I didn't post about it, because I am fairly computer illiterate and at the time I didn't know how to add hyperlinks properly. Larry was very kind in trying to help me figure it out, but I couldn't seem to get it right. Recently I found a friend who could show me on their computer how to do it. Anyway, long story short, I just wanted to give a shout out to Larry and let him know that I really did appreciate his award and I hope he understands why I didn't repost it.

Fred Thompson Helped Nixon During Watergate

2007-07-09T16:41:00.000-04:00

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer Sat Jul 7, 4:38 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Fred Thompson gained an image as a tough-minded investigative counsel for the Senate Watergate committee. Yet President Nixon and his top aides viewed the fellow Republican as a willing, if not too bright, ally, according to White House tapes.

Thompson, now preparing a bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, won fame in 1973 for asking a committee witness the bombshell question that revealed Nixon had installed hidden listening devices and taping equipment in the Oval Office.
Those tapes show Thompson played a behind-the-scenes role that was very different from his public image three decades ago. He comes across as a partisan willing to cooperate with the Nixon White House's effort to discredit the committee's star witness.
It was Thompson who tipped off the White House that the Senate committee knew about the tapes. They eventually cinched Nixon's downfall in the scandal resulting from the break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington and the subsequent White House cover-up.
Thompson, then 30, was appointed counsel by his political mentor, Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker, the top Republican on the Senate investigative committee. Thompson had been an assistant U.S. attorney in Nashville, Tenn., and had managed Baker's re-election campaign. Thompson later was a senator himself.
Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called "dumb as hell." The president did not think Thompson was skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses and would be outsmarted by the committee's Democratic counsel.
This assessment comes from audio tapes of White House conversations recently reviewed by The Associated Press at the National Archives in College Park, Md., and transcripts of those discussions that are published in "Abuse of Power: The New Watergate Tapes," by historian Stanley Kutler.
"Oh s---, that kid," Nixon said when told by his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, of Thompson's appointment on Feb. 22, 1973.
"Well, we're stuck with him," Haldeman said.
In a meeting later that day in the Old Executive Office Building, Baker assured Nixon that Thompson was up to the task. "He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella," the senator told Nixon.
Publicly, Baker and Thompson presented themselves as dedicated to uncovering the truth. But Baker had secret meetings and conversations with Nixon and his top aides, while Thompson worked cooperatively with the White House and accepted coaching from Nixon's lawyer, J. Fred Buzhardt, the tapes and transcripts show.

Just what we need, another not so bright President who believes that covering up and lying is the height of good leadership!

Valerie Plame Was a Covert CIA Agent

2007-07-09T07:32:00.000-04:00

The far right continues to spread the lie that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent when her name was disclosed to the media. Here is a link where you can actually view a copy of the now unclassified CIA document which shows her status was covert at the time of her outing: CIA Document

Mission Accomplished

2007-07-09T06:11:00.000-04:00

Former 9/11 Panel Member Says U.S. Still Not Secure

2007-07-07T15:14:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Qaeda is gaining strength and the United States is still not as safe as it should be, former Indiana congressman Tim Roemer said Saturday.
Speaking about a week after failed bombing attacks in Britain, the 9/11 commission member chided Congress and the White House for not taking enough action to secure the country from another attack.
Roemer urged lawmakers to move forward on adopting safety measures the commission suggested and asked President Bush not to threaten to veto the proposed legislation.
"Only half of these bipartisan recommendations have been passed," Roemer said during the weekly Democratic radio address. "The White House's execution and funding of them has received failing grades."
He identified border security as one of the most critical issues for protecting the country.
"We still do not have the ability to know fully who and what is crossing our borders and sailing into our ports," he said. "We've left the door open to attacks."
Roemer emphasized his belief that al Qaeda is training more people to participate in terrorist activities and that the war in Iraq is "creating a new generation of jihadists."
He listed information sharing, infrastructure protection and first responder communication among other domestic priorities to combat these threats. Internationally, he stressed the importance of securing "loose nuclear material" and increasing educational opportunities for people in the Middle East.
"We need to fix the logjam in Washington," Roemer said. "We cannot afford to wait any longer."

AMEN to that! Perhaps if we ended the complete snafu in Iraq, which is leading to More terrorists, we could afford to secure our own country. Of course, even with a huge budget it will never happen while Bush is President, as it "makes sense" and doesn't put any money in his or Cheney's pockets.

What's Wrong With This Picture?!

2007-07-05T16:31:00.000-04:00

If we divided the income of the US into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third. If we divide the wealth of the US into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)

A some what easier way to understand the great disparity in American wealth distribution is to look at it this way (from 2001 statistics): Assume there are a hundred people with $100.00 to split. No one expects it to be split exactly evenly, at a dollar a piece, but everyone expects some fairness in the split. Now let’s say it is split up this way:

1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32
5 people get $2.30
10 people get $1.25
20 people get .60
20 people get .23
40 people get ½ cent each

This is how our economic system has divided the wealth of our nation.

Now I ask you, what’s wrong with this picture? Our economy produces tremendous wealth, but it also produces tremendous poverty. Those in the top percentages of wealth want you to resent the poor and think of them as welfare leeches, and yes there are lazy people, but there are also a vast quantity of hard working citizens who live in poverty and shrinking numbers of middle class men and women. That is because the problem is systematic and not individual. There is plenty to go around, but it’s not being distributed fairly or adequately. It goes to the top and leaves the rest of us to fight for the crumbs.

I believe it is not enough to create a strong economy. It is just as important to ask how the benefits of that economy are being distributed throughout the population. A truly democratic society needs to find ways to manage the economy to benefit the whole population. This isn’t being done. Recent economic booms have had little if any effect on improving the conditions of the masses, but the top one percent of the wealthy in this country made huge gains. Can this be considered prosperity? Do we want to continue to gear our national policies to repeat this performance?

Let’s look at it from another angle. The extremely rich can use their influence very effectively. A single billionaire can get the undivided attention of any politician he wants, anytime he wants. If he doesn’t get what he wants he can in fact, “fight city hall”, the statehouse or even the federal government. Average Americans must pool their resources, and join their individual power together with many others to have any sort of influence at all. This is a difficult thing to manage typically. So I ask you, who wins when it comes to electoral votes? Whose interests are being represented in Washington?
Can democracy meaningfully exist where the distribution of wealth, and thus the distribution of power, is this concentrated?

Osama's Latest Disguise

2007-07-05T04:52:00.000-04:00

No wonder we can't catch him. He's a master of disguise!-lol Sorry, but this pic. was too cute not to use, somehow. I'm working on a bit more serious post and should have it up soon.

Happy Fourth of July

2007-07-04T05:03:00.000-04:00

I hope everyone has a happy fourth!

Enough is Enough!

2007-07-03T15:16:00.000-04:00

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m fed up!! Bush commuting Libby’s sentence is one more example, of the FACT that this presidential administration believes it is above the law. Well, I have a news flash for them, they are not! The people in that, “we the people” clause need to stand up and tell Bush, Cheney and Congress that we have had enough. I believe Joe Biden had the right idea when he encouraged us to flood the White House phone lines with our protests. I went him one step better and not only e-mailed and called the White House, but also e-mailed my representatives in Congress and let them know just how disgusted I am. Bush would be surprised to hear it, but the truth is, this is not his country nor the country of the elite and powerful, this is OUR country, all of ours and if we really love it then it’s time to show it by banding together and taking a stand for what is right and true and legal. Please take the five minutes to call or write or both the White House and your representatives and tell them, enough is enough!!

White House Contact Info: comments@whitehouse.gov

Phone Numbers Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461

Link to page where you can easily find your Congressional Reps. and their contact info:

www.visi.com/juan/congress/

"Sicko"

2007-07-02T14:15:00.001-04:00

I went to see “Sicko” last night and it didn’t disappoint. This is a documentary, that I think, every American should see, though I’ll warn you, be prepared to leave the theater thoroughly agitated and pissed off. Moore does a wonderful job exposing the pure corporate and political greed and propaganda that allows the U.S., one of the richest nations on earth, to continue with a healthcare system that is not only broken but complicit in the fleecing, maiming and even the deaths of many Americans.

Contrary to what you’ll hear from the neocons who love to criticize Moore without ever having seen his films, “Sicko” visits and examines the healthcare systems in not just Cuba, but also Canada, England and France and let me tell you it’s an eye opening experience. You come away bewildered, wondering how the supposed “best” country in the world could get it so wrong, while these other nations have gotten it so right. I don’t want to ruin it for those of you who haven’t seen it yet, so suffice to say “Sicko” is a wonderful, important work that will leave you with the desire to either take to the streets of America in protest of our current system, or take to the road north in the hope of gaining citizenship in Canada.

Bush Threatens D.C. Funding Veto Over Gays

2007-07-01T23:40:00.000-04:00

SUMMARY: President Bush threatens to veto a routine appropriations bill to the District of Columbia over its recently strengthened partner rights.

In what the Human Rights Campaign called "a new low" of "anti-gay zeal," President Bush has threatened to veto this year's routine appropriations bill to the District of Columbia over the district's recently strengthened recognition of domestic partners.

The district, governed by a city council, gets about 25 percent of its funding directly from Congress, giving that body control over local affairs far greater than it has on other cities. Congress' Democratic takeover in the 2006 elections heartened the district's gay activists, out D.C. Council member Jim Graham told the Washington Post this month.
Graham, one of two out council members, told the Post that he plans to introduce a bill in the next two years for the district to recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions.

The District of Columbia first recognized domestic partnerships in 1992 and greatly strengthened them last year. The registry is open to same- and opposite-sex unmarried couples and confers hospital visits, medical decisions, joint tax filings and inheritance rights, among other rights, according to the local Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance. D.C. public employees also can get health and other benefits for their partners. About 80 percent of the registered partners are gay.

Said the White House in its June 27 policy statement on the bill:
"Under federal law, legal marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Federal tax dollars are not used to extend employment benefits to domestic partners of federal employees, and D.C. should not enjoy an exception to this rule. If the final version of HR 2829 does not include this longstanding provision, the president's senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill.

"With his popularity at an all-time low, this president has yet again dipped his cup into the well of anti-gay bigotry," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which like many advocacy groups is based in the district.
"He has issued a veto threat on funding for the District of Columbia because long-term, committed couples want to have such basic rights as visiting each other in the hospital and making medical decisions for their partner," Solmonese said.
"The anti-gay zeal of this administration has reached a new low." (Barbara Wilcox, The Advocate)

It's obvious that Bush doesn't care about anyone, gay or straight, who doesn't somehow further his narrow agenda and put more money in the pockets of him and his rich, white, "Christian" buddies.

Campaign Finance

2007-07-01T15:35:00.000-04:00

The Danger Within

2007-06-30T20:01:00.000-04:00

Whenever I hear another one of Ann Coulter’s disgusting personal attacks, or read some of the insults slung by certain blogs on an everyday basis, it takes me back to junior high where bullies reigned supreme. Now, since those days we’re back about the time that Noah was loading his ark with dinosaurs (hee- I’m kidding, about the dinosaurs that is), I’ve lived long enough to not be surprised by the fact that certain types of people never mature out of the hurling great witticisms like, “retard, fag, moonbat” stage. Instead they grow up, or at least get taller, continuing to use slurs and intimidation as their primary weapons in any debate.

It isn’t all that amazing that some “adults”, and I use that term loosely, rely on hate filled rhetoric to lash out at opponents, but what is surprising to me is just how big an audience there is for such pathetic discourse. Apparently if you want to sell a few million books or have an extremely popular blog, all you need do is spout out the most disgusting personal attacks you can and presto you’re a success. It doesn’t seem to matter that the authors of the malignant prose have nothing to offer in the way of actual reasoned argument, or new ideas. No, the fans of these people require nothing more than to be entertained, at their “enemies” expense, and encouraged in their own “righteous” hatred for anyone who has nerve enough to disagree with their opinions. It’s truly a symbiotic relationship, in that the purveyors of the hate are rewarded with money, fame and/or acclaim (and are therefore more than willing to continue to sell their souls), while their self-proclaimed fans, who reward them, are made to feel that their own base thoughts, feelings and prejudices are justifiable, even acceptable and so seek out more of the same drivel they find so reassuring. Thus, the cycle continues.

Now, obviously not everyone on the right or left sides of the political spectrum engage in this cycle, but enough people do to warrant concern, as this type of discourse benefits NO one and in fact succeeds only in further damaging our political system and our nation as a whole. Some would argue, that it’s “no big deal”, but I believe that anytime a great quantity of a democracy’s citizens engage in and propagate demeaning, hateful rhetoric as a replacement for a respectful dialogue and reasoned debate, it is only a matter of time before that nation implodes and fails. America was lucky to have come through one such period, when reason fell victim to pride and hatred and led to a Civil War. I'm not sure that She would be so blessed a second time.

Sick, sick, sick

2007-06-29T06:09:00.000-04:00

Hi everyone. I just wanted to post a quick note to let my regular readers (all three of you-lol) know that I'm sick with a stomach virus, or flu or something and probably won't be posting until I feel better, which will hopefully be in the next day or two. Until then, take care.

Romneys Cruel Canine Vacation

2007-06-28T14:52:00.000-04:00

The reporter intended the anecdote that opened part four of the Boston Globe's profile of Mitt Romney to illustrate, as the story said, "emotion-free crisis management": Father deals with minor — but gross — incident during a 1983 family vacation, and saves the day. But the details of the event are more than unseemly — they may, in fact, be illegal.

The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus's rather visceral protest.

This guy has some really great judgement, huh?!

Things That Make You Go Hmmm...

2007-06-27T02:00:00.000-04:00

Anyone’s who’s been even semi-conscious for the last seven years knows this country is headed in the wrong direction. Some of us have watched with horror, at first pinching ourselves and then desperately slapping each other with the fruitless hope that it’s all been a nightmare and we will wake up in the hospital to be informed that Al Gore’s finishing up his second term and we’ve been in a coma since 2000, having been hit by a bus when we rushed into the street, delirious with joy over Al’s win…sorry I drifted off into my favorite daydream there for a minute. Where was I? Oh yeah, the country’s a freaking mess and when I’m not pretending that it isn’t really true (cause I haven’t mastered the art of completely fooling myself, which would make me a Republican), here are a few of the things I wonder about:

Why is it that being a “tax and spend” democrat is supposedly a bad thing, but being a cut taxes and spend and spend and spend republican is ok? I’m no economic genius, but isn’t it better to spend an income you actually have, then to cut your income and then spend ten times more (like a spoiled, drunken, frat boy-- but I digress)?

Why is it that another country having a fanatical, religious zealot leading it is a bad thing, but America having a fanatical, religious zealot leading it is a positive, moral good?

Why is it that Saddam was “an ok” guy when we supported him, while he gassed the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, giving him weapons and military know how, but a “bad” guy when we couldn’t capture Osama and wanted an enemy to attack?

Why was it wrong for Saddam to imprison his enemies without trials, torture them, lie to the U.N. and ignore the will of the Iraqi people, but it’s patriotic and good for the Bush administration to do the exact same things?

Why was it a horrible, evil, tragedy when terrorists attacked the U.S. and killed 3000 American civilians, but it’s perfectly ok that America attacked a country (Iraq) that did nothing to us and just unfortunate collateral damage that we’ve killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Why is it morally justified to spend billions upon billions on an unnecessary war, but a wasteful handout to spend billions feeding, educating and insuring your own country’s citizens? (For that matter why is it the right thing to do for the Iraqi’s, but the wrong thing to do for our own countrymen?)

Why is it wrong to allow gays to marry, serve in the military, adopt kids etc., but right to collect the same amount of taxes from them as we do from heterosexuals who are allowed to marry, serve, adopt etc.? Why are convicted murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers etc. legally allowed to marry, but law abiding gay people aren’t?

Last but definitely not least, the thing I wonder about the most: What will be left of America; land of the free, beacon of opportunity, fairness and hope for the world, when our leaders get done imprisoning and torturing the untried, bombing and killing those they “think” a threat, and silencing dissent with more lies, propaganda and self-righteous declarations of who’s a real, patriotic American and who is not?

No Confidence Vote

2007-06-26T14:30:00.000-04:00

A Valid Choice or A Wasted Voice?

2007-06-25T17:45:00.000-04:00

With all of the recent buzz over New York’s Mayor Bloomberg possibly getting ready to make a third party run for pres. in 08’ I’ve been giving a lot of thought to just what I think of the idea of third party presidential candidates. My feelings are mixed on the subject. On one hand, I think that the third party candidates of the recent past have had some interesting ideas and have helped open the presidential campaigns up to some great discussions. Their ability to cut through some of the political b.s. and say what they really think is refreshing and I understand why it appeals to many Americans. The fact that so far none of these candidates has had any real chance of getting elected has, I believe acted as a double edged sword, in that they have felt free to truly speak their minds on the issues since they have nothing to fear (like losing). It makes me wonder however, just how a really viable third party candidate would behave. If they had real political backing and an honest chance to win, would they still say and do the things that make them appealing in the first place? I wonder about that, but overall I’d love to see a viable third party take hold in America, as I think the current political parties and system are stagnant and would benefit from a shakeup

That said, I must admit the mere mention of Ralph Nader, presidential candidate, still makes me wince and fight the urge to look around for my old baseball bat. These feelings come from the very practical realization that there currently is no “true” third party, and unfortunately while Nader may have added wonderful debates and ideas to the campaigns it came at a very steep price, mainly the handing of the presidency to neoconservatives. The other side of that fence would be a Ross Perot, who drew most of his support from the Republicans and helped elect Bill Clinton. Either way, the fact of the matter is, since there is no established third party, what third party candidates currently accomplish is helping to elect the candidate who is the least like them and their ideas. In other words they help to thwart the majority and elect a candidate who may very well not share the ideals or national agenda most Americans support. Is this a dangerous trend, it’s hard to say, but it is definitely a frustrating one and is the main reason that unless something changes and a third party becomes more viable, while I may enjoy their candor and their thoughts, I will not vote for a third party candidate.

What say the rest of you? Have you or would you vote for a third party candidate? Why or why not?

Hairless Wonder?!

2007-06-25T14:23:00.000-04:00

This poor thing looks sad and scared. Anyone know what it is?

Obama: Some Religious Leaders Have Hijacked Faith

2007-06-24T15:56:00.000-04:00

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right-wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division.
“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.
“Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us,” the Illinois senator said.
“At every opportunity, they’ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer andintelligent design,” according to an advance copy of his speech.
“There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich,” Obama said. “I don’t know what Bible they’re reading, but it doesn’t jibe with my version.”

Up until this point I haven't been a huge Obama fan, but he certainly got this one right. He said what many "unevangelical" Christians have been thinking and feeling for quite some time.

Is Cheney Above The Law?!

2007-06-23T15:31:00.000-04:00

So after seven years of hiding behind “executive privilege” to prevent any over sight of his actions, Dick Cheney has now decided that the office of the Vice President is not part of the executive branch of the U.S. government. (I imagine this would come as a great shock to our founding fathers as it is clearly stated in article two of the Constitution that the office of vice president falls under the executive branch.) This convenient ‘decision’ comes just in time to prevent his office from having to submit to the over sight of the National Archives office, which is attempting to follow a presidential order to oversee the handling of classified documents by all executive branch offices. Cheney is the first vice-president in history to refuse to comply with this over sight, and when called on his actions he attempted to have the National Archives office in charge of the over sight abolished.

These actions by a standing vice president of the United States should be shocking, as they are an appalling attempt to thwart the Constitution in an unprecedented exertion of illegal powers, but with Cheney it’s just another day at the office-simply the latest of his many attempts to place himself, his office, and his actions above the scrutiny of the American people and beyond the reach of the laws of this land. Now, I’m sorry if it sounds melodramatic, but the simple truth is that when you’re an elected leader of a democratic government and you refuse to comply with the laws of the country you’re supposed to be governing there is only one name for you and that is “dictator”.

There is no question at this point that Dick Cheney has proven repeatedly, with his words and actions that he does not believe in America’s current form of government and feels he is somehow all powerful and beyond the scope of this democracy’s rule of law. It’s also obvious that Mr. Cheney has no respect for the American people as he “rules” over our democracy doing whatever he pleases with apparently no fear of facing any consequences. So far he’s been right not to worry, because the checks and balances placed in our government to prevent this type of behavior haven’t worked because the men and women of our legislative and judicial branch have not done their jobs. The only question left to answer is will the American people do theirs? Will the citizenry of this nation allow a man, to break its laws left and right, scoff at its Constitution and continue to grab more and more power for himself, or will it stand up and finally say “Enough!”?

The Panda

2007-06-22T16:16:00.000-04:00

Save The Internet!

2007-06-22T04:29:00.000-04:00

Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an iPod? Everything we do online will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law next week that gives giant corporations more control over what we do and see on the Internet.

Internet providers like AT&T are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality--the Internet's First Amendment and the key to Internet freedom. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. BarnesandNoble.com doesn't have to outbid Amazon for the right to work properly on your computer.

If Net Neutrality is gutted, the voice of the little guy will be diminished online. Small businesses, activist groups, blogs, religious groups, and other everyday Internet users will never be able to outbid giant corporations for the right to have our websites open properly on people's computers.

You can do your part today--can you sign this petition telling your member of Congress to preserve Internet freedom? Click here:
http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet

I signed this petition, along with 1.6 million others so far. This petiton will be delivered to Congress. When you sign, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress.

Snopes.com, which monitors various causes that circulate on the Internet, explained:
Simply put, network neutrality means that no web site's traffic has precedence over any other's...Whether a user searches for recipes using Google, reads an article on snopes.com, or looks at a friend's MySpace profile, all of that data is treated equally and delivered from the originating web site to the user's web browser with the same priority. In recent months, however, some of the telephone and cable companies that control the telecommunications networks over which Internet data flows have floated the idea of creating the electronic equivalent of a paid carpool lane.

Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Together, we can show them that we do care about preserving the free and open Internet.

Quotable Quotes

2007-06-21T16:52:00.000-04:00

Here's a few quotes I thought were worth sharing:

"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)

"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."
-Joseph Heller (1923 - 1999)

"Ninety-eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hard-working, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then--we elected them." - Lily Tomlin (1939 - )

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)

"The shaft of the arrow had been feathered with one of the eagle's own plumes. We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction." - Aesop (620 BC - 560 BC)

"Charity sees the need not the cause." - German Proverb

A Tragic Legacy

2007-06-20T17:56:00.000-04:00

The following is an excerpt from "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency," which will be published June 26.

By Glenn Greenwald

One of the principal dangers of vesting power in a leader who is convinced of his own righteousness -- who believes that, by virtue of his ascension to political power, he has been called to a crusade against Evil -- is that the moral imperative driving the mission will justify any and all means used to achieve it. Those who have become convinced that they are waging an epic and all-consuming existential war against Evil cannot, by the very premises of their belief system, accept any limitations -- moral, pragmatic, or otherwise -- on the methods adopted to triumph in this battle.

Efforts to impose limits on waging war against Evil will themselves be seen as impediments to Good, if not as an attempt to aid and abet Evil. In a Manichean worldview, there is no imperative that can compete with the mission of defeating Evil. The primacy of that mandate is unchallengeable. Hence, there are no valid reasons for declaring off-limits any weapons that can be deployed in service of the war against Evil.

Equally operative in the Manichean worldview is the principle that those who are warriors for a universal Good cannot recognize that the particular means they employ in service of their mission may be immoral or even misguided. The very fact that the instruments they embrace are employed in service of their Manichean mission renders any such objections incoherent. How can an act undertaken in order to strengthen the side of Good, and to weaken the forces of Evil, ever be anything other than Good in itself? Thus, any act undertaken by a warrior of Good in service of the war against Evil is inherently moral for that reason alone.
It is from these premises that the most amoral or even most reprehensible outcomes can be -- and often are -- produced by political movements and political leaders grounded in universal moral certainties. Intoxicated by his own righteousness and therefore immune from doubt, the Manichean warrior becomes capable of acts of moral monstrousness that would be unthinkable in the absence of such unquestionable moral conviction. One who believes himself to be leading a supreme war against Evil on behalf of Good will be incapable of understanding any claims that he himself is acting immorally.

These principles illuminate a central, and tragic, paradox at the heart of the Bush presidency.

If the rest of this book is half as good as this excerpt it should be an excellent read. Mr. Greenwald hits the nail on the head with the Bush administration. The biggest problem I’ve always had with Bushie & Co. is their ability to self-righteously attempt to justify any actions on Americas part, under the guise that we are the good guys (no matter what we do) fighting against the evil terrorist empires. (I personally think Bush has watched Star Wars one too many times and believes he’s Luke Skywalker. He doesn’t seem to realize that Darth Vader is his second in command-lol.)

The Bush administration has used the fear of terrorism and their own supposed moral imperative to not only break international law, with their new preemptive strike philosophy and discarding of the Geneva Convention, but to continuously break and manipulate America’s laws. These actions have left a new, virtually unrecognizable America, which gets little if any respect from the people of the world and has no respect for other nations nor for Americas own citizens. The idea that you’re the “good guys” simply because you say you are is inane. What made America “good” ,for the most part in the past, was its rule of law, its sense of justice for all, in other words, its principles. Bush has thrown those principles in the trash and with them any moral imperative this nation ever had.

Stem Cell Research Bill

2007-06-19T17:00:00.000-04:00

Not much I can add to this one, as I think the cartoon speaks for itself quite eloquently.

The Global Warming Gamble

2007-06-18T16:37:00.000-04:00

I don’t know about you, but my parents taught me that if I used my common sense, nine times out of ten, I’d make good decisions and stay out of trouble. Keeping that advice in mind when looking at the whole “global warming” situation has lead me to one very simple conclusion, which is ‘better safe than sorry’. If you apply this old adage when examining the issue, I believe you’ll see pretty quickly that the current arguments about whether global warming is man made or a natural occurrence are pointless and a waste of everyone’s time. I think, people only need to ask themselves one question before deciding whether or not they think we need to curb carbon emissions and change our lifestyles to address environmental issues, that question is, are you willing to bet your children’s lives on your opinion?

Perhaps, you are convinced that the majority of scientists in the world are wrong, and that man made global warming doesn’t exist, that it’s all liberal propaganda etc., well if so I say to you I won’t argue the science with you. I won’t cite scientific studies or statistics and heck I won’t even tell you that you’re wrong. After all this is a free country and you have every right to believe whatever you want. There is only one thing I would like to point out to you and that is the simple fact that you are wagering an awful lot on the argument. The truth of the matter is I sincerely hope that you’re right! I hope with all my might that the scientists are wrong and global warming is a natural occurrence. The only difference between you and me is that I’m not willing to take the chance that they might be right. I’m not willing to sit back and do nothing, there by betting my life and/or the lives of future generations on the premise that they’re wrong. I’m sorry, but I’m definitely not that gutsy of a gambler! It makes far more sense to me to assume that global warming could be man made, and sacrifice some of my time, energy and money towards that premise, than it does to assume the opposite, change nothing and pray that I’m right because if I’m not mankind is toast. So, as far as I’m concerned I say to hell with arguing who’s right and whose wrong, to hell with defending an opinion, I’ll use my energy to change my lifestyle to be more eco-friendly, because while I may not know what to believe as to what causes global warming, I do know that my common sense is screaming at me that in this case it’s better to be safe than really damn sorry!!

Squirrel Goes Nuts!

2007-06-17T21:58:00.000-04:00

A ferocious squirrel went on the rampage in Germany this week, attacking three people before meeting its match in an angry 72-year-old.
Police in the southern town of Passau said the creature attacked a 70-year-old woman on Tuesday, sinking its teeth into her hand.
It next entered a building site and jumped on a construction worker, injuring his hand and arm before he fought it off with a pole.
A police spokesman said the squirrel then finally met its end - but it didn't go down without a fight.
"The squirrel went into the 72-year-old man's garden and attacked him on the arms, hand and thigh," the spokesman said. "Then he killed it with his crutch."
He explained that experts thought the creature's behaviour could have been brought on by the mating season, or it could have been ill.

I just thought this was a funny, bizarre story. So I guess the 72 year old guy is now known as "The Squirrelinator"!--hee

So, Who's Your Horse?

2007-06-16T14:32:00.000-04:00

So have you chosen a presidential candidate to support yet? If so, who and why? I know, I know…the election’s still a long way off, but as far as I’m concerned it can’t come soon enough, and meanwhile I can dream about it can’t I?-lol Right now, I’m leaning towards supporting Edwards (though I don’t think his chances of getting the nomination are very good), because I like his populist stances and appreciate the fact that he has come out with some actual plans which would attempt to solve some of the national problems. I have to admit though that my heart isn’t completely behind Edwards, as I’m still hoping that Gore will decide to jump into the race. Usually, I don’t believe in backing the same horse, so to speak, twice, but I was very impressed by his book “Assault on Reason”. It was apparent to me even back when Gore was vice-president that he was an intelligent guy, but the ideas and pure, stop and make you think logic he put forth in his book gave me new found respect for the man. If there are any other, dissatisfied with the current field, democrats out there, who like me still dream of seeing Al Gore’s name on the ballot you can find a petition urging him to run here, http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/algore2008/signatories.html

What are everyone else’s thoughts on the present crop of candidates?

Photo Op

2007-06-16T03:00:00.000-04:00

I'm hoping to have a post finished soon on global warming, but in the meantime this gave me a chuckle.

Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'

2007-06-15T14:16:00.001-04:00

(CBS 5) BERKELEY A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting. Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio. As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior." The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon." The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviewing the documents."The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.

The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994."The Department of Defense is committed to identifying, researching and developing non-lethal weapons that will support our men and women in uniform," said a DOD spokesperson, who indicated that the "gay bomb" idea was quickly dismissed. However, Hammond said the government records he obtained suggest the military gave the plan much stronger consideration than it has acknowledged."The truth of the matter is it would have never come to my attention if it was dismissed at the time it was proposed," he said. " In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote non-lethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."

Military officials insisted Friday to CBS 5 that they are not currently working on any such idea and that the past plan was abandoned. Gay community leaders in California said Friday that they found the notion of a "gay bomb" both offensive and almost laughable at the same time."Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction," said Geoff Kors of Equality California. "So, it's just offensive that they think by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of doing their job. And its absurd because there's so much medical data that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed."

Well as a lesbian I suppose I should find this "brilliant" military idea offensive, but it's hard to work up much outrage when you're being overcome with waves of laughter. (I swear when I first saw this I almost peed myself!) The fact that our military establishment would give this serious consideration, is just so freaking hilarious in a very Maxwell Smart, "Get Smart" kind of way. It just goes to show you though, how little some "straight" people understand and know about homosexuality.

The Likeability Factor

2007-06-14T19:29:00.000-04:00

CNN has an article on its website entitled, “Do you have to be liked to be president?” it reaches the conclusion that while being liked isn’t the most important factor, it helps. Frankly, I think this conclusion is a bunch of bullshit, excuse my French! In fact, I find CNN even asking this question insulting, because it seems quite obvious to me, and I would think to anyone who follows politics, that the election of our president devolved into a popularity contest a long time ago.

You only have to look as far as our last few presidential elections to see that the sad truth is that in America today, likeability is not only a factor in who wins the presidency, it’s the main factor. I mean let’s be serious, did people vote for George W. in 2000 because he was the smartest, most qualified of the candidates, or did they vote for him because they thought he was “one of them” and the type of guy they’d like to have a beer with?! The flip side of that is did they choose not to vote for Gore or Kerry, because they were less qualified or less intelligent then Bush, or because Gore’s personality seemed stiff as a board and Kerry had the disadvantage of looking like Herman Munster?!

Frankly I don’t think its coincidence that this country elected, George W., with his down home charm and less than impressive credentials not once, but twice nor for that matter that the only democrat to win the White House in the last thirty odd years, Bill Clinton, was one of the most charming politicians to ever come along. In fact, the only person I can think of who’s been elected president any time recently who wasn’t strong on “likeability” was George Bush Senior and he had the benefit of running against Dukakis (who’s charm factor was pretty much zero), and also of riding the coattails of one of the most likeable Republicans to ever come along, Ronald Reagan.

Now I’m not saying that every American who casts their ballot for president does so based solely on who they think would be a great buddy to hang out with, but I do think a strong case can be made for the idea that many people in this country pay far too much attention to a candidates looks and charm and far too little to his intelligence, ideas and qualifications. I mean having a president who’s got movie star looks and can charm birds out of trees is all very well, but I for one would like the leader of the free world to be at least a few notches smarter than the majority of people, better educated and someone who “Wows” with his resume and not just his ability to tell a good joke.

Poll: Most Americans Back Immigration Legislation

2007-06-13T19:51:00.000-04:00

Most Americans back a guest-worker program and a proposal allowing illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens that were part of legislation the Senate shelved last week after it failed to gain sufficient support. A new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows that at least a plurality of Americans favors the two most contentious provisions of the bill, the proposal to offer 12 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship and the program for temporary workers. Of a third provision — a point system for immigrants based on professional qualifications — many say they don’t have enough information to have an opinion. Moreover, most of those surveyed appear to reject one of the central arguments deployed by the bill’s opponents: The poll finds that less than a third of all respondents, including Republicans, believe illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans who need them.

Hee Hee, Ha Ha

2007-06-13T03:37:00.000-04:00

Here's a few jokes that made me laugh, enjoy!

"When reporters of the Associated Press recently asked some of presidential candidates what their favorite reality shows were, Mitt Romney said 'American Idol.' Joe Biden said he didn't have a favorite show. And surprisingly, Rudy Giuliani picked 'Wife Swap.'" --Jay Leno

"Rudy Giuliani ... now leads Senator McCain in the latest polls by 22 points. 22. Or, as Giuliani himself might phrase it, 'Twice the number of points as the day of the month on which the World Trade Center was attacked while I was mayor. Did I mention I was mayor ... when the world was attacked ... on 9/11?'" --Jon Stewart

"Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said today that the toughest part about getting married to his current wife was finding a wedding song that they both haven't used before." --Jay Leno

"Bush visited Walter Reed today. When you've got a problem like Walter Reed that needs solving, what better sight than to see George Bush walk through the door? ... He's created so many disasters, I'm not sure he knows which is which anymore. He walked into Walter Reed, and he said he wanted to have it ready for next year's Mardi Gras." --Bill Maher

"The president is ... on a five-nation tour of Latin America. A lot of people are saying while he's below the border, what a great time to build that wall." --Bill Maher

Powell: Guantanamo Prison Should Be Closed

2007-06-12T14:15:00.000-04:00

Associated Press:
The notorious Guantanamo Bay military prison should be closed immediately, Colin Powell said Sunday.
The prison has tarnished the world's perception of the United States, the former U.S. secretary of state said, and its approximately 380 suspected terrorists should be moved to facilities in the U.S. legal system.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said Congress and the Bush administration should work together to allow imprisonment of the more dangerous detainees elsewhere so the military stockade in Cuba can be closed.
The Defense Department estimates it would take about three years to conduct 60 to 80 military commission trials.
Powell said the U.S. should do away with the military commission system in favor of procedures already established in federal law or the manual for courts-martial.
The Pentagon is asking military judges to reconsider their decision last Monday to dismiss charges against Omar Khadr, and another detainee.

Kudos to Colin Powell for stepping up and telling it like it is! So now that even America's military heros are saying it, the question is, will this country listen? I'm quite sure that our 'Commander Guy', who got us into this mess, has his ear plugs firmly in place. In fact I'm pretty sure at this point he's had them permenantly surgically attached so the pesky voice of the people can't interrupt his, "George is King of the World", daydreams.

Faith and Politics

2007-06-11T17:18:00.000-04:00

Let me state at the outset of this post, to avoid any confusion, I am not an atheist, nor am I anti-religion, nor anti-Christian. What I am however, is an American who firmly believes that our forefathers set up our system of government with a separation of church and state for good reason. Needless to say, when I tuned into CNN last night and discovered they were broadcasting a program entitled, “Faith and Politics”, which consisted of a news anchor sitting down with all the major democratic candidates for president and asking them questions about their faith, I was appalled and disgusted. Seriously people, are we looking for a new president or for a new religious leader, because unless we’re willing to throw out our Constitution they cannot be one in the same.

I have heard many Christians who believe that there should be no separation of church and state point to the fact that the country’s founding fathers were themselves Christians and pious men. They use this fact to infer that America has always been a Christian nation and therefore assert that our forefathers intended for this country to allow a linkage between their faith and their government. This is completely and utterly untrue! We’re the founding fathers mostly good, pious Christians, yes, did they wish to protect Americans right to worship a religion of their choice from government interference, yes, but they were equally concerned and realized the dangers inherent in allowing any religiously based group to exert its belief system into and onto our systems of government. In other words, the founding fathers deliberately and with much forethought set up our system of government to protect both the rights of its citizens to worship freely AND to protect our nation from a religious movement to usurp our form of government and replace it with a theocracy. They worried about the latter, because they knew that in a democracy the majority would have great power and being students of history and human nature they smartly realized that there would be a great temptation for a religious majority to want to thrust its beliefs and faith into our laws, onto our government and hence onto all Americans, including those in the minority.

If we allow the majority religion of our nation, in this case Christianity, to become fully ensconced, at one, with our government (and I fear that we are leaning towards doing just that) then we will be no different then the countries ruled by the Taliban or any religious faction. We will have allowed, one powerful religious sect of our nation to make the rules and tell every American citizen how they are legally allowed to act, based on the majority’s religious beliefs of correct “moral” behavior. There are many Christians out there who believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with this premise, in fact they believe it’s a great idea, which is hardly surprising because it is their religious view as the majority which would be asserted. I have no doubt that they would change their minds in a hurry about the wisdom of mixing government and religion, if they we’re to find their religious faith suddenly in the minority. If you happen to be a Christian who isn’t worried because after all your faith is the majority opinion and that’s unlikely to change, give this some thought, even among Christians there are many differences of what is believed to be moral or immoral, for example many Christian sects believe dancing or women wearing pants, or listening to pop music etc. is immoral, if these particular brand of Christians were to be in control of our “Christian” government how long would it be before we had laws banning these acts? If the “Christian” prayer in school you are so keen to embrace became fifteen minutes of time allotted to speaking in tongues or reciting the rosary, or reading aloud from the book of Mormon, would you still feel this was a completely acceptable and in fact “great” idea? If you can not answer with a honest, heartfelt Yes to that scenario then maybe you better rethink the wisdom of inserting any religious majority’s faith into government and the public sphere. After all changes to our rule of government, which may seem to benefit you and your kind today, may very well be used against you tomorrow.

What's the Latest Reason?

2007-06-11T05:50:00.000-04:00

I'm currently working on writing a post, but until it's complete I present you with this for your viewing pleasure. Hope you find it as accurately amusing as I did!

Swim With Da Fishes

2007-06-10T15:28:00.000-04:00

Well, tonight is it. The finale to one of my favorite tv series, “The Sopranos”. I know that all good things must come to an end, but I hate to see it have to, ‘swim with da fishes’. All of “The Soprano’s” fans out there are trying to guess whether Tony will bite it or not, God knows this season has definitely shown he deserves to, but I’d personally hate to see him taken out by Phil Leatardo (who is a complete sanctimonious ass). Any other traumatized Sopranos fans out there, wondering what they’re going to do with their Sunday nights after this?

Conservative Blog B.S. (part 3)/ Bush Is No FDR!

2007-06-09T16:02:00.000-04:00

It’s been awhile since I’ve written a, “Conservative Blog BS” post. Needless to say, that isn’t because some of the neocon blogs don’t give me plenty to write about, because every day is a cornucopia of bs on some of these sites. No, I haven’t written this type of post, not for lack of ammunition, but more because I haven’t been inspired enough to respond to the typical, “global warming isn’t real”, “we’re really making progress in Iraq, but the liberal media won’t report it”, crap. My usual reaction when I read or hear this stuff is to think, “why bother arguing, all the evidence in the world won’t convince this person because they’ve already made up their mind to ignore any facts that don’t concur with the conclusion they want to draw”. That said, occasionally I run across neocon b.s. that is simply too illogical and, insulting to common sense, to be ignored.

Yesterday was one of those times. I was innocently surfing the web, when I came upon a blog espousing an age old neocon favorite, how we could never win World War II if fought today, because the “nambie pambie liberals” would want to cut and run as soon as there were casualties. Now, I know this is going to be a shocker for many of the conservatives out there, so if that’s you please sit down before you read further, NOT EVERY war America fights in is like World War II! In fact, each and every separate conflict has its very own set of circumstances and while some wars, such as World War II, are necessary and clear cut ( because we were attacked, Hitler was a madman who was attempting to conquer the world etc.), the majority of wars are not so black and white. The current Iraq War for instance is a great example of a conflict which was completely unnecessary and if you want to cast it in a World War II mold, then we would fit the part of the Japanese, who attacked preemptively, much better than we would the white hatted America of that generation.

I mean seriously, I know conservatives by nature hate change, but it’s been over sixty years since World War II ended, let it go already!! It’s quite apparent that most of us yearn for the days when things were simple, when America knew exactly who the enemy was, where to find him and how to fight him, but unfortunately those days are over and fighting terrorism is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like fighting a conventional war. For those of you who insist upon comparing the “war on terror”, the war in Iraq and every other modern day conflict to World War II, give this some thought; some of the reasons we were successful in World War II-we had leaders who had a plan and knew what the hell they were doing, we attacked the nations who we’re actually involved in the conflict (for example we went after Germany and Japan, not Switzerland and Mexico), we had true allies who fought along side us-we did not attempt to go it alone, we abided by certain principles of morality such as the Geneva Convention and did not attempt to cast ourselves as the good guys and then when convenient throw our principles to the wind and emulate the actions of the, “bad guys”, we had a President who understood that giving tax cuts to wealthy Americans during a war and then crying that he needed more money to fund the war would probably not be a bright idea etc.

So I’ll tell you what, if you want to make comparisons between World War II and all of America’s modern conflicts, I as a liberal pledge to be just as supportive and “patriotic” as the WWII generation just as soon as you pledge to give me leaders as smart as FDR & Truman (who were democrats, I might add-lol) and to actually go after the people who attacked this country, Osama and Al Qaeda, NOT Saddam and Iraq!

Amazing Similarities

2007-06-08T16:14:00.000-04:00

I realize this may be in some what bad taste, but I thought it was amusing and what the heck I never claimed to be all that noble anyway-lol!

Immigration Anxiety is Cultural

2007-06-07T12:29:00.000-04:00

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- On Thursday, senators announced a rather remarkable bipartisan compromise on immigration reform that combines border enforcement, a guest worker program, a path to legalization for illegal immigrants, tougher employer sanctions, and an education/skills-based point system for future immigrants.
The same day, the Census Bureau reported what many Americans already know: The United States is becoming a Hispanic nation. Hispanics are the nation's largest minority with 44.3 million people and they account for almost half the growth in the U.S. population. Meanwhile, since 2000, the white school-age population dropped 4 percent, and the white population shrank in sixteen states.
The stories are connected. Anti-illegal immigration crusaders claim their worries are entirely practical -- tied to border security or the cost of entitlements or the fact that illegal immigrants supposedly depress wages for the low skilled.
(That reminds me. Memo to the low skilled: "Grow up. Stop complaining. And go get more skills. Then you won't have to suffer the humiliation of being driven out of the market by folks with a sixth-grade education who are here illegally and don't even speak English.")
But I digress ...
As someone who has written about immigration for more than 15 years, and heard from hundreds of thousands of readers along the way, I can tell you that most of the anxiety over illegal immigration is cultural. People worry about changing demographics, the encroachment of Spanish, the fear that the country is becoming Hispanic-ized, etc. One sociologist called it "cultural displacement" -- the fear that your children will grow up in a world different than the one you grew up in, with fewer advantages, where they will have to work harder for what they accomplish.
One of the more fearful members of Congress is Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-California. Last year, while campaigning, he told a largely white audience near San Diego that if we don't end illegal immigration, one day our children would live in a world where instead of electing to take Spanish in high school, they'll have to take Spanish. Bilbray now heads the House Immigration Reform Caucus. That's where members of Congress come together at regular meetings and complain about illegal immigration while counting the campaign contributions they collect from businesses back home, many of which undoubtedly profit from hiring illegal immigrants.
Last week, Bilbray popped up on one newscast after another and milked his 15 minutes. He opposes the Senate plan, which he calls -- wait for it -- amnesty. But, like most of the critics, he offers no alternate piece of legislation to solve the problem over which he claims to be worried sick.
The Senate compromise isn't perfect. But it's bold and thoughtful, and it's a start. It also did something that's very significant -- dividing traditional allies and uniting traditional adversaries.
If the deal crumbles, we'll return to the status quo. Illegal immigrants will still come to the United States do jobs that Americans won't do. And employers will still hire them. Nothing will change. No one will be punished or held accountable. There's a word for that. I know -- wait for it: amnesty.

I was going to write another post about illegal immigration, but when I ran across this I decided to post it instead because I think this guy makes some great points. I especially agree with his assertion that if this immigration bill fails, then we will be right back where we started with nothing whatsoever being done and illegals continuing to flood across our border. If America wants something accomplished in Congress/government for a change then we have to be able to compromise with one another, which means NO one will get everything they want out of any bill. Hence why it's called compromise!

See You Tomorrow!

2007-06-07T00:55:00.000-04:00

Anyone who knows me or my blog knows that the only thing I enjoy more than ranting against the far right agenda in this country, is having a chuckle at it's expense. So on that note, here's a joke that brought a smile to my face.

One sunny day in 2008, an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President George W. Bush." The Marine replied, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer President and doesn't reside here." The old man said, "Okay," and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President George W. Bush". The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer President and doesn't reside here." The man thanked him and again walked away . . .

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President George W. Bush." The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already several times that Mr. Bush is not the President anymore and doesn't reside here. Don't you understand?" The old man answered, "Oh, I understand you fine, I just love hearing your answer!" The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow"

The Politics of Fear

2007-06-06T16:16:00.001-04:00

In one of my recent posts, “The Age of Reason is Dead”, I stated some of the causes that I believe have lead this nation to be, if not completely without reason, at the very least with a severe shortage of it. There is no simple answer for what has lead to the decline of reasoned and rationale dialogue in America, but if we look back over the last seven years it is easy to identify one major factor in the change of discourse in this nation and that factor is fear.

It is a well established fact that fears and reason are natural enemies in every human being. For hundreds, even thousands of years the great minds of their time have warned that fear and wisdom cannot coexist. Take for example these quotes from throughout the past centuries:

- Where fear is present, wisdom cannot be.—Lactantius

- No passion so effectually robs the mind of all it's powers of acting and reasoning as fear. Edmund Burke

- Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.—Thomas Jefferson

The latest scientific studies of how our brains work have only confirmed what ancient men already knew; when the fear centers of our brains are activated, the reasoning centers shut down. This is common knowledge, and the last seven years of political maneuvering have proven not only that this is true, but also that people in power can use this, “fear response”to quite effectively manipulate the general public into going along with things that they might very well question and object to, if not in a heightened state of anxiety.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, America was gripped with fear, and with good cause as these horrible deeds committed in the very heart of America was both shocking and unprecedented. At that moment it was apparent to all Americans that the country needed to make changes and heighten our national security efforts. The pervading sense of fear in those early days after the attack was a healthy reaction to a national trauma. Our nation’s leaders at that moment had a rare chance to use the unusual sense of bi-partisanship and goodwill and the power it gave them to achieve some truly needed changes, both in America’s national security and in its reputation throughout the world. Our president was given a remarkable amount of power at that time, and Americans trusted him to use it wisely. He started well, by actually going after the people who had attacked us, in Afghanistan, but then veered off course when he realized that by using Americans fears and in fact even encouraging them he could have free reign to implement, without any sort of reasoned discussion or dissent, whatever laws or course of action he felt like.

The obvious example of the, ‘fear mongering brings unprecedented power strategy’ of the current administration is the lead up to and eventual invasion of Iraq. There was never any evidence and there still isn’t that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on America, or in fact that they we’re any sort of imminent threat to us, yet with Bush and his cronies appearing all over our tv screens talking over and over about how if we didn’t go along with his plans, we could expect mushroom clouds over American cities, the few voices of reason who tried to speak out with logic we’re quickly drowned out by the cries of those filled with anxiety by the images, not only of Sept. 11th, but of the mushroom clouds sure to come. I believe most Americans would agree that at the very least there should be much reasoned discussion, and dialogue throughout the halls of power and the nation, before this country embarks on the serious course of starting a war, and yet in the case of Iraq there wasn’t. The President managed, without any evidence, to convince the vast majority of this country that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to keep them safe. He did this, using not reason nor logic, but the tool he has become expert at wielding, pure fear.

The Iraq invasion is but one example among many of how fear can and has been used to manipulate Americans into discarding their reason or common sense if you will and standing by or even encouraging actions which violate the very principles this nation was founded upon. Other examples of this in brief are; illegal wire-tapping of American homes, the suspension of habeas corpus (the right to appear before a judge and defend yourself if accused of a crime), the discarding of the Geneva Convention and allowance by law of torture. The list goes on, but frankly if this is not enough to wake you up to the idea that our fears of terrorism are blinding us to the very real threat to this democracy from within, then I FEAR America is destined to fall.

"Often fear of one evil leads us into a worse." –Nicholas Boileau Desprsaux

What The Hell is This?

2007-06-05T15:09:00.000-04:00

Taking a break from politics for a moment, does anyone know what the holy heck this is?? I'll be seeing this thing in my nightmares I suspect. Egads!

The Age of Reason is Dead!

2007-06-04T15:59:00.001-04:00

It was murdered. There are many suspects in this heinous crime; greed, apathy, commercialization, special interests etc., but in this particular case I’m a firm believer that each of the above parties played a role. Yes, that’s right I’m liberal and I’m espousing a conspiracy theory! (lol) Unfortunately, there is nothing funny about the effects of reason’s death on America.

Our forefathers, who founded America, did so working under the premise that an informed populace would be able to make good decisions when choosing their representatives, and would further be able to then monitor their representatives and be kept appraised of their actions. The key to our forefathers assumptions, when setting up America’s political system, was that the populace would be properly informed therefore allowing for reasoned, rationale decisions. They could not possibly have foreseen however, the effects our modern day technology like radio and tv would have on the way America’s citizens receive information, much less the amount and quality of the information. We currently live in the so called, “Information Age”, where vast quantities of data are available to every American at the push of a button or the click of a mouse. This would seem to be a good thing, and perhaps it would be if the information we we’re receiving was not being filtered through the sieves of first; a few, wealthy individuals who own almost all of the tv and radio stations and second the fairly new idea that news bureaus don’t exist simply to inform the people, they have to be entertaining and above all profitable. Today’s television stations are especially guilty of treating their news programs to this, ratings and profit above all else mentality. Is it any wonder then why we have hours upon hours of lurid, Anna Nicole Smith type of coverage and very little hard news? I’ll be the first to admit that some of this drivel, disguised as news, is entertaining, but the real question is, is it keeping the American populace, the cornerstone of our democracy informed enough to use reason when making important decisions, or is it just making us crave cheeseburgers and more sensationalism?

The are many other aspects to what has killed reason in this country, but in the interest of keeping this post shorter than, “War and Peace”, I will close for now and write more on the subject in a second part/post. Before closing though, I do want to give credit and kudos to the newest Al Gore book, “The Assault on Reason”, which I am currently reading and which voices many similar points in a much clearer way. I would highly recommend it to one and all, as it is not a politically partisan work.

What's the Difference Between Vietnam & Iraq?

2007-06-04T11:25:00.000-04:00

Marine Battles Military Over His Antiwar Activities

2007-06-03T18:50:00.000-04:00

By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff June 2, 2007
Liam Madden was leading a cause before he became one. The 22-year-old former Marine sergeant had co-founded Appeal for Redress, a campaign urging troops to press Congress for an end to the Iraq war.

Now, the Boston man is battling the military over his right to engage in antiwar activities, sparked when he received a certified letter threatening him with an "other than honorable discharge" from the reserves for wearing camouflage during a protest and for making "disloyal statements" accusing the Bush administration of war crimes.
He viewed the threat as ammunition for his antiwar efforts. "I thought, 'this is trying to intimidate and clamp down on political opposition to the war,' " Madden said,” and I saw it as an opportunity to make them regret that they're doing this."
Madden, who plans to attend Northeastern University in the fall, is one of three inactive reserve members facing Marine investigations for antiwar activities, in a controversial move that is spurring debate about free speech. As members of the Individual Ready Reserve, the men could be called up for service, but are not being paid or participating in training. They argue they have every right to be heard.
"It seems to me as a civilian he's just as free as you and I to say the Bush administration has done bad things in Iraq and we ought to get out," said Arthur Spitzer, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in Washington, D.C., who was meeting with Madden yesterday. "Who is better qualified to speak to those issues than someone who has seen combat in Iraq? If what's going on here is an effort by the Marines to intimidate over 100,000 people in the Individual Ready Reserves from speaking out against the war, then it's a very nefarious activity on their part and very important to stop it."
The Marine Corps confirmed the administrative action against Madden and one of the other two activists, but did not return calls. "By contract, they are still members of the Marine Corps IRR and must maintain standards of conduct in accordance with their oath of enlistment," the statement said.
A Department of Defense spokesman, Major Stewart T. Upton, pointed to a policy covering reserves as well as active troops that warns against wearing a uniform during political events because it could be viewed as endorsement by the military.
"The Marine Corps' digital cammies are trademark," Upton said.
But the nation's largest combat veterans group urged the military yesterday to "exercise a little common sense" and call off its investigation, the Associated Press reported.
"Trying to hush up and punish fellow Americans for exercising the same democratic right we're trying to instill in Iraq is not what we're all about," said Gary Kurpius, national commander of the 2.4 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars. "Someone in the Marine Corps needs to exercise a little common sense and put an end to this matter before it turns into a circus. "
Madden, a Vermont native, enlisted months before the US invasion of Iraq and served about seven months in Anbar Province.
Honorably discharged after four years, Madden helped form the Appeal for Redress, urging troops to speak out respectfully, with attention to their legal rights and limitations. Active members of the military may attend demonstrations but only in the United States, off base, and out of uniform, his website warns.
Madden does not believe that a dishonorable discharge from the reserves would affect his benefits.
Madden spoke by cell phone while on a train to Washington, where he held a press conference at Union Station late yesterday before embarking by bus to Kansas City, Mo., with Adam Kokesh, a fellow Marine who faces a hearing Monday on his antiwar activities. Madden's own hearing has not yet been scheduled.

I could understand the military's perspective on this, if this guy was an active duty marine or even a reservist, but being part of the IRR simply means that you have already served your full active duty contract and your name is now part of a list (usually for two years after your contract's up) from which the military can call you up to return to active duty, if the country is in need. People are usually only called up from the IRR when the military is truly in dire straights. Personally, I don't think the military is doing itself any favors by trying to bully this guy or any American civilian into shutting up. What the hell does America stand for, or are our troops fighting for if a citizen is not allowed to freely state his or her opinion?!

Iraqi Vacation

2007-06-03T04:21:00.000-04:00

It's good to know that the Iraqi government is taking our "benchmarks" so seriously, huh?!

Bombing Iran Could Be A Disastrous Mistake!

2007-06-02T03:10:00.000-04:00

This post is for all of the Americans out there, including our “War” President, who appear to think that bombing Iran is a good idea. First off let me get this off my chest; are you out of your minds?! What planet are you people from? Seriously though, if I wasn’t seeing it with my own eyes, in the blogosphere and various articles, I don’t think I’d believe that there are really Americans who sincerely think that the best direction for our country to take at this point is to expand our aggression in the Middle East to yet another country.

I’ll grant you that Iran; with all of its crazy rhetoric, lies, nuclear ambitions and interference in Iraq, deserves a major comeuppance, but how smart a move would it be for the United States to involve itself in further hostilities when our military is already overstretched and the current war in Iraq is going anything but well? Some American neocons seem to believe that despite the strain our military is under, we can just drop a few rounds of precision bombs on Irans’ nuclear sites and walk away unscathed and triumphant (Of course, these are the same people who thought starting a preemptive war in Iraq was a great idea!). I would hope that if nothing else good has come out of the Iraq disaster, that we as Americans would have at least learned that war is messy and unpredictable and as such it should never be rushed into under the arrogant guise that it will be a simple solution to our problems. I’m hoping that the recent decision by President Bush to participate in talks with Iran, albeit only over Iraq, is a sign that he has learned this lesson, though I’m still doubtful of that.

If he hasn’t learned that lesson and he does bomb Iran, I believe that the outcome of that decision will make the current Iraq situation look like child’s play. Iran is no Iraq, and by that I mean Iran (formally known as Persia, until 1935) is a nation that has existed for over 2000 years. Iranians are an extremely proud people, who have managed to not only survive, but thrive throughout history. I do not believe that if attacked they will just sit there and take it and with most of America's ground forces directly across their border, they would not have far to go to retaliate. Iran’s military consists of approximately 545,000 active troops and 350,000 reserve forces. They also have a volunteer militia force called the Basij which includes about 90,000 full-time active duty members and a further 11 million men and women who could be mobilized. This is the largest number of troop mobilization in the world.

So for any Americans who are thinking that a bombing campaign is the best solution to the Iranian issue, I hope you are prepared for a full fledged ground war with a country well over twice the size of Iraq, whose military was not devastated in an earlier gulf war (plus years of sanctions) and whose people would most assuredly be completely behind their government. God knows we probably have the worlds best equipped and best trained military, but then so did the Germans going into World War II, and they found out the hard way that trying to fight a two front war was not the easiest of tasks and in fact proved their undoing. I pray that Americas leaders base their future decisions on logic, reason and an understanding of possible consequences, not on an arrogant sense of superiority and pride; for we all know what pride goeth before.

Finger Length May Fortell Academic Potential

2007-06-01T03:48:00.000-04:00

I found the following article rather odd, but interesting. When I first read the title I have to tell you I was worried since I have the shortest, stubbiest fingers you've probably ever seen-lol. (No, this isn't a pic. of my hand) After reading further however, I was quite relieved to realize that my length challenged digits don't necessarily mean that I'm a moron. What a relief!-lol

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The length of children's fingers may hint at their natural abilities in math and language, a new study suggests.
In a study of 75 children between the ages of 6 and 7 years old, researchers found that finger length correlated with how well the children performed on standardized tests of math and verbal skills.
Specifically, boys whose index fingers were short compared with their ring fingers tended to excel at numbers and girls with index and ring fingers of similar length tended to do better on the verbal portion of the test.
The findings are reported in the British Journal of Psychology.
A number of studies have now found that "digit ratio," or the length of the index finger compared with the ring finger, is connected to cognitive performance, some personality traits, athletic prowess and the risk of certain medical conditions.
Researchers believe hormones explain the findings. Finger length is thought to be determined in the womb, with exposures to testosterone and estrogen playing a key role. Greater testosterone exposure appears to result in a shorter index finger relative to the ring finger, while estrogen encourages more equality between the two fingers.
Prenatal hormone exposure is also thought to influence brain development.
"Testosterone has been argued to promote development of the areas of the brain which are often associated with spatial and mathematical skills," study leader, Dr. Mark Brosnan, explained in a statement.
Estrogen, in turn, is thought to affect brain areas involved in language ability, noted Brosnan, who heads the psychology department at the University of Bath in the UK.
Therefore, finger length may serve as a marker of fetal hormone exposures, and possibly our inborn math and language abilities.
No one is saying that finger measurements should replace SAT tests, Brosnan added. But finger length does offer "an interesting insight into our innate abilities in key cognitive areas."
SOURCE: British Journal of Psychology, May 2007.

Remember When...

2007-05-30T14:05:00.000-04:00

I realize this is a bit late for Memorial Day, but it seems appropriate for any time of year these days.

Do You Really Want to Pick Fruit?

2007-05-29T22:48:00.000-04:00

Immigration seems to be the topic of the hour on a lot of blogs so I thought I’d add my two cents. To be honest I have mixed feelings on the subject. I would like to see America secure her borders, mainly because I think it’s an obvious weak point in our national security and I do believe that illegal immigration at its current rate does/will hurt America by overburdening our schools and social systems. Having said that, I do not however understand or agree with the extremely harsh rhetoric I’ve heard from many Americans when it comes to what should be done with the illegal immigrants who are already here.

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard, “we should round them all up, they’re all criminals, and send them back where they came from,” or my favorite, “we should put them all in prison”. Frankly, I think this type of thinking is irrational, not to mention xenophobic. It’s irrational because it’s not in Americas best interest to spend billions of dollars and thousands of manpower hours trying to round up all of the illegals who are out there picking the fruit we eat, cleaning up the messes we make etc. These are the people who are doing the jobs that 99% of Americans don’t/won’t do. Should we round up illegal immigrants who commit crimes; robbery, rape etc., of course, but is it really in our interest to attempt to deport all of the honest, hard working illegals whose only crime is wanting a better life for themselves and their children? Is it in America’s best interest to build thousands more prisons, which would be necessary, to house these “horrendous” criminals?

Did these people commit a crime in coming here, yes, but let me ask you something, if our nation was suddenly dirt poor, there were no jobs and no opportunities, your family was literally starving and the only hope you saw to be able to feed your loved ones was across some invisible border, what would you do? Would you sit on your ass for the next ten years, watching your family suffer while you waited and hoped to cross the border legally or would you cross illegally and work yourself to death picking fruit or moping floors so your kids could eat? Personally, I would break the immigration law in a heartbeat if it was the difference between me and my loved ones starving or surviving and I’d bet my life that the vast majority of Americans, including the ones who want to throw these people in prison for trying to survive, would be right there beside me crawling over that border with hope in their eyes.

Memorial Day

2007-05-28T15:34:00.000-04:00

Cows & Politics Explained!

2007-05-27T04:09:00.000-04:00

A CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

A COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

A FASCIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.AN

AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them World-Wide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. They are mad. They die. Pass the shepherd's pie, please.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation declares bankruptcy.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship both of them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported on them.

AN ISRAELI CORPORATION: There are these two Jewish cows, right? They open a milk factory, an ice cream store, and then sell the movie rights. They send their calves to Harvard to become doctors. So, who needs people?

AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION: You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute.

I found this hilarious!

Our Leaders Have Failed America!

2007-05-26T17:14:00.000-04:00

As frustrated as I am with President Bush and his whole retarded administration I’m twice as pissed at the mealy mouthed, cowardly Democrats in Congress. This country, in a sweeping referendum, elected our current Congress for one major purpose to stand up to the President and take the country in a different direction, most pointedly, out of Iraq. Early on Congress seemed to understand this purpose and talked a great game of how they we’re going to, “take a stand”, and not allow the President anymore blank checks to fund his insane war, but as usual with the Democratic party when it came time to truly throw down they threw their hands up instead, cried uncle and decided that it wasn’t worth the risk to their precious political careers to put the people and the country first.

Their defense of their actions is to claim that since they didn’t have the 2/3 majority needed to override another presidential veto of an Iraq bill which stipulated a time line for withdrawal, what could they do but cave and hand over another blank check?! The answer to that should have been self evident, take a page from our glorious leader’s handbook, dig their heels in and refuse to move. Send the exact same Iraq funding bill, (complete with time lines) that the Pres. vetoed the first go around right back to him and let him go on vetoing it over and over until he runs out of money for his precious war! The real problem here isn’t that the Democrats in Congress don’t have the power to change the suicidal course Bush has put this country on, they do, they’re simply too afraid to use it. They're terrified that if they stop funding the war Bush and his cronies will scream, “unpatriotic, doesn’t care about the troops etc” at them and that the American people will be too stupid or ignorant to understand that it would be Bush’s own refusal to compromise which was putting war funding in jeopardy, not the Democrats standing up for what the majority of Americans want, a time frame for withdrawal from Iraq.

I can understand the congressional Democrats fear. God knows, many Americans don’t pay much attention to the details of governing our nation, and are therefore woefully uninformed/under informed and prone to believe whatever the latest headline is. The truth is if the Democrats took a real stand and refused to fund the war without time lines for withdrawal in place, Bush and many Republicans would raise holy hell, would call them unpatriotic etc, and perhaps many clueless Americans would buy into the bullshit criticism and be angry at the Democrats. So are the Democrats political fears valid, yes, but to this I say, So What! No one ever said doing the right/moral thing was easy or without negative consequence to you, in point of fact it never is. Standing up for what you believe to be right and just is hard, it takes courage and in many cases self sacrifice. So yes, the congressional Democrats we’re in an unenviable position, but while it may have been a difficult road to walk it was also a necessary one for the good of the country and I have no sympathy for them in their refusal to do their duty. Many Americans, our military servicemen for example, volunteer to trudge a much harder path and willingly sacrifice their very lives for this nation, while our political leaders throw them and the rest of us to the wolves unwilling to sacrifice so much as an iota of their ambition. In my opinion only one word suitably describes their actions or lack there of; pathetic!

Report: Administration Was Warned of Iraq War Dangers

2007-05-25T19:22:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report.

Officials familiar with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also say analysts warned against U.S. domination in the region, which could increase extremist recruiting.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report's declassification is not finished. It could be made public as soon as this week.

The committee also found that the warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President. It wasn't clear whether President Bush was briefed.

Asked to comment on Wednesday evening, the White House's National Security Council did not directly respond to the report's findings that intelligence analysts predicted many of the troubles ahead in Iraq before the invasion.

The Bush administration can't even plead ignorance when trying to explain why the hell they choose to invade Iraq and create this never ending quagmire! They have no rational defense for this or any of the completely innane decisions they've made since then. There is good news though, they've finally admitted that there is a civil war in Iraq---whoopdeedo!! It only took what a year and a half, two years of Iraqis killing each other in droves for our esteemed administration to recognize/admit what everybody else with even half a brain has known and been saying throughout the carnage. Of course in fairness, most of us don't live in the President's fantasy world where we believe something's only true if we deign to acknowledge it!

Name That Animal!

2007-05-22T15:31:00.001-04:00

It's been awhile since we played name that animal so I thought I'd give you guys a fairly easy one. Anyone know what this is?

What Brings You Joy?

2007-05-21T18:31:00.000-04:00

I’ve noticed in the last few years that much to my dismay I seem to be getting more and more cynical and just plain disgusted by a lot of what goes on in the world. I’d like to believe that my more negative outlook is simply par for the course, a rather unfortunate side effect of aging (I’m 37), and seeing the world in a mature, realistic light. Perhaps that’s true, maybe not, the thing is no matter what the cause I hate it!
I don’t want to think or feel like the world’s going to hell in a handbasket, (one of my Moms favorite expressions-ha) or like lots of people are stupid or hateful or both. I want to believe as I did in my youth, that most people are good and that while there are many problems on this planet that there is hope and things will get better.

The only way I’ve found to combat my negative perspective is to try and pay closer attention and have more appreciation for the small joys life offers. I cannot recapture the optimistic, innocence I’ve lost throughout the years, but I can smile and feel a tiny thrill when the flowers I’ve nurtured so patiently bloom and thrive. I can make more of an effort to spend time with my family and friends and show them I care. I can sit back and lose myself in a great book. I can be more conscious of what I can do to better the world around me and bring whatever small amount of joy I can to others. I can make my dogs happy with a good neck scratching, or a long walk in the sun. It probably sounds stupid to other people, but these are the things I’ve discovered that make the days worthwhile and bring me joy when at times it seems the world is one giant shadow. What brings you joy/happiness?

Any Soldier Inc.

2007-05-18T10:30:00.000-04:00

I stumbled upon a great organization that helps support our troops serving in Iraq. It's called Any Soldier Inc. and it provides Americans, or whoever, interested in helping to keep our soldiers morale high with contact info. to send care packages to soldiers, sailors, marines and airman serving in Iraq. If you're interested in learning more and possibly helping out, you can check out the website by scrolling down the right hand side of this webpage and clicking on the Any Soldier Inc. button ad, or you can just type anysoldier.com into your address bar. Thanks!

Iraq

2007-05-12T21:15:00.000-04:00

N.J. Considers End To Death Penalty

2007-05-08T14:36:00.000-04:00

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- New Jersey lawmakers will consider abolishing the death penalty this week, starting a process that could see the liberal state become the first to scrap capital punishment since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976.
On Thursday, the judiciary committee of the state Senate will consider two bills calling for New Jersey to replace execution with life imprisonment without parole. Capital punishment in the state is already suspended under a moratorium passed by legislators in late 2005.
Sen. Ray Lesniak, a Democrat and sponsor of one of the bills, said he was confident that a combined bill would be passed by the panel and, while its fate in the full Senate was less certain, it was likely that the legislation would become law some time this summer.
Lesniak, a former supporter of the death penalty, said he had changed his mind largely because of the risk of executing an innocent person.
"We have seen so many cases of innocent people being sent to death row, it's just not worth taking the chance," he said.
But Sen. Nicholas Asselta, a Republican who supports the death penalty, argued that DNA testing eliminated the possibility of people being executed in error, and that capital punishment was a valid deterrent for the worst crimes.
"How can you not impose the death penalty on people like Osama bin Laden?" Asselta said.
Asselta predicted the full Senate would vote to abolish the death penalty because it was controlled by Democrats who wouldbe supported by some Republicans.
Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, is opposed to the death penalty, and has said he will sign any such bill after it is approved by the legislature, both of whose houses are controlled by Democrats.
Any decision by New Jersey to scrap its death penalty would likely encourage other U.S. states to take a harder look at the issue at a time when both death sentences and executions are at their lowest levels in a decade, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a group that campaigns for its abolition.
The hearing follows a report from a New Jersey legislative panel in January this year that recommended abolishing the death penalty, partly on grounds that it does not deter the worst crimes and is a greater burden on taxpayers than life without parole.
The New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission also cited increasing evidence that the death penalty was "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency."
New Jersey currently has nine people on death row but has not executed anyone since 1963. Nationwide, 53 people were executed in 2006 in the 38 states that have the death penalty, down from 98 in 1999, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
On May 4, the state of Alabama executed death row inmate Aaron Lee Jones by lethal injection.
His was the 17th execution in the United States this year and the 1,074th since capital punishment was restored in the United States, according to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

I know I'm in the minority in the U.S., but personally I think its about time. It's been obvious for a long time that the death penalty doesn't deter crime and is therefore being used for purely vengeful reasons. It seems to me that if we tell citizens as individuals that it is wrong to seek vengeance in the form of killing then the state should also have to live up to that standard. Especially since so many innocent people, in the last few years, have been found wrongly convicted and waiting on death row. My question for death penalty advocates is this, is one innocent life taken by the state acceptable to them? Because the percentages say that the U.S. has already executed innocent people and if we continue this practice we will surely execute more innocents. The Republican, in this article, arguments for capital punishment are completely innane and illogical, considering one we will not be able to use DNA in every case, because there is not always DNA evidence, and two if Osma Bin Laden were captured he would be tried either by the military or by the federal courts, not by freaking New Jersey.

Here I Am!

2007-04-24T18:44:00.000-04:00

Hi everyone. Sorry I haven't posted in awhile, I've just been busy with other things. I'll try to do better and start posting on a regular basis again. Thanks for the concern Doug.

Blair: Seizure of UK Troops by Iran 'Very Serious'

2007-03-25T16:10:00.000-04:00

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said today that the 15 British sailors and Royal Marines captured by Iran were not in Iranian waters and warned Tehran that Britain viewed their fate as a "fundamental" issue. "It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters," Blair said at a news conference in Berlin, calling the situation "very serious."

I must say, Iran scares the hell out of me! I'm terrified that their idiot leader and ours are going to push things until we end up at war.

Confessions

2007-03-21T22:38:00.000-04:00

Court: Dying Can Be Charged For Using Marijuana

2007-03-15T15:08:00.000-04:00

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A California woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive is not immune from federal prosecution on drug charges, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The case was brought by Angel Raich, an Oakland mother of two who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. On her doctor's advice, she eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite as conventional drugs did not work.
The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.
Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that marijuana should be allowed if it is the only viable option to keep a patient alive.
Raich, 41, began sobbing when she was told of the decision and said she would continue using the drug.
"I'm sure not going to let them kill me," she said. "Oh my God."

How ridiculous is this country when we hand out prescription drugs by the handful, yet won't legally allow a dying woman the necessary comfort of some marijuana? Personally, I think this is further proof that the war on drugs in a laughable farce. Why is it that in America we encourage "drinking til you puke", and/or taking prescription drugs for every real and imagined problem, but a terminally ill woman is threatened with prosecution for a little pot?! I find it bizarre, not to mention hypocritical.

Indian Cow Eats More Chicken

2007-03-14T12:48:00.000-04:00

KOLKATA, India (Reuters) -- When dozens of chickens went missing from a remote West Bengal village, everyone blamed the neighborhood dogs.
But Ajit Ghosh, the owner of the missing chickens, eventually solved the puzzle when he caught his cow -- a sacred animal for the Hindu family -- gobbling up several of them at night.
"We were shocked to see our calf eating chickens alive," Ghosh told Reuters by phone from Chandpur village, about 240 kilometers (150 miles) northwest of Kolkata.
The family decided to stand guard at night on Monday at the cow shed which also served as a hen coop, after 48 chickens went missing in a month.
"Instead of the dogs, we watched in horror as the calf, whom we had fondly named Lal, sneak to the coop and grab the little ones with the precision of a jungle cat," Gour Ghosh, his brother, said.
Local television pictures showed the cow grabbing and eating a chicken in seconds and a vet confirmed the case.
"We think lack of vital minerals in the body is causing this behavior. We have taken a look and have asked doctors to look into the case immediately," Mihir Satpathy, a district veterinary officer, said by phone.
"This strange behavior is possible in some exceptional cases," Satpathy said.
Hundreds of villagers flocked to Chandpur on Wednesday to catch a glimpse of Lal, enjoying his bundle of green grass for a change.
"The local vets said the cow was probably suffering from a disease but others said Lal was a tiger in his previous birth," Ajit added.

All I can say about this story is, that the chick-fil-let (sp?) people need to give this bovine a contract!

Name That Animal!

2007-03-10T16:01:00.000-05:00

Ready for another round of name that animal? This is a tough one, but I have no doubt that someone out there will know what this is. Let the guessing begin-lol! I love the punk hairstyle by the way-hee.

Clinton Calls For New G.I. Bill For Troops

2007-03-08T17:37:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a new GI "Bill of Rights" for men and women in uniform, arguing that Democrats can do a better job of protecting and providing for U.S. troops than the Republican administration.

"This administration is frankly unable to run a two-car parade," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech at the Center for American Progress, a think tank run by former Clinton White House aide John Podesta.

The New York senator, who leads early polls of Democratic contenders for the party's nomination, said she would put together a package of proposals designed to ensure troops have all the equipment they need when they're deployed, to ensure they receive proper health care, and to provide for families.

"I am here to say the buck does stop with this president and if he doesn't take responsibility, I can assure you that the next president will," the Democratic senator said Thursday.
Her call for better benefits for troops comes amid a public outcry over conditions at outpatient facilities at a Washington military hospital roughly seven miles from both the White House and Congress.

"In the leadership vacuum that has been left by the Bush administration, too many members of the military and their families have been left literally holding their breath," Clinton said.
Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been an outspoken critic of Bush's handling of the Iraq war, but she has resisted calls by some in her party to label her 2002 vote authorizing the war a "mistake." She has said she wouldn't have voted to authorize the war if she knew then what she knows now.

Her proposals come as Democrats in Congress seek to curtail Bush's recent troop increase to Iraq -- an effort Republicans charge is tantamount to abandoning U.S. troops in the field.

My response to this is it's about time! If America really loves and supports it's troops then we need to make damn sure we're taking the best care of them, during and after their service, that we possibly can! The scandal at Walter Reed is bringing to light what any American who took the time to inform themself already knew, we are Not supporting and caring for our troops the way we should!!! These young people volunteer to defend us, willingly giving their time, energy and sometimes their limbs or very lives and it makes me sick that we as a country can't keep up our end of the bargain and give them quality healthcare and the money necessary to support themselves and their families.

Supporting The Troops

2007-03-06T16:35:00.000-05:00

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm not particularly surprised by the Walter Reed scandal. Our current presidents administration has been cutting funding to the VA ever since he took office and while the president and his cronies talk a great deal about caring about our troops if you look at their actions it's obvious nothing could be further from the truth!

The Babies

2007-03-01T18:53:00.000-05:00

Dema, a Sumatran tiger licks Nia a baby orangutan in a nursery room at the Taman Safari zoo Wednesday Feb. 28, 2007, in Bogor, Indonesia. The tiger and orangutan baby, which would never be together in the wild, have become inseparable playmates after they were abandoned by their mothers.

Can everyone say awwwww....at once?!-lol I just thought this was awfully sweet & cute.

How the Front Runners Lost Their Edge

2007-02-24T06:15:00.000-05:00

The following is a story from the "Time" online site, which I found interesting. I believe the author is right on point as you can feel the shift of hype and attention leaving Hillary and McCain and surging to Obama and Rudy G. I think Hillary's especially in trouble as the Obama wave continues to grow. It's no wonder she's so testy towards him-lol!

In the beginning, Hillary Clinton and John McCain were the front runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, and it was good. Two strong, colorful candidates. What could be better? That was a few months ago--pre-surge, pre-Obama. In the party of primogeniture, the 70-year-old McCain was next in line for the throne. He was, and still is, scarfing up the fund raisers, pols and operatives who represent the beating heart of the Republican Party. And Hillary was ... Hillary. No last name necessary. It was an article of faith that because of money and marriage, the junior Senator from New York had it locked up. It still is an article of faith among right-wing talk-show hosts, who tend to believe in their wildest fantasies. "She's got it locked up, right?" Sean Hannity said to Dick Morris during a radio smarm-athon a few weeks ago. Of course, Morris agreed, juicily, but "wait till people see that she's an even bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry."

The odd thing about this conversation is how irrelevant it seemed. For one thing, no one with any sense still believes that Clinton--or McCain, for that matter--has the nomination locked up. And flip-flopping? Wasn't that the last election? So imagine my surprise to learn, in the New York Times, that Clinton was thinking right along with Morris, that she was really, really worried that if she admitted that her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, she could be accused of being a flip-flopper. "She is in a box now ... but she doesn't want to be in a different, even worse box--the vacillating, flip- flopping Democratic candidate [who] went down to defeat in 2000 and '04," said one of the Senator's apparently limitless supply of advisers. "She wants to maintain a firmness ... That's what people will want in 2008."

No, they won't. Most voters don't care if Hillary Clinton says "I was wrong" about Iraq. They know she was wrong, and they sense she regrets it. After all, she's against the surge and for a phased withdrawal. She knows more about national-security issues than most of her Democratic opponents do, and when she talks about what to do in Iraq, she makes sense. That should be all that matters. But there are about 873 people on the left edge of the Democratic Party, plus assorted anti-Clinton consultant trolls like Morris, who want to torment her over this. And she, inexplicably, is allowing herself to be tormented. One would think that after six stubborn years of George W. Bush, Clinton would realize there is a bull market for candidates who can admit, and learn from, mistakes. When John Edwards simply said "I was wrong" about Iraq on Meet the Press a few weeks ago, it seemed to defuse even Tim Russert, who can flog a flip-flop better than anyone else.

Clinton's sclerotic firmness may be chronic, a consequence of the sort of campaign she appears to be running--which is to say, the sort of campaign in which you put a ravening horde of consultants in a room and have them discuss whether you should say "I was wrong" about Iraq instead of making up your own mind and speaking the obvious truth. In other words, she's running against the Kerry campaign by imitating the Kerry campaign. She's fighting the last war.

John McCain, weirdly, seems to be doing much the same thing--thinking tactically, not strategically, looking backward, not forward. In McCain's case, he's running against ... John McCain, vintage 2000, a terrific candidate who spoke his mind and was, I suspect, eight years ahead of his time. Much has been written about whether McCain's stubborn support of the war is weighing him down this time. I don't think so. He really believes in his position on Iraq. He has favored more troops since the beginning; he was one of the very first Republicans to criticize Donald Rumsfeld. He could get away with this hawkishness--perhaps even be celebrated for it--if he were still the McCain of 2000. But now he's the guy who, yes, flip-flopped on Bush's tax cuts, voting against them in 2001 and for extending them last year. He's the guy who used to criticize telecharlatans like Jerry Falwell, and now he's snuggling up to them. People may assume he's playing some sort of Iraq game too. There is a difference between flip-flopping and admitting a mistake. You flip-flop for political advantage. You admit a mistake despite the political peril. McCain did the former; Clinton won't do the latter. Go figure.

As a result, both of these front runners seem slightly dated. McCain has lost more altitude, trailing Rudy Giuliani 29% among Republicans in a CBS poll last week. Clinton maintains her 20-point lead among Democrats, but her Iraq empretzelment may be a leading indicator of a stiff, consultant-swarmed campaign that will come across as clanky in 2008. It is still early, of course. Both McCain and Clinton will have a chance to reinvent themselves several times between now and Iowa. "I'm a little rusty," McCain said, wading into Iowa crowds last week. All right, but he, and Clinton, should hope that it's only rust--and not mold.

Somebody Needs A Hug!

2007-02-22T18:24:00.000-05:00

Left Turn

2007-02-19T18:45:00.000-05:00

Anyone who looks at this blog on a regular basis, knows that I never plug commercial undertakings in my posts, but since I recently opened a Liberal/Progressive online store and I could use some traffic-lol, I'm making an exception with this post. My store, "Left Turn" has a variety of leftwing merchandise from anti-bush, anti-war products to a section designated to support your candidate (Obama, Hillary, Edwards) with all orginal designs on apparel, mugs, bumperstickers etc. Above is an example of one of my latest designs. If you like it and want to see more come check out my store at www.cafepress.com/leftturnhere Thanks!

The Religious Right's Era Is Over

2007-02-17T20:41:00.000-05:00

The following article first appeared at "Time Online". I found it an interesting read and I certainly hope the author is correct in his assertions!

By Jim Wallis

As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: "The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun." We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.

In the churches, a combination of deeper compassion and better theology has moved many pastors and congregations away from the partisan politics of the Religious Right. In politics, we are beginning to see a leveling of the playing field between the two parties on religion and "moral values," and the media are finally beginning to cover the many and diverse voices of faith. These are all big changes in American life, and the rest of the world is taking notice.

Evangelicals — especially the new generation of pastors and young people — are deserting the Religious Right in droves. The evangelical social agenda is now much broader and deeper, engaging issues like poverty and economic justice, global warming, HIV/AIDS, sex trafficking, genocide in Darfur and the ethics of the war in Iraq. Catholics are returning to their social teaching; mainline Protestants are asserting their faith more aggressively; a new generation of young black and Latino pastors are putting the focus on social justice; a Jewish renewal movement and more moderate Islam are also growing; and a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious."

Even more amazing, the Left is starting to get it. Progressive politics is remembering its own religious history and recovering the language of faith. Democrats are learning to connect issues with values and are now engaging with the faith community. They are running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves. Meanwhile, many Republicans have had it with the Religious Right. Both sides are asking how to connect faith and values with politics. People know now that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and we are all learning that religion should not be in the pocket of any political party; it calls all of us to moral accountability.

Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem. Politics is failing to resolve the big moral issues of our time, or even to seriously address them. And religion has too often been used as a wedge to divide people, rather than as a bridge to bring us together on those most critical questions. I believe (and many people I talk with agree) that politics could and should begin to really deal with the many crises we face. Whenever that happens, social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues. The best social movements always have spiritual foundations, because real change comes with the energy, commitment and hope that powerful faith and spirituality can bring.

It's time to remember the spiritual revivals that helped lead to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the United States; the black church's leadership during the American civil rights movement; the deeply Catholic roots of the Solidarity movement in Poland that led the overthrow of communism; the way liberation theology in Latin America helped pave the way for new democracies; how Desmond Tutu and the South African churches served to inspire victory over apartheid; how "People Power" joined with the priests and bishops to bring down down Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos; how the Dalai Lama keeps hope alive for millions of Tibetans; and, today, how the growing Evangelical and Pentecostal churches of the global South are mobilizing to addresse the injustices of globalization.

I believe we are seeing the beginning of movements like that again, right here in America, and that we are poised on the edge of what might become a revival that will bring about big changes in the world. Historically, social reform often requires spiritual revival. And that's what church historians always say about real revival — that it changes things in the society, not just in people's inner lives. I believe that what we are seeing now may be the beginning of a new revival — a revival for justice.

The era of the Religious Right is now past, and it's up to all of us to create a new day.

Happy Valentine's Day!

2007-02-14T23:03:00.000-05:00

I hope everyone has a Happy Valentine's. I'm spending mine shoveling snow-fun, fun!

Bush Budget Cuts Veterans Healthcare In 2009

2007-02-13T22:52:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration's budget assumes cuts to veterans' health care two years from now -- even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012. But even administration allies say the numbers are not real and are being used to make the overall budget picture look better.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years -- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends -- its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office -- sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

This is just so typical of the Bush/Republican philosophy. They say they love and support the troops, they portray themselves as the party that's sooooo "Patriotic", but behind closed doors they continuously cut funding to the VA and underfund budgets for important items the troops need, such as body armor, upgrades for helmets and armor for vehicles. It seems to me that they have a strange way of showing their love and support!

Plucky Ducky!

2007-02-12T21:59:00.000-05:00

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Perky is one tough bird.
The ring-neck duck survived being shot and spending two days in a hunter's refrigerator -- and now she's had a close brush with death on a veterinarian's operating table.

The one-pound female duck stopped breathing Saturday during surgery to repair gunshot damage to one wing, said Noni Beck of the Goose Creek Wildlife Sanctuary.
Veterinarian David Hale revived the bird after several tense moments by performing CPR.
"I started crying, 'She's alive!"' Beck said.

Perky entered the headlines last week after a hunter's wife opened her refrigerator door and the should've-been-dead duck lifted its head and looked at her. The bird had been in the fridge for two days since being shot and presumed killed January 15.

Perky is recovering with a pin installed in the fractured wing, and probably will not have more surgery because of her sensitivity to anesthesia, Hale said.

Sorry, no politics today, but I love these offbeat news stories. I hope you guys enjoy this one too. All I can say is that's one tough old bird!--hee hee

Dixie Chicks Claim 5 Grammys!

2007-02-12T01:22:00.000-05:00

The Dixie Chicks, shunned by country radio after singer Natalie Maines slammed President Bush, were the big winners at tonight's Grammys, taking home five trophies. It was also a big night for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, who picked up four awards, and Mary J. Blige, who won three. Double award winners were John Mayer, T.I. and Ludacris.

I'm not a huge country fan and I pretty much never blog about entertainment news, but I must say I'm very happy to see the Dixie Chicks attain well deserved success despite all of the efforts by the right wing nazis of this country to destroy their livelihoods for simply expressing their opinions. It's every Americans right to use their freedom of speech and personally I think the people who set out to destroy the Dixie Chicks because they didn't like their opinions are a bunch of hypocrites who have no problem with Toby Keith spouting off right wing opinions on politics. You only ever hear the, "hollywood/entertainers should keep their mouths shut" crap when it's a liberal opinion being voiced. I have a question for all the conservatives out there who think Michael Moore etc. should shutup, what qualifies Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh as experts who have the God given right to say whatever they want? How are they any more qualified to offer political opinions, after all they're simply radio and tv personalities/entertainers?!!

What a Nose!

2007-02-10T21:13:00.000-05:00

Time to play name that animal...anyone know what this is?

Prewar Iraq Intel Faulted

2007-02-09T14:37:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading figure in the Bush administration's march to war in
Iraq used questionable intelligence about
Saddam Hussein's links to al Qaeda to help justify the 2003 invasion, a
Pentagon watchdog agency said in a report on Friday.

The conclusion by former U.S. defense policy chief Douglas Feith's office that there was a "mature symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda was inconsistent with the intelligence community's view, the Pentagon inspector general's report said.
Acting inspector general Thomas Gimble, who produced the classified report after one-year investigation, concluded Feith was authorized by senior Pentagon officials to pursue alternative intelligence analyses and his actions were lawful.
But Feith's actions were sometimes "inappropriate" because they "did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the intelligence community," an unclassified two-page executive summary of the report said.

Top administration officials, including Vice President
Dick Cheney, used claims of a relationship between al Qaeda and prewar Iraq to suggest that Saddam could have had a role in the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.
Senior officials at the time, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were dissatisfied that the
CIA assessment did not more closely link Iraq and al Qaeda.

When I first saw this article my reaction was, "well, duh!". It' s been obvious from before the war even started that the Bush administration had an agenda and was determined to SELL the invasion of Iraq to the American people. I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I find a presidental administration lying and fudging intelligence in order to start an unnecessary war reprehensible and think it sure as hell should be illegal!!

Congressman: Bush fears "platoon of lesbians"

2007-02-07T20:20:00.000-05:00

A congressman from New York on Wednesday jokingly suggested the Bush administration may fear a "platoon of lesbians" more than terrorists in Baghdad, given the military's resistance to letting gays serve openly.

Rep. Gary Ackerman's criticism of Pentagon policy came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Ackerman, a New York City Democrat, complained to Rice that the military had fired Arabic and Farsi translators after learning the translators were gay.

"For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are against terrorists. They're very brave with the terrorists, and if the terrorists ever got ahold of this information, they'd get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad," said Ackerman, prompting laughter in the hearing room.

It's hard to believe it's 2007 and gays in the military is still a controversial issue in this country. I'm one of those lesbians, who served, that Bush is worried about. I joined during the first Gulf War, when I was young, patriotic and willing to overlook the bigotry that abounds in this country. I'm proud and happy that I served my country, but now that I'm older I'm not quite as naive nor as forgiving as I used to be and frankly my attitude towards the military and the country on this subject is disgust! Some of the best militaries in the world allow gays to serve openly and it's caused no problems, so if the U.S. still doesn't want us I say, fine let the straight people go do all the dying. Why fight for a country that treats me as a second class citizen?!