Those old ladies in Texas don't mess around. Can you imagine the headlines on Monday if she had shot him?
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Don't Mess With Texas...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/02/gun-incident-near-president-bushs-ranch/
Those old ladies in Texas don't mess around. Can you imagine the headlines on Monday if she had shot him?
Those old ladies in Texas don't mess around. Can you imagine the headlines on Monday if she had shot him?
Crazed Film Murderers for Hillary...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/02/jack-nicholson-endorses-clinton/
Perhaps someone should inform Hillary that receiving the endorsement of the Joker and the asshole Colonel from A Few Good Men is not a good thing, not to mention the murderous father from the Shining. Who's next? Ralph Fiennes as Voldamort? Christopher Lee? Anthony Hopkins?
Perhaps someone should inform Hillary that receiving the endorsement of the Joker and the asshole Colonel from A Few Good Men is not a good thing, not to mention the murderous father from the Shining. Who's next? Ralph Fiennes as Voldamort? Christopher Lee? Anthony Hopkins?
The End of the Campaign is Nigh...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/01/clinton.snl/index.html
Hillary is really getting desperate. SNL already gave her free campaign commercials in the opening skits two weeks in a row. Now she comes on the show herself and drives home the fact that she really can't stand the thought of losing. If she spent as much time thinking up winning strategies as she does whining about how unfair everything is she'd be winning this thing. Now she's stuck bitching on SNL about how nobody's falling in line behind her candidacy.
Hillary is really getting desperate. SNL already gave her free campaign commercials in the opening skits two weeks in a row. Now she comes on the show herself and drives home the fact that she really can't stand the thought of losing. If she spent as much time thinking up winning strategies as she does whining about how unfair everything is she'd be winning this thing. Now she's stuck bitching on SNL about how nobody's falling in line behind her candidacy.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
People Should Concentrate on Doing Their Jobs...
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/06/abnormal-paps-pap-smears-doctors-refusing-canada
Ok, seriously, this shit has to stop. If you don't want to do your job then quit. Go flip fucking hamburgers at McDonalds. If you're a doctor, be a doctor. If your patient wants a pap smear, give her one. I don't care if she's married or not, that's really none of your business either. If she wants the pill, give her the pill, that's your job. If she's pregnant and she wants a referral for an abortion, give her one, it's not your job to make medical decisions against your patient's wishes. If you're a pharmacist, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose what prescriptions you fill. You see that piece of paper in front of you, that's a prescription. If you wanted to write prescriptions maybe you should have chosen a different specialty. If you want to put your stupid superstitions ahead of medicine, you chose the wrong damn profession.
I can't pick and choose what parts of my job I want to perform and neither should anyone else. You'll notice you don't see any of these sexist assholes refusing to prescribe Viagra to unmarried men. Somehow it seems Christian morality only extends to refusing vital medical care to women.
I guess Canada isn't always the liberal oasis we think it is.
Ok, seriously, this shit has to stop. If you don't want to do your job then quit. Go flip fucking hamburgers at McDonalds. If you're a doctor, be a doctor. If your patient wants a pap smear, give her one. I don't care if she's married or not, that's really none of your business either. If she wants the pill, give her the pill, that's your job. If she's pregnant and she wants a referral for an abortion, give her one, it's not your job to make medical decisions against your patient's wishes. If you're a pharmacist, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose what prescriptions you fill. You see that piece of paper in front of you, that's a prescription. If you wanted to write prescriptions maybe you should have chosen a different specialty. If you want to put your stupid superstitions ahead of medicine, you chose the wrong damn profession.
I can't pick and choose what parts of my job I want to perform and neither should anyone else. You'll notice you don't see any of these sexist assholes refusing to prescribe Viagra to unmarried men. Somehow it seems Christian morality only extends to refusing vital medical care to women.
I guess Canada isn't always the liberal oasis we think it is.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Remember Ol' Zell?...
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/lieberman-has-superdelegate-status-stripped-because-of-mccain-endorsement/
See, Ol' Zell was good for something.
See, Ol' Zell was good for something.
False Priorities...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/01/25/archbishop.coach.ap/index.html
I really don't see what his opinion on abortion has to do with winning basketball games. He wasn't hired to teach theology. I've always said that the quality of a Catholic college is inversely proportional to the amount of influence the church as a whole has on its operations. This is a perfect example of this. The only thing that should matter is that he wins the games, everything else is pretty much meaningless.
I really don't see what his opinion on abortion has to do with winning basketball games. He wasn't hired to teach theology. I've always said that the quality of a Catholic college is inversely proportional to the amount of influence the church as a whole has on its operations. This is a perfect example of this. The only thing that should matter is that he wins the games, everything else is pretty much meaningless.
Scary...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/university.shooting/index.html
The fact that he was supposed to be taking meds and stopped doesn't surprise me. I have experience with someone who stopped taking meds and it's truly scary how violent and irrational they can become. There really has to be some way we can compel people to take these medications because it really can make the difference between life and death.
The fact that he was supposed to be taking meds and stopped doesn't surprise me. I have experience with someone who stopped taking meds and it's truly scary how violent and irrational they can become. There really has to be some way we can compel people to take these medications because it really can make the difference between life and death.
Ticking Time-Bomb...
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/236110280/2008_02_10_archive.html
I can't wait for him to freak out in a debate and completely ruin his campaign.
I can't wait for him to freak out in a debate and completely ruin his campaign.
The Cover-Up is Worse Than the Crime...
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-02152008-1488482.html
Man, this whole thing just keeps getting deeper and deeper. What a dysfunctional group of people.
I can only imagine the hurt that would have been prevented for all involved if the Church had just dealt with this problem years ago when it was starting instead of waiting until they were caught.
Man, this whole thing just keeps getting deeper and deeper. What a dysfunctional group of people.
I can only imagine the hurt that would have been prevented for all involved if the Church had just dealt with this problem years ago when it was starting instead of waiting until they were caught.
When the Media Becomes Just Another Party Organ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1713490,00.html
This shit could have been written by a McCain campaign flunky. This has been the preferred media narrative from the beginning. That McCain is some sort of superman beholden to the Republican Party but somehow warm and fuzzy and comfortable to Democrats. That even though they can't find a single bill of consequence where he voted against the Republicans, he's still a maverick who goes against his party. It's all a crock of bull.
McCain is as partisan as they come. In 2000 people felt sorry for him because of the way the party just chewed him up and spat him out, and because of this they entertained the notion that he was somehow different from all the other Republicans destroying our country. He was special, if he had just won that election somehow we'd be living in a wonderful land of bipartisan agreement and cross aisle love.
McCain has spent the last 8 years crawling so far up Dubya's ass that he could probably blow his nose for him by now. The lesson he learned from 2000 was that he should abandon all independence and become a mindless party hack so he can become President and unleash his horrible Manchurian design upon this unsuspecting nation. The media ignores all this though in the service of their favorite candidate. I hope we can come to realize that he isn't this wonderful "maverick" candidate we've all been waiting for (he's not even as good as he was in 2000 since that ordeal damaged his psyche in ways I'd imagine we'll never fully know). If we don't, we may end up falling for the same trick we fell for in 2000 when we elected George "compassionate conservative" Bush.
who is widely regarded (everywhere except inside the Republican Party itself) as honest, courageous, likable and intelligent.
I've never heard anyone call him these things other than Republican party flacks and nightly news anchors (and Joe Lieberman but he fits into the category of Republican Party flacks).
There is a word for it when a political party chooses a presidential candidate with more appeal in the opposition party than in his own.
There is no proof that he enjoys widespread popularity in the Democratic Party. Unless Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pulling unprecedented amounts of Republicans across party lines, the poll numbers tend to suggest he's not getting many Dems at all other than Lieberman and the Blue Dog Traitors.
Only a couple of years ago, there were noises that McCain might admit he was much too nice to be a Republican and might run for President as an independent--or even as a Democrat.
That possibility existed solely within the Beltway and the depraved minds of the moronic Washington media elite. That would have been a case of the Democratic Party surrendering and running a Republican in order to win.
Democrats swooned and said they would vote for McCain because he was "honest."
That never happened. In 2000 he was floated as being better than Bush (which is like saying Mussolini is better than Hitler) and was perceived as a more palatable alternative. That doesn't mean Dems are going to jump ship in droves to vote for an emotionally destroyed quasi-corpse just because he seems like their old, crazy Grandpa. It certainly didn't happen "a couple of years ago". A couple of years ago we were kicking the Republicans asses up one side and down the other in the '06 elections.
McCain is perceived as authentic, which is a deeper form of honesty than mere truth-telling.
Only to beltway media elites, Bush was "authentic" to them too. That's another word for Republican in their book so they can paint Dems as effeminate fakes.
He says he's antiabortion? Oh, he doesn't mean that.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Among current or recent figures in American public life, only Colin Powell shares McCain's mystical ability to make liberals believe he secretly agrees with them, no matter what he actually says.
I feel bad for Colin Powell since he was hung out to dry by the neo-con elements in his party. I still wouldn't vote for him for President, Secretary of Defense maybe if he changes parties, but not President.
Then they choose the very guy many Republicans most suspect of being a witch.
That's funny since he's been the heir apparent for the better part of the last four years since he proved himself trustworthy by giving up all his convictions and endorsing Bush in '04.
If you doubt that the whole thing was staged, just consider who the runner-up was. How could a party truly dedicated to self-destruction through ideological purity end up with the choice of McCain or Romney?
The Republican establishment has always been interested in victory at all costs much more than ideological purity. They pay lip service to the ideological morons because they're the ones who man the trenches but they secretly make fun of them at their tea parties in Georgetown.
But the parallel stops there. McCain is widely admired among Democrats, and many Democratic Hillary haters will be happy to vote for him. By contrast, there is no constituency for Hillary among Republicans who can't stand McCain. Nor, for that matter, will many of them vote for Barack Obama.
Bullshit. Is this guy Joe Lieberman's press secretary? As I said before, unless the polls are lying, there just aren't that many Dems running to Papa McCain. A lot of the most loyal Republicans are very unhappy with their party's choice. Many of them could vote for Hillary as a protest (as Ann Coulter has half-heartedly suggested) or more likely they'll just not vote. Anyone who can stand there after the showing that Obama has made among independents and Republicans and say that no Republicans will cross for him in November is an idiot.
If it's Hillary, people's growing dislike of Bush, his horrible war, his crumbling economy, his tiresome smirk, will help McCain. Even though McCain is the candidate of the President's party and even though he is the biggest supporter of the Iraq war outside of the Administration, McCain is the one who will seem like a new broom that sweeps clean.
This is what passes for journalism in Washington. Hillary will suffer for making a few pro-war votes because she's tied to the war in people's minds (by people's, he means the people he meets at cocktail parties in Washington). Meanwhile, McCain (the most vocal and enthusiastic cheerleader for Bush's disastrous war) is somehow completely untarnished by his 5 years of ass kissing and will be seen as a fresh start even though he wants us to be there forever (he's said up to 10,000 years).
Hillary, meanwhile, has been transformed by the Washington press corps in the past few weeks from the first woman with a serious chance of becoming President into a two-headed monster always referred to as "the Clintons."
That's not her fault, the Washington press corps is a bunch of self-important morons who really love the Republican Party.
If McCain were half the principled gentleman he pretends to be, he would drop out now in favor of Rush Limbaugh. Now there's a Republican you can sink your teeth into.
I can only imagine the impassioned missives that Michael and his buddies would be writing right now if Limbaugh was the Republican candidate. I think it would look a lot like what he wrote about McCain, but with McCain's name replaced with Rush Limbaugh's name. In the end, this was the same narrative they set up about Bush v. Gore (Bush is an authentic "compassionate conservative" who goes against his party when he needs to and Gore is a fake, girly man). This is the same narrative they'd set up about any Republican. Believe it at your own, and our country's own, peril.
This shit could have been written by a McCain campaign flunky. This has been the preferred media narrative from the beginning. That McCain is some sort of superman beholden to the Republican Party but somehow warm and fuzzy and comfortable to Democrats. That even though they can't find a single bill of consequence where he voted against the Republicans, he's still a maverick who goes against his party. It's all a crock of bull.
McCain is as partisan as they come. In 2000 people felt sorry for him because of the way the party just chewed him up and spat him out, and because of this they entertained the notion that he was somehow different from all the other Republicans destroying our country. He was special, if he had just won that election somehow we'd be living in a wonderful land of bipartisan agreement and cross aisle love.
McCain has spent the last 8 years crawling so far up Dubya's ass that he could probably blow his nose for him by now. The lesson he learned from 2000 was that he should abandon all independence and become a mindless party hack so he can become President and unleash his horrible Manchurian design upon this unsuspecting nation. The media ignores all this though in the service of their favorite candidate. I hope we can come to realize that he isn't this wonderful "maverick" candidate we've all been waiting for (he's not even as good as he was in 2000 since that ordeal damaged his psyche in ways I'd imagine we'll never fully know). If we don't, we may end up falling for the same trick we fell for in 2000 when we elected George "compassionate conservative" Bush.
who is widely regarded (everywhere except inside the Republican Party itself) as honest, courageous, likable and intelligent.
I've never heard anyone call him these things other than Republican party flacks and nightly news anchors (and Joe Lieberman but he fits into the category of Republican Party flacks).
There is a word for it when a political party chooses a presidential candidate with more appeal in the opposition party than in his own.
There is no proof that he enjoys widespread popularity in the Democratic Party. Unless Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pulling unprecedented amounts of Republicans across party lines, the poll numbers tend to suggest he's not getting many Dems at all other than Lieberman and the Blue Dog Traitors.
Only a couple of years ago, there were noises that McCain might admit he was much too nice to be a Republican and might run for President as an independent--or even as a Democrat.
That possibility existed solely within the Beltway and the depraved minds of the moronic Washington media elite. That would have been a case of the Democratic Party surrendering and running a Republican in order to win.
Democrats swooned and said they would vote for McCain because he was "honest."
That never happened. In 2000 he was floated as being better than Bush (which is like saying Mussolini is better than Hitler) and was perceived as a more palatable alternative. That doesn't mean Dems are going to jump ship in droves to vote for an emotionally destroyed quasi-corpse just because he seems like their old, crazy Grandpa. It certainly didn't happen "a couple of years ago". A couple of years ago we were kicking the Republicans asses up one side and down the other in the '06 elections.
McCain is perceived as authentic, which is a deeper form of honesty than mere truth-telling.
Only to beltway media elites, Bush was "authentic" to them too. That's another word for Republican in their book so they can paint Dems as effeminate fakes.
He says he's antiabortion? Oh, he doesn't mean that.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Among current or recent figures in American public life, only Colin Powell shares McCain's mystical ability to make liberals believe he secretly agrees with them, no matter what he actually says.
I feel bad for Colin Powell since he was hung out to dry by the neo-con elements in his party. I still wouldn't vote for him for President, Secretary of Defense maybe if he changes parties, but not President.
Then they choose the very guy many Republicans most suspect of being a witch.
That's funny since he's been the heir apparent for the better part of the last four years since he proved himself trustworthy by giving up all his convictions and endorsing Bush in '04.
If you doubt that the whole thing was staged, just consider who the runner-up was. How could a party truly dedicated to self-destruction through ideological purity end up with the choice of McCain or Romney?
The Republican establishment has always been interested in victory at all costs much more than ideological purity. They pay lip service to the ideological morons because they're the ones who man the trenches but they secretly make fun of them at their tea parties in Georgetown.
But the parallel stops there. McCain is widely admired among Democrats, and many Democratic Hillary haters will be happy to vote for him. By contrast, there is no constituency for Hillary among Republicans who can't stand McCain. Nor, for that matter, will many of them vote for Barack Obama.
Bullshit. Is this guy Joe Lieberman's press secretary? As I said before, unless the polls are lying, there just aren't that many Dems running to Papa McCain. A lot of the most loyal Republicans are very unhappy with their party's choice. Many of them could vote for Hillary as a protest (as Ann Coulter has half-heartedly suggested) or more likely they'll just not vote. Anyone who can stand there after the showing that Obama has made among independents and Republicans and say that no Republicans will cross for him in November is an idiot.
If it's Hillary, people's growing dislike of Bush, his horrible war, his crumbling economy, his tiresome smirk, will help McCain. Even though McCain is the candidate of the President's party and even though he is the biggest supporter of the Iraq war outside of the Administration, McCain is the one who will seem like a new broom that sweeps clean.
This is what passes for journalism in Washington. Hillary will suffer for making a few pro-war votes because she's tied to the war in people's minds (by people's, he means the people he meets at cocktail parties in Washington). Meanwhile, McCain (the most vocal and enthusiastic cheerleader for Bush's disastrous war) is somehow completely untarnished by his 5 years of ass kissing and will be seen as a fresh start even though he wants us to be there forever (he's said up to 10,000 years).
Hillary, meanwhile, has been transformed by the Washington press corps in the past few weeks from the first woman with a serious chance of becoming President into a two-headed monster always referred to as "the Clintons."
That's not her fault, the Washington press corps is a bunch of self-important morons who really love the Republican Party.
If McCain were half the principled gentleman he pretends to be, he would drop out now in favor of Rush Limbaugh. Now there's a Republican you can sink your teeth into.
I can only imagine the impassioned missives that Michael and his buddies would be writing right now if Limbaugh was the Republican candidate. I think it would look a lot like what he wrote about McCain, but with McCain's name replaced with Rush Limbaugh's name. In the end, this was the same narrative they set up about Bush v. Gore (Bush is an authentic "compassionate conservative" who goes against his party when he needs to and Gore is a fake, girly man). This is the same narrative they'd set up about any Republican. Believe it at your own, and our country's own, peril.
Chelsea wants it both ways...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/15/chelsea.clinton/index.html
The Clinton campaign cannot have it both ways here. When she was a child, I think the media should have left her alone. Now that she's acting as a surrogate on the campaign trail there's no reason she should be afforded any special deference at all. She has placed herself out there in the public eye as a part of her mother's campaign and she should have to talk to the media.
The Clinton campaign cannot have it both ways here. When she was a child, I think the media should have left her alone. Now that she's acting as a surrogate on the campaign trail there's no reason she should be afforded any special deference at all. She has placed herself out there in the public eye as a part of her mother's campaign and she should have to talk to the media.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
When Your Children Just Can't Get Jobs On Their Own...
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-01222008-1475063.html
Nepotism is alive and well in the NJ Republican Party. Too bad actual experience and knowledge is far less important than rewarding the children of well connected Republican politicians. The county will no doubt suffer while she learns how to do her job. Don't hold your breath waiting for the absolute outrage from the comments sections of this paper or the Courier Post, that's only for the perceived infractions committed by Democrats.
Nepotism is alive and well in the NJ Republican Party. Too bad actual experience and knowledge is far less important than rewarding the children of well connected Republican politicians. The county will no doubt suffer while she learns how to do her job. Don't hold your breath waiting for the absolute outrage from the comments sections of this paper or the Courier Post, that's only for the perceived infractions committed by Democrats.
When the Truth Just Isn't On Your Side...
http://www.nbc10.com/news/15083420/detail.html
This is disgusting. There should be laws against mailing shit like this. Just goes to show which side has the facts and which side needs to resort to bloody theatrics.
This is disgusting. There should be laws against mailing shit like this. Just goes to show which side has the facts and which side needs to resort to bloody theatrics.
Republican Dirty Tricks...
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-01202008-1474326.html
And yet the idiots with no idea what they're talking about (and the Republicans who know but want to hurt Corzine) will keep calling this a horrible injustice. If the past Republican Governors had raised tolls when they should have, instead of just increasing spending and borrowing the difference, we wouldn't be in this situation right now.
Somehow, if Forester had won I'd imagine all the Republicans who are currently beside themselves with indignation would be just tickled pink at his bold revenue plan. Make no mistake, the outrage is largely a function of the Republican controlled state media trying to get a Republican Governor next election.
And yet the idiots with no idea what they're talking about (and the Republicans who know but want to hurt Corzine) will keep calling this a horrible injustice. If the past Republican Governors had raised tolls when they should have, instead of just increasing spending and borrowing the difference, we wouldn't be in this situation right now.
Somehow, if Forester had won I'd imagine all the Republicans who are currently beside themselves with indignation would be just tickled pink at his bold revenue plan. Make no mistake, the outrage is largely a function of the Republican controlled state media trying to get a Republican Governor next election.
Surprising and Not So Surprising...
This is surprising...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/22/heath.ledger.dead/index.html
This, not so surprising...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/22/thompson.out/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Mov
This, not so surprising...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/2
This Explains Alot...
http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/01/10/john_vincent_coulter?voted=1
What a horrible, detestable man.
Actually, this explains a lot. She's spent her entire life watching this man behave like a colossal asshole and she determined this was the way to be. She's not really a horrible, soulless harpy, she's just been trying for her whole life to make this man happy.
As Mother and I stood at Daddy's casket Monday morning, Mother repeated his joke to him, which he said on every wedding anniversary until a few years ago when Lewy bodies dementia prevented him from saying much at all: "54 years, married to the wrong woman." And we laughed.
Nothing like belittling your wife to make the funny.
John Vincent Coulter was of the old school,
That's a nice way of saying he was a violent bigot.
Your parents are your whole world when you are a child. You only recognize what is unique about them when you get older and see how the rest of the world diverges from your standard of normality.
Like when you go to school and you notice your friends don't have bruises all over their bodies, that's a real growing experience.
So it took me awhile to realize that by telling my friends that Father was an ex-FBI agent and a union-buster whose hobbies included rebuilding Volkswagens and shooting squirrels in our backyard, I was painting the image of a rough Eliot Ness type, rather than the cheerful, funny raconteur they would meet.
Everybody loves a laugh after a long, hard day of killing small rodents for sport and cracking the skulls of hippies trying to get a living wage.
He just was good.
I don't think that word means what Ann thinks it means.
Father just said, "I don't care. If it's a life, it's a life." I'm still waiting to hear an effective counterargument.
Evidently the life of the girl doesn't fit into the equation.
He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement.
As opposed to those wonderful anti-union businessmen who were paragons of virtue. Nothing says moral crusader like hiring former cops to shoot striking workers.
But he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I've ever known.
As long as that working man didn't expect to be paid enough to feed his family. Evidently wanting benefits makes one a non-genuine working man.
He was, in short, the molecular opposite of John Edwards.
At least John Edwards never cracked someone's head open with a baseball bat for wanting dental benefits for his children.
the last book of mine he was able to read.
I'm sure that made dying a lot easier for him. I'd want to die after reading her books too.
In the early 1980s, as vice president and labor lawyer for Phelps Dodge copper company, Father broke a strike against the company, which culminated in the largest union decertification ever -- at that time and perhaps still.
Remember people, this is the kind of thing conservatives consider heroic.
There was massive violence by the strikers, including guns being fired into the homes of the mine employees who returned to work.
I'm sure the strike breakers never used violence. Why, I bet they were perfectly reasonable as they crashed through the lines every day busting heads.
Every day, Father walked with the strikebreakers through the picket line, (in my mind) brushing egg off his suit lapel.
Fuck eggs, throw bricks next time.
By 1986 it was over; the mineworkers voted against the union and Phelps Dodge was saved.
That'll tend to happen when workers are threatened with death by former FBI agents with guns.
For any liberals still reading, this is what's known as a "happy ending."
I'm sure Ann knows all about happy endings.
To Mother's lifelong consternation -- until he had dementia and she could get him back by smothering him with hugs and kisses
Bet she wanted to smother him with something else...
Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan.
At least she's mature enough to accept that her father's in Hell.
What a horrible, detestable man.
Actually, this explains a lot. She's spent her entire life watching this man behave like a colossal asshole and she determined this was the way to be. She's not really a horrible, soulless harpy, she's just been trying for her whole life to make this man happy.
As Mother and I stood at Daddy's casket Monday morning, Mother repeated his joke to him, which he said on every wedding anniversary until a few years ago when Lewy bodies dementia prevented him from saying much at all: "54 years, married to the wrong woman." And we laughed.
Nothing like belittling your wife to make the funny.
John Vincent Coulter was of the old school,
That's a nice way of saying he was a violent bigot.
Your parents are your whole world when you are a child. You only recognize what is unique about them when you get older and see how the rest of the world diverges from your standard of normality.
Like when you go to school and you notice your friends don't have bruises all over their bodies, that's a real growing experience.
So it took me awhile to realize that by telling my friends that Father was an ex-FBI agent and a union-buster whose hobbies included rebuilding Volkswagens and shooting squirrels in our backyard, I was painting the image of a rough Eliot Ness type, rather than the cheerful, funny raconteur they would meet.
Everybody loves a laugh after a long, hard day of killing small rodents for sport and cracking the skulls of hippies trying to get a living wage.
He just was good.
I don't think that word means what Ann thinks it means.
Father just said, "I don't care. If it's a life, it's a life." I'm still waiting to hear an effective counterargument.
Evidently the life of the girl doesn't fit into the equation.
He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement.
As opposed to those wonderful anti-union businessmen who were paragons of virtue. Nothing says moral crusader like hiring former cops to shoot striking workers.
But he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I've ever known.
As long as that working man didn't expect to be paid enough to feed his family. Evidently wanting benefits makes one a non-genuine working man.
He was, in short, the molecular opposite of John Edwards.
At least John Edwards never cracked someone's head open with a baseball bat for wanting dental benefits for his children.
the last book of mine he was able to read.
I'm sure that made dying a lot easier for him. I'd want to die after reading her books too.
In the early 1980s, as vice president and labor lawyer for Phelps Dodge copper company, Father broke a strike against the company, which culminated in the largest union decertification ever -- at that time and perhaps still.
Remember people, this is the kind of thing conservatives consider heroic.
There was massive violence by the strikers, including guns being fired into the homes of the mine employees who returned to work.
I'm sure the strike breakers never used violence. Why, I bet they were perfectly reasonable as they crashed through the lines every day busting heads.
Every day, Father walked with the strikebreakers through the picket line, (in my mind) brushing egg off his suit lapel.
Fuck eggs, throw bricks next time.
By 1986 it was over; the mineworkers voted against the union and Phelps Dodge was saved.
That'll tend to happen when workers are threatened with death by former FBI agents with guns.
For any liberals still reading, this is what's known as a "happy ending."
I'm sure Ann knows all about happy endings.
To Mother's lifelong consternation -- until he had dementia and she could get him back by smothering him with hugs and kisses
Bet she wanted to smother him with something else...
Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan.
At least she's mature enough to accept that her father's in Hell.
Go Italy...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7188860.stm
Good for them. The papacy has always been actively hostile to science and this pope is even worse than his predecessor.
Fifteen years ago Pope John Paul II officially conceded that in fact the Earth was not stationary.
It's pathetic that they only did this 15 years ago. I hate to break it to them, but the rest of the world came to this conclusion centuries ago.
Now if only we could get the rest of the world to shun him.
Good for them. The papacy has always been actively hostile to science and this pope is even worse than his predecessor.
Fifteen years ago Pope John Paul II officially conceded that in fact the Earth was not stationary.
It's pathetic that they only did this 15 years ago. I hate to break it to them, but the rest of the world came to this conclusion centuries ago.
Now if only we could get the rest of the world to shun him.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Maybe They Should Have Thought Before They Elected Him...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_re_us/sarkozy_stormy_interview_6
If only the French people had some hint that Sarkozy would be a horrible President...oh wait...
Maybe they should have voted for a competent candidate, like Royal, instead of voting for Bush Jr.
I think someone should investigate whether Sarkozy hid his marital difficulties in order to win the election.
It's pretty bad when the guy's wife can't even stand him.
If only the French people had some hint that Sarkozy would be a horrible President...oh wait...
Maybe they should have voted for a competent candidate, like Royal, instead of voting for Bush Jr.
I think someone should investigate whether Sarkozy hid his marital difficulties in order to win the election.
It's pretty bad when the guy's wife can't even stand him.
www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1677120,00.html
Wow, yet another reason to hate the Rockies. Now I'm even more happy to see them get their asses kicked by the Red Sox. So much for fate, or destiny, or whatever arrogant bull crap they were saying before the World Series.
"I don't want to offend anyone," Rockies chairman and CEO Charlie Monfort said at the time,
No, heaven forbid they offend someone. Just ignore everything that comes after this and be assured that he doesn't mean to offend anyone.
"but I think character-wise we're stronger than anyone in baseball. Christians, and what they've endured, are some of the strongest people in baseball.
Never have I seen a group so privileged whine so much in my life. You'd think they were being persecuted at every turn, denied jobs and public services, constantly worrying about being found out and murdered instead of being the people singling out others for that kind of treatment.
I believe God sends signs; we're seeing those."
I think if God were to suddenly take an interest in baseball he'd pick a better team than the Rockies. Give the guy some credit.
"The Lord gives you everything you have," says center fielder Willy Taveras, who counts himself among the faithful, "and makes it possible to play this beautiful game."
So I guess you spent all those nights in school wolfing down cheetos and not working hard at all, huh Willy? Success in baseball, or in anything, requires significant personal sacrifice and hard work, don't sell yourself short.
the Rockies stand out for openly touting Christian values — as they define it, strong character and a moral compass
Because of course in asshole land, nobody ever did anything moral or right before Christians came along. Those are human values, they weren't invented by the Church, if they were you could be sure they'd find a way to make you pay for them.
God is "using [The Rockies] in a powerful way."
Evidently whatever he was using them for must have ended because damn did they get bitch slapped by the Sox.
In 2005 and 2006, the Rockies had a "Christian Family Day" at Coors Field.
If that doesn't say "non-Christians we don't want your money", I don't know what does...maybe working in a building called Coors Field?
This season the Rockies renamed the promotion "Faith Day," though there weren't many rabbis or imams at the park.
Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people in Denver who don't feel the need to spend their entire life believing in something that may or may not even exist at all. Their "Faith Day" isn't exactly fair to the "bright" community.
"To do that to appease other religions is hypocritical to say the least," says McHendry, who helped organize the event. "It was truly a Christian day."
Yes, it was hypocritical, though I'm sure the good Reverend is just suggesting they should be upfront and say right away that they hate all non-Christians.
"Nobody seems to complain when Tiger Woods promotes economic sponsorship by wearing the Nike swoosh on this shirt," says Price.
Yes, and even after the United Zealots of Nike waged their Grand Inquisition against the Holy Reebok Empire. They were really good sports about that whole thing. Business is not religion and vice versa. I don't recall wars being waged based on product loyalty. Also, is he really suggesting that the Christian religion actively sponsors the Colorado Rockies?
"What's the difference with promoting religious affiliation? Isn't that more wholesome?"
Not when you consider how many people have died because of this "wholesome" affiliation.
Wow, yet another reason to hate the Rockies. Now I'm even more happy to see them get their asses kicked by the Red Sox. So much for fate, or destiny, or whatever arrogant bull crap they were saying before the World Series.
"I don't want to offend anyone," Rockies chairman and CEO Charlie Monfort said at the time,
No, heaven forbid they offend someone. Just ignore everything that comes after this and be assured that he doesn't mean to offend anyone.
"but I think character-wise we're stronger than anyone in baseball. Christians, and what they've endured, are some of the strongest people in baseball.
Never have I seen a group so privileged whine so much in my life. You'd think they were being persecuted at every turn, denied jobs and public services, constantly worrying about being found out and murdered instead of being the people singling out others for that kind of treatment.
I believe God sends signs; we're seeing those."
I think if God were to suddenly take an interest in baseball he'd pick a better team than the Rockies. Give the guy some credit.
"The Lord gives you everything you have," says center fielder Willy Taveras, who counts himself among the faithful, "and makes it possible to play this beautiful game."
So I guess you spent all those nights in school wolfing down cheetos and not working hard at all, huh Willy? Success in baseball, or in anything, requires significant personal sacrifice and hard work, don't sell yourself short.
the Rockies stand out for openly touting Christian values — as they define it, strong character and a moral compass
Because of course in asshole land, nobody ever did anything moral or right before Christians came along. Those are human values, they weren't invented by the Church, if they were you could be sure they'd find a way to make you pay for them.
God is "using [The Rockies] in a powerful way."
Evidently whatever he was using them for must have ended because damn did they get bitch slapped by the Sox.
In 2005 and 2006, the Rockies had a "Christian Family Day" at Coors Field.
If that doesn't say "non-Christians we don't want your money", I don't know what does...maybe working in a building called Coors Field?
This season the Rockies renamed the promotion "Faith Day," though there weren't many rabbis or imams at the park.
Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people in Denver who don't feel the need to spend their entire life believing in something that may or may not even exist at all. Their "Faith Day" isn't exactly fair to the "bright" community.
"To do that to appease other religions is hypocritical to say the least," says McHendry, who helped organize the event. "It was truly a Christian day."
Yes, it was hypocritical, though I'm sure the good Reverend is just suggesting they should be upfront and say right away that they hate all non-Christians.
"Nobody seems to complain when Tiger Woods promotes economic sponsorship by wearing the Nike swoosh on this shirt," says Price.
Yes, and even after the United Zealots of Nike waged their Grand Inquisition against the Holy Reebok Empire. They were really good sports about that whole thing. Business is not religion and vice versa. I don't recall wars being waged based on product loyalty. Also, is he really suggesting that the Christian religion actively sponsors the Colorado Rockies?
"What's the difference with promoting religious affiliation? Isn't that more wholesome?"
Not when you consider how many people have died because of this "wholesome" affiliation.
Rupert Murdoch wants to take over the world...
downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/10/clear-channel-republican...
Clear evidence of why media consolidation is a bad idea.
Clear evidence of why media consolidation is a bad idea.
If They Wanted Human Rights They Shouldn't Have Been Born in Pakistan...
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/world/asia/04pakistan.html
And this is our ally. I guess we really don't care as much about human rights as we pretend. It seems when we pick an ally we just choose whoever is willing to do whatever we want regardless of the peoples' opinions. Now obviously our government is protesting this but we're not going to go as far as withdrawing support over it, I can guarantee you that.
And this is our ally. I guess we really don't care as much about human rights as we pretend. It seems when we pick an ally we just choose whoever is willing to do whatever we want regardless of the peoples' opinions. Now obviously our government is protesting this but we're not going to go as far as withdrawing support over it, I can guarantee you that.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Stupid...
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/...
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard...really really dumb...so dumb I'm not entirely convinced it's real and not a parody.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard...really really dumb...so dumb I'm not entirely convinced it's real and not a parody.
Monday, August 13, 2007
The McCain Campaign is Officially on Life Support...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_el_pr/mccain...
Somehow I doubt he would be saying this if he wasn't completely embarrassed by the results.
Somehow I doubt he would be saying this if he wasn't completely embarrassed by the results.
Bush's Brain Leaves the White House...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove...
Wow, I must say this was a surprise. I'm really curious what must have happened to lead Rove to quit. There must be something big we don't know about yet.
Wow, I must say this was a surprise. I'm really curious what must have happened to lead Rove to quit. There must be something big we don't know about yet.
Friday, August 10, 2007
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1649312,00.html
Perhaps the overwhelming support for the war among Americans has something to do with the fact that all the major newspapers and news networks came out in complete support of the war (and many haven't changed their line even now). Americans had come to trust our news media (based on the fact that the media actually used to be trustworthy). Most Americans didn't realize that the reporters they went to for their news knew nothing about what they were reporting on or were in the employ of the very people trying to trick them. Now that Americans are coming to realize that the media is full of shit, the numbers in support of the war have gone down. Make no mistake though, just because Americans were fooled by a duplicitous and willfully ignorant media doesn't mean they have anything to apologize for.
even though it is more responsible than any pundit for U.S. policy in Iraq.
This is bullshit. The government has not listened to the actual desires of the people for a very long time. They would have gone to war with Iraq even if the approval numbers were in the low 20s.
This is not all the fault of the pundits or of "Washington" or of politicians. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was scandalously unilateral, but it did in fact have the support of most American citizens, which surely egged him on.
I think the author has a problem with cause and effect. Bush was going to go into Iraq whether the American people wanted it or not (which is illustrated by the fact that he's not going to leave Iraq no matter how much the American people want him to). They manufactured support for the war in much the same way toy companies manufacture demand for their products by advertising during children's programming. They bombarded us with positive reporting about the war while completely ignoring and ostracizing those who said we shouldn't go to war. It's no wonder the support was there, there wasn't a single dissenting voice anywhere to be found in the media.
The ensuing disaster is partly the fault of those Americans who told pollsters back in 2002 and 2003 that they supported Bush's war and then in 2004 voted to re-elect him, which he took, quite reasonably, as an endorsement of his policies.
Blaming the victim is a common tactic of the victimizer. The American public was brow-beaten into supporting the war by non-stop pro-war coverage. The American public was deceived into voting for Bush by constant jabs in the media at John Kerry. To suggest otherwise is to diminish the significant effort that was put into creating this result by the media and the Republican Party.
Millions of Americans now apparently regret those opinions.
Because there's finally a voice, albeit quiet, telling them the truth about the war.
But unlike the politicians and the pundits, they do not face pressure to recant or apologize. American democracy might be stronger if they did.
Try as they may to shift blame upon the citizenry, the media will carry the blame for this 'til the end of time. They can't push that blame onto anyone else.
Perhaps the overwhelming support for the war among Americans has something to do with the fact that all the major newspapers and news networks came out in complete support of the war (and many haven't changed their line even now). Americans had come to trust our news media (based on the fact that the media actually used to be trustworthy). Most Americans didn't realize that the reporters they went to for their news knew nothing about what they were reporting on or were in the employ of the very people trying to trick them. Now that Americans are coming to realize that the media is full of shit, the numbers in support of the war have gone down. Make no mistake though, just because Americans were fooled by a duplicitous and willfully ignorant media doesn't mean they have anything to apologize for.
even though it is more responsible than any pundit for U.S. policy in Iraq.
This is bullshit. The government has not listened to the actual desires of the people for a very long time. They would have gone to war with Iraq even if the approval numbers were in the low 20s.
This is not all the fault of the pundits or of "Washington" or of politicians. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was scandalously unilateral, but it did in fact have the support of most American citizens, which surely egged him on.
I think the author has a problem with cause and effect. Bush was going to go into Iraq whether the American people wanted it or not (which is illustrated by the fact that he's not going to leave Iraq no matter how much the American people want him to). They manufactured support for the war in much the same way toy companies manufacture demand for their products by advertising during children's programming. They bombarded us with positive reporting about the war while completely ignoring and ostracizing those who said we shouldn't go to war. It's no wonder the support was there, there wasn't a single dissenting voice anywhere to be found in the media.
The ensuing disaster is partly the fault of those Americans who told pollsters back in 2002 and 2003 that they supported Bush's war and then in 2004 voted to re-elect him, which he took, quite reasonably, as an endorsement of his policies.
Blaming the victim is a common tactic of the victimizer. The American public was brow-beaten into supporting the war by non-stop pro-war coverage. The American public was deceived into voting for Bush by constant jabs in the media at John Kerry. To suggest otherwise is to diminish the significant effort that was put into creating this result by the media and the Republican Party.
Millions of Americans now apparently regret those opinions.
Because there's finally a voice, albeit quiet, telling them the truth about the war.
But unlike the politicians and the pundits, they do not face pressure to recant or apologize. American democracy might be stronger if they did.
Try as they may to shift blame upon the citizenry, the media will carry the blame for this 'til the end of time. They can't push that blame onto anyone else.
Are you serious?...
www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809...
Wow, and they say Democrats want the terrorists to win.
The problem with this is that Americans won't come together. They will fall behind Bush just like they did after 9/11 because they're scared out of their minds. Which, I think, is what the author actually wants.
Another 9/11 will not trigger a great rush by both sides towards each other meeting nicely in the middle. It will involve the Republicans blaming everything on the Democrats, the Democrats being demonized in the media and the abolishment of the Constitution.
Forget about the '08 election, we'll be lucky if we ever see another election ever again. Bush will declare, much as Rudy Guiliani did after 9/11, that things are just too volatile for an election and will proclaim that out of the kindness of his heart he will stay on just a little bit longer to lead America through this trouble. Unlike Rudy, Bush will conveniently forget to reschedule the election.
It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.
Funny, because Hillary and Obama will definitely be labeled the enemy if we are ever attacked again. Daily Kos will most likely disappear into some sort of American Gulag.
Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?
Maybe because it was?
Not because Americans are "anti-war."
No, we're not anti well thought out and executed war.
Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog.
Untrue, we'd be quite happy to support a war if we actually thought it was a good war and was going to accomplish something. Trying to blame Americans for this by claiming that we're fickle and impatient is stupid.
Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm's way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.
Americans "loved" the first Iraq War because the media sold it to us non-stop while all dissenting voices were silenced (sound familiar?) and it was over before we could really think about it.
Only someone who's never served in the military, or loved someone who has, can call fewer than 300 deaths a good thing.
America likes wars shorter than the World Series.
America likes wars that are actually fought for good reasons and accomplish something other than bringing down our entire country.
Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress.
Only because they were threatened and lied to every step of the way. This war belongs entirely to Bush and those, like the author, who were such ardent cheerleaders in the run up to the war.
Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.
We knew who the enemy was then.
We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.
Yeah, judging by the media coverage the enemy after 9/11 were the Democrats. We didn't come together quite as much as we completely fell over the cliff and begged Bush to destroy our country so we could feel safe again. That we recovered doesn't mean we can't easily fall off again.
Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working,
Oh yes, who cares whether our soldiers are being launched at a brick wall when we can stare lovingly at our personal picture of President Bush?
if we are "safer" now,
Perish the thought. Who cares if our 6 year "war on terror" has actually accomplished something. Why, that might illustrate that Bush has been an absolute failure.
whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls,
To hell with civil liberties.
whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams,"
How dare they fly while muslim?
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
Would the author volunteer to be a victim of this attack because I know I won't. He seems to forget that people die in these sorts of attacks, or maybe he didn't forget.
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
Yes, let's have another Reichstag fire...uh...I mean 9/11 so we can all rally behind our glorious leader with his manly codpiece and drink the blood of our enemies. To hell with Democracy when we can have a dictatorship.
The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.
The first 9/11 proved that.
Again, the unity we felt after 9/11 had nothing to do with genuinely warm feelings for our fellow Americans (Republicans aren't exactly full of love for New York City and Northern Virginia which are both highly liberal areas). It had everything to do with taking a huge rightward turn while the country cowered and essentially gave Bush unlimited powers to do whatever he wanted. It was a unity where most Americans forgot that Bush was an idiot and allowed him to run amok like a bull in a chinashop.
That America eventually regained its composure only proves that Americans are not as dumb as some people (like Stu) think.
Wow, and they say Democrats want the terrorists to win.
The problem with this is that Americans won't come together. They will fall behind Bush just like they did after 9/11 because they're scared out of their minds. Which, I think, is what the author actually wants.
Another 9/11 will not trigger a great rush by both sides towards each other meeting nicely in the middle. It will involve the Republicans blaming everything on the Democrats, the Democrats being demonized in the media and the abolishment of the Constitution.
Forget about the '08 election, we'll be lucky if we ever see another election ever again. Bush will declare, much as Rudy Guiliani did after 9/11, that things are just too volatile for an election and will proclaim that out of the kindness of his heart he will stay on just a little bit longer to lead America through this trouble. Unlike Rudy, Bush will conveniently forget to reschedule the election.
It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.
Funny, because Hillary and Obama will definitely be labeled the enemy if we are ever attacked again. Daily Kos will most likely disappear into some sort of American Gulag.
Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?
Maybe because it was?
Not because Americans are "anti-war."
No, we're not anti well thought out and executed war.
Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog.
Untrue, we'd be quite happy to support a war if we actually thought it was a good war and was going to accomplish something. Trying to blame Americans for this by claiming that we're fickle and impatient is stupid.
Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm's way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.
Americans "loved" the first Iraq War because the media sold it to us non-stop while all dissenting voices were silenced (sound familiar?) and it was over before we could really think about it.
Only someone who's never served in the military, or loved someone who has, can call fewer than 300 deaths a good thing.
America likes wars shorter than the World Series.
America likes wars that are actually fought for good reasons and accomplish something other than bringing down our entire country.
Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress.
Only because they were threatened and lied to every step of the way. This war belongs entirely to Bush and those, like the author, who were such ardent cheerleaders in the run up to the war.
Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.
We knew who the enemy was then.
We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.
Yeah, judging by the media coverage the enemy after 9/11 were the Democrats. We didn't come together quite as much as we completely fell over the cliff and begged Bush to destroy our country so we could feel safe again. That we recovered doesn't mean we can't easily fall off again.
Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working,
Oh yes, who cares whether our soldiers are being launched at a brick wall when we can stare lovingly at our personal picture of President Bush?
if we are "safer" now,
Perish the thought. Who cares if our 6 year "war on terror" has actually accomplished something. Why, that might illustrate that Bush has been an absolute failure.
whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls,
To hell with civil liberties.
whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams,"
How dare they fly while muslim?
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
Would the author volunteer to be a victim of this attack because I know I won't. He seems to forget that people die in these sorts of attacks, or maybe he didn't forget.
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
Yes, let's have another Reichstag fire...uh...I mean 9/11 so we can all rally behind our glorious leader with his manly codpiece and drink the blood of our enemies. To hell with Democracy when we can have a dictatorship.
The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.
The first 9/11 proved that.
Again, the unity we felt after 9/11 had nothing to do with genuinely warm feelings for our fellow Americans (Republicans aren't exactly full of love for New York City and Northern Virginia which are both highly liberal areas). It had everything to do with taking a huge rightward turn while the country cowered and essentially gave Bush unlimited powers to do whatever he wanted. It was a unity where most Americans forgot that Bush was an idiot and allowed him to run amok like a bull in a chinashop.
That America eventually regained its composure only proves that Americans are not as dumb as some people (like Stu) think.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
What?...
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1642885,00.html
This is news? This is something that Time magazine takes the time to post on its website? This stupid ignorant crap?
First off, who the hell cares what some right-wing Christian thinks about Children's books? What are his credentials that quality him to engage in literary criticism?
Joanne Rowling has three fancy houses and more money than the Queen, but she still doesn't have a middle name: the K. is just an empty invention, added for effect when she published her first book.
Oh no, she changed her name to make it flow better, how can we trust her with our children?
In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien fused his ardent Catholicism with a deep, nostalgic love for the unspoiled English landscape.
And introduced us to an entire race of "witches" with magical powers and eternal life. Make no mistake, right-wing Christians would have the same problems with LoTR that they have with Harry Potter.
What's missing? If you want to know who dies in Harry Potter, the answer is easy: God.
Well how dare she? doesn't she know that all fantasy authors are required to place at least one "God" character in their books? What will happen to the children if they aren't bombarded with thinly-veiled religious allegory in all areas of their lives?
Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind.
This is a bad thing?
He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn't.
And yet somehow, with the help of his friends, he manages to do a pretty good job of defeating the demons that haunt him. There might be a lesson in there somewhere.
Rowling has more in common with celebrity atheists like Christopher Hitchens than she has with Tolkien and Lewis.
Because, of course, the lack of a stifling religious message is the only compelling lesson to be taken from the book (as opposed to the strong message of the books which is one of friendship and love). Christopher Hitchens is not a fantasy writer (in fact, I'd say Christian writers seem to drift far more towards fantasy while atheists primarily stick to science and logic, but that's another rant).
This charming notion represents a cultural sea change.
Only for people who demand Christianity be represented in every place in public so they can ignore that nagging little voice at the back of their mind telling them it's all a bit stupid.
When the end comes, where will it leave Harry? He'll face tougher choices than his fantasy ancestors did. Frodo was last seen skipping town with the elves. Lewis sent the Pevensie kids to the paradise of Aslan's Land. It's unlikely that such a comfortable retirement awaits Harry in the Deathly Hallows.
Easily the stupidest thing I've ever heard. For one thing, last time I checked Harry Potter is still a fictional character. Second, just because the books don't end with some Deus ex Machina "happy" ending, doesn't mean Harry doesn't have a happy life (though I haven't read the books yet so I don't know for sure). One doesn't need an overbearing God to be happy in their life.
This is news? This is something that Time magazine takes the time to post on its website? This stupid ignorant crap?
First off, who the hell cares what some right-wing Christian thinks about Children's books? What are his credentials that quality him to engage in literary criticism?
Joanne Rowling has three fancy houses and more money than the Queen, but she still doesn't have a middle name: the K. is just an empty invention, added for effect when she published her first book.
Oh no, she changed her name to make it flow better, how can we trust her with our children?
In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien fused his ardent Catholicism with a deep, nostalgic love for the unspoiled English landscape.
And introduced us to an entire race of "witches" with magical powers and eternal life. Make no mistake, right-wing Christians would have the same problems with LoTR that they have with Harry Potter.
What's missing? If you want to know who dies in Harry Potter, the answer is easy: God.
Well how dare she? doesn't she know that all fantasy authors are required to place at least one "God" character in their books? What will happen to the children if they aren't bombarded with thinly-veiled religious allegory in all areas of their lives?
Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind.
This is a bad thing?
He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn't.
And yet somehow, with the help of his friends, he manages to do a pretty good job of defeating the demons that haunt him. There might be a lesson in there somewhere.
Rowling has more in common with celebrity atheists like Christopher Hitchens than she has with Tolkien and Lewis.
Because, of course, the lack of a stifling religious message is the only compelling lesson to be taken from the book (as opposed to the strong message of the books which is one of friendship and love). Christopher Hitchens is not a fantasy writer (in fact, I'd say Christian writers seem to drift far more towards fantasy while atheists primarily stick to science and logic, but that's another rant).
This charming notion represents a cultural sea change.
Only for people who demand Christianity be represented in every place in public so they can ignore that nagging little voice at the back of their mind telling them it's all a bit stupid.
When the end comes, where will it leave Harry? He'll face tougher choices than his fantasy ancestors did. Frodo was last seen skipping town with the elves. Lewis sent the Pevensie kids to the paradise of Aslan's Land. It's unlikely that such a comfortable retirement awaits Harry in the Deathly Hallows.
Easily the stupidest thing I've ever heard. For one thing, last time I checked Harry Potter is still a fictional character. Second, just because the books don't end with some Deus ex Machina "happy" ending, doesn't mean Harry doesn't have a happy life (though I haven't read the books yet so I don't know for sure). One doesn't need an overbearing God to be happy in their life.
Friday, June 22, 2007
More lawlessness from the Bush Administration...
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/22/cheney.documents/
I swear to God, it's like the Bush Administration lives in an entirely different world. Have they never read the Constitution? Are they illiterate?
Imagine for just a second the shitstorm that would occur if anything they've done up to this point had been done by a Democrat: warrantless wiretapping in violation of federal law, torture of detainees, illegitimate preemptive war that subsequently turns into an inescapable quagmire worse than Vietnam, etc...
Sandy Berger was practically jailed for accidentally taking a few documents from the archives. Cheney doesn't even think he's required to submit to the archive system and, when someone points out that he's wrong he tries to have the department eliminated.
It's not even like this is the first time Cheney's done this. He doesn't want to submit to the traditional, and legally mandated, transparency with any of his office's actions. He didn't want to turn over the list of people he met with about the energy policy (mostly because the negotiations involved him asking the industry to write their own legislation), he didn't want to turn over the list of people who've visited his residence (even though he lives in a house owned by the American people), now he doesn't want to submit to rules governing the handling of classified information even though we're in the middle of a war.
What I really want to know though is this, and maybe some wacko right-winger will answer this for me: if Dick is not a part of the Executive branch, what branch is he part of? Is there some crazy secret fourth branch that the framers forgot to mention? Does his occasional role as tie-breaker in the Senate somehow make him a member of the Legislative branch even though that really is mostly a ceremonial role and is entirely reliant on his position as Vice President? (while his role as VP does not in any way rely on his Presidency in the Senate) More importantly, since this does actually appear to be his argument, if he's not a member of the Executive Branch, who is? If the guy who actually shared the ticket with the President, who is essentially just a President in waiting, isn't a member of the Executive how can you claim that anyone other than the President is? Or maybe that's their plan...next we'll be hearing that the Justice Dept. is actually part of the Judicial Branch (or maybe I should stop before I give them any ideas...)
This is the most secretive and ideological administration in the history of this great nation. It's literally scary to think of all the ways they've attempted to hide from scrutiny and exempt themselves from any sort of accountability. Clinton was impeached for receiving an oral favor from a consenting adult female. Bush has lied to Congress, he's lied to Americans about events that have cost thousands of American lives not to mention many more lives outside America, he's kidnapped American citizens and denied them basic judicial rights, he's wiretapped the phones of American citizens in violation of FISA, and that's just the beginning. Cheney's refused to disclose any information about how he does his job despite the very clear requirements for him to do so, he's also lied to Congress and the American people and is equally responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths directly linked to the administrations actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most seriously of all, both Bush and Cheney have willfully failed to capture Osama and appear to not even be trying to catch him. Bush admitted as much when he stated that he wasn't all that concerned about capturing Osama. Where are the articles of impeachment? Where is John Roberts in those absurd academic robes we were treated to when Clinton was impeached?
I swear to God, it's like the Bush Administration lives in an entirely different world. Have they never read the Constitution? Are they illiterate?
Imagine for just a second the shitstorm that would occur if anything they've done up to this point had been done by a Democrat: warrantless wiretapping in violation of federal law, torture of detainees, illegitimate preemptive war that subsequently turns into an inescapable quagmire worse than Vietnam, etc...
Sandy Berger was practically jailed for accidentally taking a few documents from the archives. Cheney doesn't even think he's required to submit to the archive system and, when someone points out that he's wrong he tries to have the department eliminated.
It's not even like this is the first time Cheney's done this. He doesn't want to submit to the traditional, and legally mandated, transparency with any of his office's actions. He didn't want to turn over the list of people he met with about the energy policy (mostly because the negotiations involved him asking the industry to write their own legislation), he didn't want to turn over the list of people who've visited his residence (even though he lives in a house owned by the American people), now he doesn't want to submit to rules governing the handling of classified information even though we're in the middle of a war.
What I really want to know though is this, and maybe some wacko right-winger will answer this for me: if Dick is not a part of the Executive branch, what branch is he part of? Is there some crazy secret fourth branch that the framers forgot to mention? Does his occasional role as tie-breaker in the Senate somehow make him a member of the Legislative branch even though that really is mostly a ceremonial role and is entirely reliant on his position as Vice President? (while his role as VP does not in any way rely on his Presidency in the Senate) More importantly, since this does actually appear to be his argument, if he's not a member of the Executive Branch, who is? If the guy who actually shared the ticket with the President, who is essentially just a President in waiting, isn't a member of the Executive how can you claim that anyone other than the President is? Or maybe that's their plan...next we'll be hearing that the Justice Dept. is actually part of the Judicial Branch (or maybe I should stop before I give them any ideas...)
This is the most secretive and ideological administration in the history of this great nation. It's literally scary to think of all the ways they've attempted to hide from scrutiny and exempt themselves from any sort of accountability. Clinton was impeached for receiving an oral favor from a consenting adult female. Bush has lied to Congress, he's lied to Americans about events that have cost thousands of American lives not to mention many more lives outside America, he's kidnapped American citizens and denied them basic judicial rights, he's wiretapped the phones of American citizens in violation of FISA, and that's just the beginning. Cheney's refused to disclose any information about how he does his job despite the very clear requirements for him to do so, he's also lied to Congress and the American people and is equally responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths directly linked to the administrations actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most seriously of all, both Bush and Cheney have willfully failed to capture Osama and appear to not even be trying to catch him. Bush admitted as much when he stated that he wasn't all that concerned about capturing Osama. Where are the articles of impeachment? Where is John Roberts in those absurd academic robes we were treated to when Clinton was impeached?
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Paging scientific method...scientific method to the front desk...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
I love how they trot out one "scientist" with an obviously limited understanding of scientific method, to try to claim that science and Christianity have anything in common (I guess this scientist has forgotten centuries of active oppression of science in Christian countries up to and including executions).
I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
So you've run your "beliefs" through the scientific method and...oh wait...of course you haven't.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
So he went and adopted the most unlikely explanation, completely devoid of reasonable scholarship and empirical proof.
Science is a hell of a lot better prepared to explain those things because it approaches them from a systematic and empirical direction instead of just coming up with something off the top of your head and declaring the discussion ended.
My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."
No more daring than Christianity (or any other religion) since faith is an assertion of a universal explanation of everything completely devoid of evidence and completely contrary to every one of the other belief systems in the world. In the absence of proof, the universal negative is the only position one can take from a scientific perspective. If you don't see a purple elephant, and nobody else can prove they've seen a purple elephant, than the true scientist must say that purple elephants do not exist subject to eventual further scientific discovery. This is not a true universal negative, since there is always room in science for further discovery, it is simply taking the obvious position in the face of no evidence to the contrary. Science could always prove or disprove God once and for all. Anything could happen. Until that time, the proper scientific position is to say it doesn't exist.
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
Reason can't prove the existence of God at all. Reason seeks absolute proof and faith is the opposite of absolute proof. It can be very interesting to listen to the voices in your head, but never forget that those voices are still in your head.
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life,
There's remarkably strong historical evidence of my life (Did Jesus have a Social Security card or a driver's license? I do.) that doesn't make me the messiah.
who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor,
As did pretty much every religious prophet, preacher, guru, man on the street corner and even most non-theists.
and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing.
Not really. Plenty of people claim to be things they're not. We have places for them now, they're called insane asylums. The last guy we had who did that ended up burning down a building with his followers inside.
After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
Translation: He got sick of being bombarded by obnoxious Christians in every arena of his life so he decided to drink the kool-aid and join the maddening throng.
The proper response to uncertainty is not to embrace the most unlikely explanation. It can be nice to completely abandon reason and just accept things on faith but it's not science.
Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Can a scientist believe in anything without subjecting it to the scientific method? I'm sure plenty a science masters student has wished he could defend his thesis by saying "Well, I can't prove my hypothesis, but I believe it with all my heart."
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.
Considering well over 90% of Americans believe in some sort of supernatural being, I'd say that number's not very impressive. Most of the 40% were probably educated at Liberty University or other such evangelical "colleges".
Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
Better not say that too loudly around the kool christian kids or they might just throw you out of the party.
I love how they trot out one "scientist" with an obviously limited understanding of scientific method, to try to claim that science and Christianity have anything in common (I guess this scientist has forgotten centuries of active oppression of science in Christian countries up to and including executions).
I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
So you've run your "beliefs" through the scientific method and...oh wait...of course you haven't.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
So he went and adopted the most unlikely explanation, completely devoid of reasonable scholarship and empirical proof.
Science is a hell of a lot better prepared to explain those things because it approaches them from a systematic and empirical direction instead of just coming up with something off the top of your head and declaring the discussion ended.
My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."
No more daring than Christianity (or any other religion) since faith is an assertion of a universal explanation of everything completely devoid of evidence and completely contrary to every one of the other belief systems in the world. In the absence of proof, the universal negative is the only position one can take from a scientific perspective. If you don't see a purple elephant, and nobody else can prove they've seen a purple elephant, than the true scientist must say that purple elephants do not exist subject to eventual further scientific discovery. This is not a true universal negative, since there is always room in science for further discovery, it is simply taking the obvious position in the face of no evidence to the contrary. Science could always prove or disprove God once and for all. Anything could happen. Until that time, the proper scientific position is to say it doesn't exist.
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
Reason can't prove the existence of God at all. Reason seeks absolute proof and faith is the opposite of absolute proof. It can be very interesting to listen to the voices in your head, but never forget that those voices are still in your head.
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life,
There's remarkably strong historical evidence of my life (Did Jesus have a Social Security card or a driver's license? I do.) that doesn't make me the messiah.
who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor,
As did pretty much every religious prophet, preacher, guru, man on the street corner and even most non-theists.
and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing.
Not really. Plenty of people claim to be things they're not. We have places for them now, they're called insane asylums. The last guy we had who did that ended up burning down a building with his followers inside.
After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
Translation: He got sick of being bombarded by obnoxious Christians in every arena of his life so he decided to drink the kool-aid and join the maddening throng.
The proper response to uncertainty is not to embrace the most unlikely explanation. It can be nice to completely abandon reason and just accept things on faith but it's not science.
Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Can a scientist believe in anything without subjecting it to the scientific method? I'm sure plenty a science masters student has wished he could defend his thesis by saying "Well, I can't prove my hypothesis, but I believe it with all my heart."
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.
Considering well over 90% of Americans believe in some sort of supernatural being, I'd say that number's not very impressive. Most of the 40% were probably educated at Liberty University or other such evangelical "colleges".
Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
Better not say that too loudly around the kool christian kids or they might just throw you out of the party.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Selective reasoning...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/22/navarrette/index.html
Sometimes I just have to imagine that Navarrette has a mini seizure every time he hears a Hispanic name/perceived insult to the Hispanic community and just completely loses all notion of reason.
Gonzales is certainly not the first person you would be building your case on when talking about perceived prejudice within the Democratic Party. Holding up Gonzales as a representative of the Hispanic community is a bit like holding up Condi Rice as the true bastion of the African American community (Condi is no Rosa Parks and Gonzales is certainly no Che).
The fact that Gonzales is the first Hispanic Attorney General also holds little sway with me, and I'd imagine with most Democrats other than Joe Lieberman.
an elite media that long opposed him
Now I'm no demagogue, so of course I have nothing on Navarrette, but I'd guess that this has more to do with him being the one who green lighted horrible torture at various US facilities and less to do with where his grandparents were born.
Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn't owe them a damn thing.
Oh, of course, you dislike the Hispanic you must be a bigot. It can't possibly have anything to do with the aforementioned fascist tendencies and pro-torture policies that would make Jack Bauer blush. Liberals have hundreds of reasons to hate the guy without worrying about his heritage (he ok'd every single questionable Bush Administration policy as White House Council and after that earned him the big AG office, he continued to ok every asinine policy for his boss George. Then, when Dubya asked him to fire people just because they weren't political enough, he threw them in the fire with a fervor rarely seen. The guy's a train wreck from a liberal perspective).
Democratic politicians love posing with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo. But it was a Republican -- George W. Bush -- who made history by nominating a Hispanic to serve as attorney general.
Here we go. What? Liberals aren't allowed to criticize a Hispanic, no matter how heinous his actions? Giving Dubya credit for nominating the first Hispanic AG is like giving him credit for nominating the first black (and woman) Secretary of State. I don't think either community was pushing very hard for those two to be the first anything.
Gonzales' persecutors are blind with rage, or maybe just blind. Surely they see that the push to dump the U.S. attorneys came from White House political adviser Karl Rove.
But, if Navarrette understood the hierarchy at all, he should realize that Karl Rove doesn't have the power to fire prosecutors (though you might expect the next Republican controlled Congress to change that). He needed someone with that power to throw the US Attorneys under the proverbial bus and Gonzales was more than willing to do it. The distinction between ruthless political operative and willing lackey is paper thin.
The attorney general does have one person in his corner. President Bush came out swinging Tuesday, insisting that Gonzales has his support and warning Democrats not to go on "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."
Having GW Bush as your chief defender seems quite like having Screech as your tag team partner. Perhaps it looks like a good idea floating in your head but in the end it doesn't mean much.
I've interviewed Gonzales twice since he became attorney general. During the last interview, which took place three weeks ago in San Diego -- that is, before the controversy erupted -- I asked about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He told me what he has told others: It was about performance.
And it's a well known fact that Mexican-Americans are genetically unable to lie to reporters so I just took him at his word.
An avid baseball fan, Gonzales even pitched an analogy. "What I care about is -- are we trading up?"
I'm sure Karl Rove's protege has years of great legal experience to bring to his job as US Attorney...or perhaps he's just good at making up charges against Dems in swing states.
As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant.
And this brings us back to my initial point, I don't think Navarrette can be objective in a case like this. There is absolutely no reason to call Gonzales a "honorable public servant". He's a joke as Attorney General (Ashcroft literally looks better in comparison). He hasn't done a single good thing in his entire time in the position.
He comes across as a straight shooter.
People said the same thing about Dubya...and John McCain.
It may be that he made a whopper here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.
I'm sure he knew absolutely nothing about the source of these firings. Give me a break. At best he signed something he hadn't really read just to help his buddy Bush. At worst, and more likely, he knew exactly what he was doing and sacrificed his deputy in order to save his own worthless ass. So he's either a horrible manager (didn't he fire a few people for that?) or he's an overzealous political operative who will do anything for his Republican masters.
Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won't forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there's not that much chips and salsa on the planet.
Here we have Navarrette presuming to speak for the entire Hispanic community. I don't think too many liberal Hispanics are looking up to Gonzales as the pinnacle of their community and I don't think the conservatives are ever going to vote Democrat anyway.
If he gets run off without a "fair hearing", whatever that even means, it'll be more about the fact that Bush outright refuses to have any hearings at all and less to do with the desires of Dems. I'm sure most Dems would love to hold all the hearings Gonzales would like before he leaves office but he just might find himself in jail instead of just out of a job. Gonzales might not want to open that can of worms though because he's done far worse things than just firing some US Attorneys.
Sometimes I just have to imagine that Navarrette has a mini seizure every time he hears a Hispanic name/perceived insult to the Hispanic community and just completely loses all notion of reason.
Gonzales is certainly not the first person you would be building your case on when talking about perceived prejudice within the Democratic Party. Holding up Gonzales as a representative of the Hispanic community is a bit like holding up Condi Rice as the true bastion of the African American community (Condi is no Rosa Parks and Gonzales is certainly no Che).
The fact that Gonzales is the first Hispanic Attorney General also holds little sway with me, and I'd imagine with most Democrats other than Joe Lieberman.
an elite media that long opposed him
Now I'm no demagogue, so of course I have nothing on Navarrette, but I'd guess that this has more to do with him being the one who green lighted horrible torture at various US facilities and less to do with where his grandparents were born.
Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn't owe them a damn thing.
Oh, of course, you dislike the Hispanic you must be a bigot. It can't possibly have anything to do with the aforementioned fascist tendencies and pro-torture policies that would make Jack Bauer blush. Liberals have hundreds of reasons to hate the guy without worrying about his heritage (he ok'd every single questionable Bush Administration policy as White House Council and after that earned him the big AG office, he continued to ok every asinine policy for his boss George. Then, when Dubya asked him to fire people just because they weren't political enough, he threw them in the fire with a fervor rarely seen. The guy's a train wreck from a liberal perspective).
Democratic politicians love posing with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo. But it was a Republican -- George W. Bush -- who made history by nominating a Hispanic to serve as attorney general.
Here we go. What? Liberals aren't allowed to criticize a Hispanic, no matter how heinous his actions? Giving Dubya credit for nominating the first Hispanic AG is like giving him credit for nominating the first black (and woman) Secretary of State. I don't think either community was pushing very hard for those two to be the first anything.
Gonzales' persecutors are blind with rage, or maybe just blind. Surely they see that the push to dump the U.S. attorneys came from White House political adviser Karl Rove.
But, if Navarrette understood the hierarchy at all, he should realize that Karl Rove doesn't have the power to fire prosecutors (though you might expect the next Republican controlled Congress to change that). He needed someone with that power to throw the US Attorneys under the proverbial bus and Gonzales was more than willing to do it. The distinction between ruthless political operative and willing lackey is paper thin.
The attorney general does have one person in his corner. President Bush came out swinging Tuesday, insisting that Gonzales has his support and warning Democrats not to go on "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."
Having GW Bush as your chief defender seems quite like having Screech as your tag team partner. Perhaps it looks like a good idea floating in your head but in the end it doesn't mean much.
I've interviewed Gonzales twice since he became attorney general. During the last interview, which took place three weeks ago in San Diego -- that is, before the controversy erupted -- I asked about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He told me what he has told others: It was about performance.
And it's a well known fact that Mexican-Americans are genetically unable to lie to reporters so I just took him at his word.
An avid baseball fan, Gonzales even pitched an analogy. "What I care about is -- are we trading up?"
I'm sure Karl Rove's protege has years of great legal experience to bring to his job as US Attorney...or perhaps he's just good at making up charges against Dems in swing states.
As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant.
And this brings us back to my initial point, I don't think Navarrette can be objective in a case like this. There is absolutely no reason to call Gonzales a "honorable public servant". He's a joke as Attorney General (Ashcroft literally looks better in comparison). He hasn't done a single good thing in his entire time in the position.
He comes across as a straight shooter.
People said the same thing about Dubya...and John McCain.
It may be that he made a whopper here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.
I'm sure he knew absolutely nothing about the source of these firings. Give me a break. At best he signed something he hadn't really read just to help his buddy Bush. At worst, and more likely, he knew exactly what he was doing and sacrificed his deputy in order to save his own worthless ass. So he's either a horrible manager (didn't he fire a few people for that?) or he's an overzealous political operative who will do anything for his Republican masters.
Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won't forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there's not that much chips and salsa on the planet.
Here we have Navarrette presuming to speak for the entire Hispanic community. I don't think too many liberal Hispanics are looking up to Gonzales as the pinnacle of their community and I don't think the conservatives are ever going to vote Democrat anyway.
If he gets run off without a "fair hearing", whatever that even means, it'll be more about the fact that Bush outright refuses to have any hearings at all and less to do with the desires of Dems. I'm sure most Dems would love to hold all the hearings Gonzales would like before he leaves office but he just might find himself in jail instead of just out of a job. Gonzales might not want to open that can of worms though because he's done far worse things than just firing some US Attorneys.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
It's about time...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
This is a nice first step. Hopefully someday we can get rid of all this semantic nonsense and just call it what it is, marriage between two people who love each other. But at least this is a good first step.
This is a nice first step. Hopefully someday we can get rid of all this semantic nonsense and just call it what it is, marriage between two people who love each other. But at least this is a good first step.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Chaka Fattah officially ends his run for mayor of Philadelphia...
www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/16692405.htm...
This is stupid and wrong for many reasons.
1) He'll never get it passed and he has essentially ended his chances of winning (which were pretty good before) by scaring many people in the city who rely on those outside the city for their income (business people, anyone who works at the companies owned by those business people, etc...)
2) Repeat after me: "Philadelphia is not London, America is not England". There, wasn't that nice?
Europeans are used to paying through the nose for transportation. They've been paying higher prices than we pay now for gas for decades. If we had the level of taxation on fuel that they have there would be riots.
London is also a very old city that was built long before anyone even imagined motor vehicular transportation. It's crowded and it's congested. The idea of the congestion tax in England was probably a good one but I don't believe Philly is at that point yet.
Also, London has a huge public transportation system unrivaled in this country. Even New York doesn't have the sheer number of subway routes that London has. It's quite possible for someone to get wherever they want to in London on the subway. Philly, with a whopping two subway lines and sporadic bus system that only runs at certain times, does not have anywhere near the transportation infrastructure to make this work. You can't even get to the Art Museum from New Jersey without a lot of trouble (I usually just walk the 20 or so blocks from the Patco station at 15th/16th and Locust to the Art Museum to save myself the trouble, not everyone can walk like that).
3) People will just stop coming into Philly from New Jersey and the Pennsylvania suburbs. It's not like there aren't places outside the city that you can go to have a good time. There are concert venues in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. There are high class restaurants and entertainment. People will just start going to Camden and spending their money there. It will destroy many businesses in Philly that rely on out of towners for business.
Philly already has an absurd liquor tax (trust me, I did a double take when I got my bill) that no doubt causes plenty of people to either not order alcohol or go elsewhere. Instituting this tax will give people yet another reason to bypass Philly for towns that actually want their business.
This is stupid and wrong for many reasons.
1) He'll never get it passed and he has essentially ended his chances of winning (which were pretty good before) by scaring many people in the city who rely on those outside the city for their income (business people, anyone who works at the companies owned by those business people, etc...)
2) Repeat after me: "Philadelphia is not London, America is not England". There, wasn't that nice?
Europeans are used to paying through the nose for transportation. They've been paying higher prices than we pay now for gas for decades. If we had the level of taxation on fuel that they have there would be riots.
London is also a very old city that was built long before anyone even imagined motor vehicular transportation. It's crowded and it's congested. The idea of the congestion tax in England was probably a good one but I don't believe Philly is at that point yet.
Also, London has a huge public transportation system unrivaled in this country. Even New York doesn't have the sheer number of subway routes that London has. It's quite possible for someone to get wherever they want to in London on the subway. Philly, with a whopping two subway lines and sporadic bus system that only runs at certain times, does not have anywhere near the transportation infrastructure to make this work. You can't even get to the Art Museum from New Jersey without a lot of trouble (I usually just walk the 20 or so blocks from the Patco station at 15th/16th and Locust to the Art Museum to save myself the trouble, not everyone can walk like that).
3) People will just stop coming into Philly from New Jersey and the Pennsylvania suburbs. It's not like there aren't places outside the city that you can go to have a good time. There are concert venues in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. There are high class restaurants and entertainment. People will just start going to Camden and spending their money there. It will destroy many businesses in Philly that rely on out of towners for business.
Philly already has an absurd liquor tax (trust me, I did a double take when I got my bill) that no doubt causes plenty of people to either not order alcohol or go elsewhere. Instituting this tax will give people yet another reason to bypass Philly for towns that actually want their business.
Double standards...
www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/13...
But it's the ones who dare question the Catholic Church who have to be destroyed...
Two very good people were threatened and intimidated all because they dare to be women and have an opinion that doesn't jive with the conservative Catholic idiots and the complacent, conservative media.
And who the hell cares what William Donahue thinks anyway? The guy's a racist and a nut.
But it's the ones who dare question the Catholic Church who have to be destroyed...
Two very good people were threatened and intimidated all because they dare to be women and have an opinion that doesn't jive with the conservative Catholic idiots and the complacent, conservative media.
And who the hell cares what William Donahue thinks anyway? The guy's a racist and a nut.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Molly Ivins, RIP...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/obit.ivins.ap/index.html
Molly Ivins has passed away...
She was a great American and a truly great writer. I'm afraid there aren't any more like her anymore.
I heard about it first on Democratic Underground...
Molly Ivins has passed away...
She was a great American and a truly great writer. I'm afraid there aren't any more like her anymore.
I heard about it first on Democratic Underground...
Thursday, November 09, 2006
We Won...
The Democrats gain the Senate and the House. Maybe we can actually get some oversight on the Executive Branch now.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
November surprise?...
feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/42997163/2006...
Given the fact that we own the Iraqi government, and the fact that we seem to have veto power over the composition of the court, I don't doubt for a moment that our government is behind this. The question is, are the American people dumb enough to fall for it again or have they gained a bit of insight into the actions of the Bush Administration. One thing that makes me hopeful is the fact that a large number of people caught on when gas prices started plummeting and (right or wrong) realized there was a good chance it was a gimmick by the Bushies to influence the elections.
Given the fact that we own the Iraqi government, and the fact that we seem to have veto power over the composition of the court, I don't doubt for a moment that our government is behind this. The question is, are the American people dumb enough to fall for it again or have they gained a bit of insight into the actions of the Bush Administration. One thing that makes me hopeful is the fact that a large number of people caught on when gas prices started plummeting and (right or wrong) realized there was a good chance it was a gimmick by the Bushies to influence the elections.
New Jersey Republican Party Newspaper Endorses Kean for Senate...
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029...
Now seriously, I get that the Courier Post is the right-wing newspaper for South Jersey, but what planet are they living on? The Republicans in New Jersey are just as corrupt as the Democrats, if not more. The only reason they may be a bit less vocal about it is because they've been in the political wilderness for so long in this state. Look at Burlington County, they are in control here and they're even more corrupt than the state Democrats. Give them a little power on the state level and you'll see what happens.
It doesn't really matter though what Kean will do about the supposed state corruption because he's not running for a state office. He's running for the Senate. Right now, the Senate is run by the corrupt Republican Party. The only way to stop that corruption is to give the Democrats control of the Senate so they can start investigations. No matter how much of a "New Jersey Republican" Kean is, the second he joins the Senate he will become a Republican Republican and will start helping the national party cover up its own corruption.
No matter what the New Jersey Republican Party says through its mouthpiece the Courier Post, we need a new direction in this country and the only way we're going to accomplish this is by voting for Democrats across the board. I don't care how much the Courier Post loves Kean, or how different he supposedly is from every other Republican in the world (if he's so different why is Bush campaigning for him?), he's a Republican and he's the last thing we need in this state right now.
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029...
Ah yes, and here they...uh...endorse a candidate for the 1st District. Sort of... This kind of lukewarm half assed endorsement just goes to prove how beholden the Courier Post is to the state Republican Party. They make it very clear that they're only endorsing him because he's running essentially unopposed. Given an alternative they'd be trumpeting how little baggage he has and how he's so much better than Andrews.
While we certainly endorse U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, D-Haddon Heights, in his quest to continue representing New Jersey's 1st Congressional District, it's unfortunate for voters in his district that they have no choice in the matter.
Uh oh, they'd better watch out or Andrews might start blushing. What a rousing and passionate endorsement they've given him. "Well, we really wish there was a Republican candidate so we could endorse him, but since there isn't I guess we endorse Andrews." If Sexton wasn't running against the corrupt Jim Saxton, do you think the Courier Post would be bemoaning the lack of a challenger in that race? Or do you think they'd still be issuing the rousing endorsement for Representative Freedom Fries that they're sure to come out with anyway?
Now seriously, I get that the Courier Post is the right-wing newspaper for South Jersey, but what planet are they living on? The Republicans in New Jersey are just as corrupt as the Democrats, if not more. The only reason they may be a bit less vocal about it is because they've been in the political wilderness for so long in this state. Look at Burlington County, they are in control here and they're even more corrupt than the state Democrats. Give them a little power on the state level and you'll see what happens.
It doesn't really matter though what Kean will do about the supposed state corruption because he's not running for a state office. He's running for the Senate. Right now, the Senate is run by the corrupt Republican Party. The only way to stop that corruption is to give the Democrats control of the Senate so they can start investigations. No matter how much of a "New Jersey Republican" Kean is, the second he joins the Senate he will become a Republican Republican and will start helping the national party cover up its own corruption.
No matter what the New Jersey Republican Party says through its mouthpiece the Courier Post, we need a new direction in this country and the only way we're going to accomplish this is by voting for Democrats across the board. I don't care how much the Courier Post loves Kean, or how different he supposedly is from every other Republican in the world (if he's so different why is Bush campaigning for him?), he's a Republican and he's the last thing we need in this state right now.
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029...
Ah yes, and here they...uh...endorse a candidate for the 1st District. Sort of... This kind of lukewarm half assed endorsement just goes to prove how beholden the Courier Post is to the state Republican Party. They make it very clear that they're only endorsing him because he's running essentially unopposed. Given an alternative they'd be trumpeting how little baggage he has and how he's so much better than Andrews.
While we certainly endorse U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, D-Haddon Heights, in his quest to continue representing New Jersey's 1st Congressional District, it's unfortunate for voters in his district that they have no choice in the matter.
Uh oh, they'd better watch out or Andrews might start blushing. What a rousing and passionate endorsement they've given him. "Well, we really wish there was a Republican candidate so we could endorse him, but since there isn't I guess we endorse Andrews." If Sexton wasn't running against the corrupt Jim Saxton, do you think the Courier Post would be bemoaning the lack of a challenger in that race? Or do you think they'd still be issuing the rousing endorsement for Representative Freedom Fries that they're sure to come out with anyway?
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Good for New Jersey...
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061025...
I say good for Corzine. The state doesn't need that money if it forces them to lie to the kids.
requires them to describe sex outside marriage as potentially mentally and physically damaging.
What is it about conservative lies? Why do they always have to claim that things they don't like cause disease? At least it's not cancer this time. This is right up there with "abortion causes breast cancer" and "stem cells cause cancer".
Sex within marriage can be just as damaging physically and mentally. In the end though, if it causes you physical or mental harm you're doing it wrong. And, ultimately, if you're doing it wrong it's the fault of one or both of the participants, not the fault of sex.
Conservatives questioned the decision.
"We should take a step back and try a new approach," said Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life. "What we have now is not working, as reflected by the rates of abortions and high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases."
I'm truly shocked that conservatives support something that is tailored directly to their own prejudices (though it seems they have no problems personally with having pre-marital sex given their own, sometimes very deviant, sexual histories).
I say good for Corzine. The state doesn't need that money if it forces them to lie to the kids.
requires them to describe sex outside marriage as potentially mentally and physically damaging.
What is it about conservative lies? Why do they always have to claim that things they don't like cause disease? At least it's not cancer this time. This is right up there with "abortion causes breast cancer" and "stem cells cause cancer".
Sex within marriage can be just as damaging physically and mentally. In the end though, if it causes you physical or mental harm you're doing it wrong. And, ultimately, if you're doing it wrong it's the fault of one or both of the participants, not the fault of sex.
Conservatives questioned the decision.
"We should take a step back and try a new approach," said Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life. "What we have now is not working, as reflected by the rates of abortions and high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases."
I'm truly shocked that conservatives support something that is tailored directly to their own prejudices (though it seems they have no problems personally with having pre-marital sex given their own, sometimes very deviant, sexual histories).
Sunday, October 22, 2006
October Surprise?...
thinkprogress.org/2006/10/16/nowrasteh-paramount-stone
In theaters...no doubt somewhere around 10/08. October Surprise anyone?
In theaters...no doubt somewhere around 10/08. October Surprise anyone?
40 Chessboards!?!?!...
feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/37809595/2006_10_15...
Ok, seriously, what freaking planet does Tony Snow live on? He's going to have a hard enough time convincing most Americans that Bush is of average intelligence, why start out trying to convince them he's a damn genius?
And who the hell plays chess at the gym?
Ok, seriously, what freaking planet does Tony Snow live on? He's going to have a hard enough time convincing most Americans that Bush is of average intelligence, why start out trying to convince them he's a damn genius?
And who the hell plays chess at the gym?
Swift boating Sestak...
blog.citizensforethics.org/node/197
So nice for the guy with no military service to despearately try to "swift boat" a veteran. Kinda reminds me of another election...
So nice for the guy with no military service to despearately try to "swift boat" a veteran. Kinda reminds me of another election...
I'm Rick Santorum and I approve this message...
www.philly.com/mld/philly/15816458.htm
Oh well, when you put it that way, who wouldn't vote for the guy? Forget for a minute that he equated gay sex to men molesting dogs. Forget for a minute that he did say that women shouldn't work if they have kids. Forget for a minute that he's militantly anti-women's rights. None of that matters because he loves his kids and happens to agree with Bono on something. Why don't we just nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize and call him the next Jimmy freaking Carter? Because we all know that Bono is the only voice for liberals and we all must walk in lock step with his every proclamation.
Rather than view his zeal for confronting the most controversial issues of the day as refreshing or even admirable for an elected official, critics see a cheeky ideologue.
Oh yes, so great that he likes to confront controversial issues. So admirable that he considers it his honor to champion government discrimination against gays and workplace and legal discrimination against women. So refreshing that he doesn't feel the need to hide his bigotry and instead wears it as a badge of honor. You know who else had a zeal for confronting controversial issues, Hitler. Maybe the Inquirer could run a piece on him pointing out his love of painting.
This is the stupidest, most useless, piece of fluff campaign press release I've ever seen in a reputable newspaper. We're already starting to see the fruits of the paper falling into the hands of far right-wing Republican operatives.
The fact of the matter is that the "republican revolution" is over. The party has defaulted on the "Contract with America" (or was it the Contract on America?) The "revolution" has been destroyed by greed and corruption. They have become everything they wrongly accused the Democrats of being in 94 and oh so much more. They've consolidated power to an extent never before seen in the modern history of this country.
No mention is ever made that part of the Contract with America was term limits. They promised they'd take two terms (six terms for Representatives) and then leave peacefully, yet it's been 12 years and they're running for re-election.
I wonder if they'll do a similar fluff piece on Casey, somehow I doubt it.
And just for comparision, here is the piece on Casey:
www.philly.com/mld/philly/15822585.htm
He's just there because he's his father's son. He's "bland", boring, unforceful. Unlike Santorum the rockstar.
He's only notable for not being Rick Santorum as if he doesn't have any selling points of his own.
People are only voting for him because he's not Santorum. Somehow he both won an election with the most votes ever in Pennsylvania and simultaneously enjoys the lowest name recognition ever.
A victory also would be a vindication of sorts for Casey's father, who famously was shunned for his antiabortion views, banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention.
Ok seriously, Shut The HELL Up about Casey's father. He was NOT shunned for being anti-abortion. It DID NOT HAPPEN. He was shunned because he refused to endorse the Democratic candidate for President, Bill Clinton. Bottom line. What's next, a mention of Gore claiming to have invented the internet? Clinton having Vince Foster murdered?
Oh well, when you put it that way, who wouldn't vote for the guy? Forget for a minute that he equated gay sex to men molesting dogs. Forget for a minute that he did say that women shouldn't work if they have kids. Forget for a minute that he's militantly anti-women's rights. None of that matters because he loves his kids and happens to agree with Bono on something. Why don't we just nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize and call him the next Jimmy freaking Carter? Because we all know that Bono is the only voice for liberals and we all must walk in lock step with his every proclamation.
Rather than view his zeal for confronting the most controversial issues of the day as refreshing or even admirable for an elected official, critics see a cheeky ideologue.
Oh yes, so great that he likes to confront controversial issues. So admirable that he considers it his honor to champion government discrimination against gays and workplace and legal discrimination against women. So refreshing that he doesn't feel the need to hide his bigotry and instead wears it as a badge of honor. You know who else had a zeal for confronting controversial issues, Hitler. Maybe the Inquirer could run a piece on him pointing out his love of painting.
This is the stupidest, most useless, piece of fluff campaign press release I've ever seen in a reputable newspaper. We're already starting to see the fruits of the paper falling into the hands of far right-wing Republican operatives.
The fact of the matter is that the "republican revolution" is over. The party has defaulted on the "Contract with America" (or was it the Contract on America?) The "revolution" has been destroyed by greed and corruption. They have become everything they wrongly accused the Democrats of being in 94 and oh so much more. They've consolidated power to an extent never before seen in the modern history of this country.
No mention is ever made that part of the Contract with America was term limits. They promised they'd take two terms (six terms for Representatives) and then leave peacefully, yet it's been 12 years and they're running for re-election.
I wonder if they'll do a similar fluff piece on Casey, somehow I doubt it.
And just for comparision, here is the piece on Casey:
www.philly.com/mld/philly/15822585.htm
He's just there because he's his father's son. He's "bland", boring, unforceful. Unlike Santorum the rockstar.
He's only notable for not being Rick Santorum as if he doesn't have any selling points of his own.
People are only voting for him because he's not Santorum. Somehow he both won an election with the most votes ever in Pennsylvania and simultaneously enjoys the lowest name recognition ever.
A victory also would be a vindication of sorts for Casey's father, who famously was shunned for his antiabortion views, banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention.
Ok seriously, Shut The HELL Up about Casey's father. He was NOT shunned for being anti-abortion. It DID NOT HAPPEN. He was shunned because he refused to endorse the Democratic candidate for President, Bill Clinton. Bottom line. What's next, a mention of Gore claiming to have invented the internet? Clinton having Vince Foster murdered?
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Live from an undisclosed location...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060910/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cheney
"Part of my job is to think about the unthinkable, to focus what in fact the terrorists may have in store for us," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked about his "dark side."
"Yes, the unthinkable, like that stuff I just made up to justify invading Iraq so my company's stock could go through the roof". Cheney then ripped the head off a young kitten and drank its blood "Mmm, the blood of the young really gets the juices flowing."
Cheney said he now recognizes that the insurgency in Iraq was not "in its last throes," as he said in May 2005.
No shit, Sherlock. Most of us figured that out before you said it. There's no medal for getting it right a year and a half late.
"I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long," the vice president said.
Again, most of us realized this was crap long ago, good of Dick to join us albeit several years (and thousands of lives) late. Forgive me if I'm not impressed that he's finally coming to these conclusions when it appears his bungling is going to cost his party the elections.
"It's still difficult. Obviously, major, major work to do is ahead of us. But the fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we'd be if he was still there," Cheney said.
Yes, where would we be. Well, several thousand of our young men and women would still be alive, I'm sure their parents are really glad that didn't happen. Many thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, I'm sure their families are cheering the fact that we didn't let their lives get in the way of Halliburton's stock price. We'd have most likely caught Osama if we hadn't taken our eyes off the prize and removed most of our special forces from Afghanistan so they could piss around Iraq and commit war crimes.
And of course let's not forget Saddam. He'd still be an impotent dictator who couldn't even exercise authority in a large portion of his country. Yeah, that was totally worth all the lives and billions of dollars and allowing Osama to remain free.
The vice president said the reports were about as valid "as the ones that said I was in charge of everything."
He then sat George Bush on his lap and drank a glass of water while Bush recited Mary Had a Little Lamb.
"I think we've done a pretty good job of securing the nation against terrorists. You know, we're here on the fifth anniversary (of the 9/11 attacks). And there has not been another attack on the United States. And that's not an accident, because we've done a hell of a job here at home," Cheney said in the broadcast interview. "I don't know how much better you can do than no, no attacks for the past five years."
Unless of course you still remember all those anthrax tainted letters that had everyone scared to open their mailboxes. But of course you don't remember that because the media's done its job of distracting you and making sure you don't remember.
And of course the lovely liberal media once again forgets to remind everyone how Cheney's statement is a bullshit lie.
Cheney disputed that he ever directly said Saddam had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
This would be the perfect gotcha moment for the media. Really stick it to Cheney by pointing out all the times he actually did say that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. But, yet again, the damn liberal media lets it go.
In an hourlong interview, Cheney also:
• Acknowledged the recent rise of violence in Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban, saying the U.S. military would be in the country "for some considerable" time. He said the hunt for bin Laden remains a priority for the administration.
Yes, such a priority that the government abandoned the whole thing to concentrate on a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Osama or 9/11.
_Said he still disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision in June that the administration overstepped its authority in holding suspected terrorists without trials or Geneva Conventions protections. He declined to discuss specific treatment of detainees, but said information gleaned from interrogations "helped us prevent attacks against the United States."
Yes, criminals often disagree when the court finds against them.
_Declined to criticize plans by Republicans to spend millions on negative campaign ads against Democrats. "I hope our guys have good hard-hitting advertisements. Certainly, the opposition does," he said. He predicted Republicans would keep control of both House and Senate.
And the captain of the Titanic said the ship was unsinkable. And the Hussein regime was still releasing reports saying the Americans were on the retreat even as we were bombing their asses from one side of Baghdad to another and Saddam was cowering in a hole.
"Part of my job is to think about the unthinkable, to focus what in fact the terrorists may have in store for us," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked about his "dark side."
"Yes, the unthinkable, like that stuff I just made up to justify invading Iraq so my company's stock could go through the roof". Cheney then ripped the head off a young kitten and drank its blood "Mmm, the blood of the young really gets the juices flowing."
Cheney said he now recognizes that the insurgency in Iraq was not "in its last throes," as he said in May 2005.
No shit, Sherlock. Most of us figured that out before you said it. There's no medal for getting it right a year and a half late.
"I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long," the vice president said.
Again, most of us realized this was crap long ago, good of Dick to join us albeit several years (and thousands of lives) late. Forgive me if I'm not impressed that he's finally coming to these conclusions when it appears his bungling is going to cost his party the elections.
"It's still difficult. Obviously, major, major work to do is ahead of us. But the fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we'd be if he was still there," Cheney said.
Yes, where would we be. Well, several thousand of our young men and women would still be alive, I'm sure their parents are really glad that didn't happen. Many thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, I'm sure their families are cheering the fact that we didn't let their lives get in the way of Halliburton's stock price. We'd have most likely caught Osama if we hadn't taken our eyes off the prize and removed most of our special forces from Afghanistan so they could piss around Iraq and commit war crimes.
And of course let's not forget Saddam. He'd still be an impotent dictator who couldn't even exercise authority in a large portion of his country. Yeah, that was totally worth all the lives and billions of dollars and allowing Osama to remain free.
The vice president said the reports were about as valid "as the ones that said I was in charge of everything."
He then sat George Bush on his lap and drank a glass of water while Bush recited Mary Had a Little Lamb.
"I think we've done a pretty good job of securing the nation against terrorists. You know, we're here on the fifth anniversary (of the 9/11 attacks). And there has not been another attack on the United States. And that's not an accident, because we've done a hell of a job here at home," Cheney said in the broadcast interview. "I don't know how much better you can do than no, no attacks for the past five years."
Unless of course you still remember all those anthrax tainted letters that had everyone scared to open their mailboxes. But of course you don't remember that because the media's done its job of distracting you and making sure you don't remember.
And of course the lovely liberal media once again forgets to remind everyone how Cheney's statement is a bullshit lie.
Cheney disputed that he ever directly said Saddam had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
This would be the perfect gotcha moment for the media. Really stick it to Cheney by pointing out all the times he actually did say that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. But, yet again, the damn liberal media lets it go.
In an hourlong interview, Cheney also:
• Acknowledged the recent rise of violence in Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban, saying the U.S. military would be in the country "for some considerable" time. He said the hunt for bin Laden remains a priority for the administration.
Yes, such a priority that the government abandoned the whole thing to concentrate on a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Osama or 9/11.
_Said he still disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision in June that the administration overstepped its authority in holding suspected terrorists without trials or Geneva Conventions protections. He declined to discuss specific treatment of detainees, but said information gleaned from interrogations "helped us prevent attacks against the United States."
Yes, criminals often disagree when the court finds against them.
_Declined to criticize plans by Republicans to spend millions on negative campaign ads against Democrats. "I hope our guys have good hard-hitting advertisements. Certainly, the opposition does," he said. He predicted Republicans would keep control of both House and Senate.
And the captain of the Titanic said the ship was unsinkable. And the Hussein regime was still releasing reports saying the Americans were on the retreat even as we were bombing their asses from one side of Baghdad to another and Saddam was cowering in a hole.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
As if we needed another reason...
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060909/pl_nm/bush_...
Remember this story...Bush has said in no uncertain terms that if the Republicans win in November he will once again try to destroy Social Security. And an emboldened Republican Congress, released from the worry of reelection for a couple years, will be all too willing to give him the blank check they've always given him.
This, in and of itself, is reason enough not to vote for Republicans in November. Added to all the other crimes Bush will be able to commit against this country in his final years with a complacent Congress, voting for Republicans is unconscionable.
Remember this story...Bush has said in no uncertain terms that if the Republicans win in November he will once again try to destroy Social Security. And an emboldened Republican Congress, released from the worry of reelection for a couple years, will be all too willing to give him the blank check they've always given him.
This, in and of itself, is reason enough not to vote for Republicans in November. Added to all the other crimes Bush will be able to commit against this country in his final years with a complacent Congress, voting for Republicans is unconscionable.
Path to 9/11...or Path to Republican win in November?...
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/05/true-or-false/#more-4331
I just get angrier and angrier every time I read more about this shit. This is a blatant attempt to influence peoples' voting patterns two months before election day (and on the anniversary of a very emotional event in American history). People will now go around claiming that Clinton was wholly and completely responsible for 9/11 and they'll use this crap as proof.
Imagine for a second, just a second, if NBC put out a documentary (an actual, fact based, documentary actually based on the 9/11 Commission Report and written by an actual legitimate historian/journalist). Of course such a documentary would place a good deal of the blame on the Bush Administration. The conservatives would have a freaking fit. They'd be burning down NBC headquarters.
Meanwhile, the supposed pro-Democrat ABC network is giving Bush a big sloppy kiss of an election year gift and the conservatives are acting like it's the bestest thing in the whole entire world. But come tomorrow they'll still label ABC a liberal front group.
And does anyone at ABC (owned by Disney) remember the outright hatred directed at Disney from the right when they dared to treat their employees fairly regardless of sexual orientation? Anybody? It's like the entire media has abused wife syndrome, the more the right beats them the more they think they deserve it and move further to the right. What they don't realize is that the conservatives don't hit them because of anything they do. The conservatives hit them because they like to and because it fits in well with their narrative of the way of the world.
If the conservatives admitted that they control the entire country, the media, and the schools they'd have nothing to bitch about and they'd quickly fall apart. They lack even the beginnings of a coherent agenda for the country so they compensate by bitching about how they can't get their way on anything. They've run this country with an iron fist for 6 years and, with few exceptions, have gotten everything they wanted. And yet they act like somehow the Democrats (who can't even get lobbying jobs on K Street) have any power to stop them.
I just get angrier and angrier every time I read more about this shit. This is a blatant attempt to influence peoples' voting patterns two months before election day (and on the anniversary of a very emotional event in American history). People will now go around claiming that Clinton was wholly and completely responsible for 9/11 and they'll use this crap as proof.
Imagine for a second, just a second, if NBC put out a documentary (an actual, fact based, documentary actually based on the 9/11 Commission Report and written by an actual legitimate historian/journalist). Of course such a documentary would place a good deal of the blame on the Bush Administration. The conservatives would have a freaking fit. They'd be burning down NBC headquarters.
Meanwhile, the supposed pro-Democrat ABC network is giving Bush a big sloppy kiss of an election year gift and the conservatives are acting like it's the bestest thing in the whole entire world. But come tomorrow they'll still label ABC a liberal front group.
And does anyone at ABC (owned by Disney) remember the outright hatred directed at Disney from the right when they dared to treat their employees fairly regardless of sexual orientation? Anybody? It's like the entire media has abused wife syndrome, the more the right beats them the more they think they deserve it and move further to the right. What they don't realize is that the conservatives don't hit them because of anything they do. The conservatives hit them because they like to and because it fits in well with their narrative of the way of the world.
If the conservatives admitted that they control the entire country, the media, and the schools they'd have nothing to bitch about and they'd quickly fall apart. They lack even the beginnings of a coherent agenda for the country so they compensate by bitching about how they can't get their way on anything. They've run this country with an iron fist for 6 years and, with few exceptions, have gotten everything they wanted. And yet they act like somehow the Democrats (who can't even get lobbying jobs on K Street) have any power to stop them.
Not paying attention...
www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/04/hijacking-911
Anybody who believes this movie is an idiot, an absolute idiot.
Seriously, if you buy any of the lies put forth by ABC you've obviously not been paying attention for the past 5 years. And you most definitely did not read the 9/11 report.
Anybody who believes this movie is an idiot, an absolute idiot.
Seriously, if you buy any of the lies put forth by ABC you've obviously not been paying attention for the past 5 years. And you most definitely did not read the 9/11 report.
Racists...
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060827
No, really? White Supremacits are the ones waving Confederate flags and screaming slurs at women and children? I'd have never guessed it.
Nobody ever doubted that there was a significant outside presence in this. The whackos always come out of the woodwork for shit like this. The problem is that nobody on the side of the ordinance is kicking these people out. If I wanted my movement to be respectful I'd be kicking these Nazi fuckers' asses.
No, really? White Supremacits are the ones waving Confederate flags and screaming slurs at women and children? I'd have never guessed it.
Nobody ever doubted that there was a significant outside presence in this. The whackos always come out of the woodwork for shit like this. The problem is that nobody on the side of the ordinance is kicking these people out. If I wanted my movement to be respectful I'd be kicking these Nazi fuckers' asses.
Let's kill the schools to save them...
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060813...
The answer to failing public schools is not to take away all their funding. I'm not quite sure why the government should be subsidizing the failing Catholic school system anyway. This whole thing seems to boil down to the diocese begging the government to bail them out after years of so-so education and outrageous tuition drove many of their students to public schools.
This is going to create a situation where parents who want their children to be indoctrinated in a religious philosophy will be able to send their children to private school while those who don't want their kids coming home and saying all gays are going to hell will have to leave their children in horrible hell holes stripped of all funding and quickly falling apart. It's going to be the most obvious public sanction of a particular religious philosophy. How many Jewish or Muslim all-day schools are there in this country? A few Jewish ones in New York maybe, perhaps a few Muslim ones in Detroit. To the best of my knowledge most religious Jewish children attend after school Hebrew schools akin to CCD in Catholic Schools. I don't recall even seeing any all-day Jewish schools in this area and there is quite a large Jewish community around here.
This is going to create a situation where the Christian faith will be advanced to the detrement of the rest of the community. It's going to throw the entire idea of public education on its head (public schools were created to be a religion-neutral place where all children regardless of race, income or religion could enjoy a good education free of prejudice or hatred). With vouchers, those kids who are not religious will be forced to attend public schools with ever dwindling student populations (all those who are religious will leave) and will suffer because of the lack of funding. The very idea of public schools will become extinct. We'll end up with a situation where the rich and religious will be able to get the best education money can buy and the poor and secular will be left behind.
And how about this quote:
"I think it's good for the kids in Camden, not so good for the people who worked very hard to buy a house in a good area with a good school system," Cinnaminson's Grace Porrini said.
Yes, how dare those people who don't make enough to live in Cinnaminson expect to have a decent education. It's enough to almost make someone support the vouchers just to shut her stupid, Republican elitist mouth up.
The answer to failing public schools is not to take away all their funding. I'm not quite sure why the government should be subsidizing the failing Catholic school system anyway. This whole thing seems to boil down to the diocese begging the government to bail them out after years of so-so education and outrageous tuition drove many of their students to public schools.
This is going to create a situation where parents who want their children to be indoctrinated in a religious philosophy will be able to send their children to private school while those who don't want their kids coming home and saying all gays are going to hell will have to leave their children in horrible hell holes stripped of all funding and quickly falling apart. It's going to be the most obvious public sanction of a particular religious philosophy. How many Jewish or Muslim all-day schools are there in this country? A few Jewish ones in New York maybe, perhaps a few Muslim ones in Detroit. To the best of my knowledge most religious Jewish children attend after school Hebrew schools akin to CCD in Catholic Schools. I don't recall even seeing any all-day Jewish schools in this area and there is quite a large Jewish community around here.
This is going to create a situation where the Christian faith will be advanced to the detrement of the rest of the community. It's going to throw the entire idea of public education on its head (public schools were created to be a religion-neutral place where all children regardless of race, income or religion could enjoy a good education free of prejudice or hatred). With vouchers, those kids who are not religious will be forced to attend public schools with ever dwindling student populations (all those who are religious will leave) and will suffer because of the lack of funding. The very idea of public schools will become extinct. We'll end up with a situation where the rich and religious will be able to get the best education money can buy and the poor and secular will be left behind.
And how about this quote:
"I think it's good for the kids in Camden, not so good for the people who worked very hard to buy a house in a good area with a good school system," Cinnaminson's Grace Porrini said.
Yes, how dare those people who don't make enough to live in Cinnaminson expect to have a decent education. It's enough to almost make someone support the vouchers just to shut her stupid, Republican elitist mouth up.
More lies...
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060812/...
First off there's one fact that needs to be stated: the two options for the frozen embryos are getting thrown in the trash or being used to further scientific research and save millions of lives. Those are the only two options. There simply aren't enough people in the world to "adopt" all of them and carry them to term. That doesn't even take into account that most people are perfectly able to conceive on their own and don't need to "adopt" anyone's unwanted embryo.
Let's sort it out. No serious person would deny that a human embryo is nascent human life.
Funny, I thought that was the entire crux of the debate. The whole reason we're having this debate (abortion and stem cells) is because of a difference of opinion on when life actually begins. One side has decades of scientific research and provable evidence, the other doesn't. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which side is which. Because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on he immediately tries to dismiss the opposition as not serious. Nice try.
If we're going to start claiming that an embryo is as good as a human life where does it end? Do we criminalize masturbation because those sperm may some day fertilize an egg? Do we have police officers watching over girls during ovulation making sure they're trying their hardest to get pregnant since the alternative is letting that egg go to waste? If someone murders a woman is he or she guilty of killing every potential child that woman may ever have based on the eggs still inside her? Same question when talking about abortion, if you abort a girl (and it's considered murder) are you guilty of murdering every child she would have otherwise had?
To create human life solely to experiment on it and destroy it for the purpose of enhancing the well being of other human lives is bound to raise moral and ethical concerns for some people.
Nobody's suggesting creating new embryos for use in stem cell therapy, there are plenty ready to be discarded like garbage at in-vitro clinics across the nation.
Had Bush failed to veto the stem-cell bill and allowed federal funding of this morally problematic research, the personal morality of the writer and others sharing his view would have been imposed on those who believe the status quo is morally appropriate and should not be overturned.
Funding research that scientific research agrees could save millions is no more a push of personal morality than funding research on new medical procedures (Christian Scientists don't believe in medicine) or psychological medications (Scientologists don't believe in Psychology).
Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University is the only individual I have seen who both supports the writer's view and has addressed the underlying moral issue. He says, simply, human life has no particular value.
One doesn't have to believe that life has no value to agree with stem cell research. There is an active debate on when life begins and if you don't believe life begins at single-cell mode this has nothing to do with the value, or lack thereof, of human life.
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060812...
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from living human embryos and require the destruction of the embryo.
Which would otherwise end up where? In a trashcan? An incinerator? Certainly they won't end up becoming living, breathing human beings.
A human embryo is the early stage of human life.
That's far from an undisputed fact.
Treatments using embryonic stem cells have not produced any clinical successes. Rather, they tend to create tumors in animal studies. The public should ask why the media do not cover such results.
Is this the new right-wing Christian mantra? Stem cells cause cancer? I must say, that's a new one for me. They just keep coming up with weirder and weirder excuses. I guess this important scientific research must have been conducted by the same doctor who determined that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer. These guys should stop picking on cancer patients and pick another horrid disease to blame on things they don't agree with.
First off there's one fact that needs to be stated: the two options for the frozen embryos are getting thrown in the trash or being used to further scientific research and save millions of lives. Those are the only two options. There simply aren't enough people in the world to "adopt" all of them and carry them to term. That doesn't even take into account that most people are perfectly able to conceive on their own and don't need to "adopt" anyone's unwanted embryo.
Let's sort it out. No serious person would deny that a human embryo is nascent human life.
Funny, I thought that was the entire crux of the debate. The whole reason we're having this debate (abortion and stem cells) is because of a difference of opinion on when life actually begins. One side has decades of scientific research and provable evidence, the other doesn't. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which side is which. Because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on he immediately tries to dismiss the opposition as not serious. Nice try.
If we're going to start claiming that an embryo is as good as a human life where does it end? Do we criminalize masturbation because those sperm may some day fertilize an egg? Do we have police officers watching over girls during ovulation making sure they're trying their hardest to get pregnant since the alternative is letting that egg go to waste? If someone murders a woman is he or she guilty of killing every potential child that woman may ever have based on the eggs still inside her? Same question when talking about abortion, if you abort a girl (and it's considered murder) are you guilty of murdering every child she would have otherwise had?
To create human life solely to experiment on it and destroy it for the purpose of enhancing the well being of other human lives is bound to raise moral and ethical concerns for some people.
Nobody's suggesting creating new embryos for use in stem cell therapy, there are plenty ready to be discarded like garbage at in-vitro clinics across the nation.
Had Bush failed to veto the stem-cell bill and allowed federal funding of this morally problematic research, the personal morality of the writer and others sharing his view would have been imposed on those who believe the status quo is morally appropriate and should not be overturned.
Funding research that scientific research agrees could save millions is no more a push of personal morality than funding research on new medical procedures (Christian Scientists don't believe in medicine) or psychological medications (Scientologists don't believe in Psychology).
Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University is the only individual I have seen who both supports the writer's view and has addressed the underlying moral issue. He says, simply, human life has no particular value.
One doesn't have to believe that life has no value to agree with stem cell research. There is an active debate on when life begins and if you don't believe life begins at single-cell mode this has nothing to do with the value, or lack thereof, of human life.
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060812...
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from living human embryos and require the destruction of the embryo.
Which would otherwise end up where? In a trashcan? An incinerator? Certainly they won't end up becoming living, breathing human beings.
A human embryo is the early stage of human life.
That's far from an undisputed fact.
Treatments using embryonic stem cells have not produced any clinical successes. Rather, they tend to create tumors in animal studies. The public should ask why the media do not cover such results.
Is this the new right-wing Christian mantra? Stem cells cause cancer? I must say, that's a new one for me. They just keep coming up with weirder and weirder excuses. I guess this important scientific research must have been conducted by the same doctor who determined that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer. These guys should stop picking on cancer patients and pick another horrid disease to blame on things they don't agree with.
Joe Lieberman...
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/2/14247/70377
This says more about Lieberman than anything else ever could.
This says more about Lieberman than anything else ever could.
Conflicted...
www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-07282006-690092.html
I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, the illegal immigrant situation has become a huge problem in Riverside in the past 10 years. They are causing a great strain on township services and a lot of people are understandably pissed off about it. On the other hand, the supporters of the law don't exactly do themselves any favors by acting like assholes in a public setting.
"This is not Ricki Lake or Jerry Springer," township Solicitor Douglas Heinold told the crowd as the pro-ordinance attendees shouted down anyone who objected to the ordinance.
Resident Steve Edwards led a "Go back, go back" chant as he pointed to several rows of Latino residents who had come to voice their displeasure with the ordinance.
"If you need help rounding them up, I'll be ready tonight. I'll go visit them tonight," Edwards said of the illegal immigrants living in the township.
This kind of activity doesn't make me want to take your side in any argument. That last quote is a threat of violence and the police should seriously considering following him to make sure he doesn't kill somebody. Besides, I doubt he's going to be checking papers so what's to stop him from accidentally rounding up a legal resident...or does he think that anyone hispanic should be deported regardless of their immigration status?
I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, the illegal immigrant situation has become a huge problem in Riverside in the past 10 years. They are causing a great strain on township services and a lot of people are understandably pissed off about it. On the other hand, the supporters of the law don't exactly do themselves any favors by acting like assholes in a public setting.
"This is not Ricki Lake or Jerry Springer," township Solicitor Douglas Heinold told the crowd as the pro-ordinance attendees shouted down anyone who objected to the ordinance.
Resident Steve Edwards led a "Go back, go back" chant as he pointed to several rows of Latino residents who had come to voice their displeasure with the ordinance.
"If you need help rounding them up, I'll be ready tonight. I'll go visit them tonight," Edwards said of the illegal immigrants living in the township.
This kind of activity doesn't make me want to take your side in any argument. That last quote is a threat of violence and the police should seriously considering following him to make sure he doesn't kill somebody. Besides, I doubt he's going to be checking papers so what's to stop him from accidentally rounding up a legal resident...or does he think that anyone hispanic should be deported regardless of their immigration status?
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Goddamn liberal media...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060603/ap_on_go_co/democratic_...
Ok, forget for the time being that nobody in the media worried during the 1994 election cycle that all the Republican committee chairs might be hardcore right-wing zealots (which they were, and are). Forget even that there are far more powerful conservative Democrats in Congress than there are liberal Republicans (I don't see a Republican Leadership Council dedicated to destroying everything the Republicans stand for like the DLC is dedicated to turning the Dems against all traditional Democratic values). The very title of this article is a goddamn lie and they admit as much in the article. The title is very clear "Prospective Democratic chairs all liberal"...ALL...every single one...
I think it's pretty clear the message conveyed by that title. It's not vague or confusing. ALL Liberals. And yet if you actually read the article they mention two non-liberals up for chairmanships on some very important committees. Let's look at them, shall we?
Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, who would run the Agriculture Committee, is anti-abortion and as pro-gun as practically anyone in the House.
No, you didn't read that wrong. A bona-fide frothing at the mouth conservative moron up for the chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee (a committee with a considerable budget and the responsibility for a very important area of legislation). I don't know what the AP's definition of "liberal" is, but traditionally being anti-abortion and anti-gun control doesn't make one a liberal. In the reality based world it puts one far to the right of the average American.
Let's meet the other member of the all liberal Democratic chair class...
Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri is a longtime hawk in line to lead the Armed Services Committee.
Wow, I hope he doesn't hang a picture of Stalin in the committee chambers...
Of all the committees, I'd think the Dems would want to put a non-hawk on the Armed Services Committee.
And lo and behold the very last paragraph sheds some light on these so strange committee chair choices...
Republicans award chairmanships based on the evaluation of a leadership committee that takes into account leadership fealty, fundraising prowess and other factors. Democrats would award would-be chairmanships strictly by seniority.
Wow, and here I was thinking committee chairs were being chosen based on who had most recently sworn fealty to Hugo Chavez. What a relief. Too bad they buried that at the very end of the story since it proves the entire story to have been one big, festering lie. Turns out the Dems choose their chairs based on who has the most experience and...well...the Republicans make their choices based on who kisses the most ass. Well, I guess the whole story couldn't be surprising.
Ok, forget for the time being that nobody in the media worried during the 1994 election cycle that all the Republican committee chairs might be hardcore right-wing zealots (which they were, and are). Forget even that there are far more powerful conservative Democrats in Congress than there are liberal Republicans (I don't see a Republican Leadership Council dedicated to destroying everything the Republicans stand for like the DLC is dedicated to turning the Dems against all traditional Democratic values). The very title of this article is a goddamn lie and they admit as much in the article. The title is very clear "Prospective Democratic chairs all liberal"...ALL...every single one...
I think it's pretty clear the message conveyed by that title. It's not vague or confusing. ALL Liberals. And yet if you actually read the article they mention two non-liberals up for chairmanships on some very important committees. Let's look at them, shall we?
Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, who would run the Agriculture Committee, is anti-abortion and as pro-gun as practically anyone in the House.
No, you didn't read that wrong. A bona-fide frothing at the mouth conservative moron up for the chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee (a committee with a considerable budget and the responsibility for a very important area of legislation). I don't know what the AP's definition of "liberal" is, but traditionally being anti-abortion and anti-gun control doesn't make one a liberal. In the reality based world it puts one far to the right of the average American.
Let's meet the other member of the all liberal Democratic chair class...
Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri is a longtime hawk in line to lead the Armed Services Committee.
Wow, I hope he doesn't hang a picture of Stalin in the committee chambers...
Of all the committees, I'd think the Dems would want to put a non-hawk on the Armed Services Committee.
And lo and behold the very last paragraph sheds some light on these so strange committee chair choices...
Republicans award chairmanships based on the evaluation of a leadership committee that takes into account leadership fealty, fundraising prowess and other factors. Democrats would award would-be chairmanships strictly by seniority.
Wow, and here I was thinking committee chairs were being chosen based on who had most recently sworn fealty to Hugo Chavez. What a relief. Too bad they buried that at the very end of the story since it proves the entire story to have been one big, festering lie. Turns out the Dems choose their chairs based on who has the most experience and...well...the Republicans make their choices based on who kisses the most ass. Well, I guess the whole story couldn't be surprising.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Sore losers...
atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_16_atrios_archive.html#114558...
This is the model for conservative behavior now. I'm seriously worried that he'll try to take the government by force.
Everyone pay close attention, if the Republican candidate loses in '08 this is what will happen. The Republicans have gotten quite used to winning and they're not going to give it up without a fight. Sadly they own the military so they might just succeed in destroying the democracy we've worked so hard to build over the past centuries.
This is the model for conservative behavior now. I'm seriously worried that he'll try to take the government by force.
Everyone pay close attention, if the Republican candidate loses in '08 this is what will happen. The Republicans have gotten quite used to winning and they're not going to give it up without a fight. Sadly they own the military so they might just succeed in destroying the democracy we've worked so hard to build over the past centuries.
Stupid liberal, catholicism is for conservatives...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/ap_on_re_eu/vatican...
Despite the Vatican's opposition to condoms, a senior cardinal said in comments published Friday that condoms were the "lesser evil" when considering the scourge of AIDS.
How nice of him. It's sad when even the "liberal" alternative is this wishy washy about such an important issue.
In the wide-ranging interview, Martini also suggested that even single women could be implanted with frozen embryos if the alternative is letting the embryos die or be discarded.
Wow, even those useless single women? What a liberal!
He voiced support for in vitro technology using zygotes — fertilized eggs in which the chromosomes of the egg and sperm haven't yet combined — rather than more fully developed embryos.
He said that seemed allowable because in the zygote stage — which occurs 18-24 hours after fertilization — "there are still no signs of singularly definable human life."
Better consult the Vatican talking points, looks like someone's getting dangerously close to a personal visit from the Pope.
However, he acknowledged that in abortion, there were cases when the life of the mother was at risk where abortion might be considered the "lesser evil."
This is the huge problem with "liberal" catholics, especially clergy. They know what is right but they have to bend over backwards to keep the Vatican happy. He should just realize that no matter what he does the church will hate him. They have no use for liberals in the modern church.
"In such cases, it seems that moral theology has always supported the principle of the legitimate defense and the lesser evil, even if it concerns a reality that shows the dramatic fragility of the human condition," he said.
Looks like someone should visit El Salvador so he can see first hand what the catholic church's opinion on abortion is.
In El Salvador a woman has to be rendered infertile (her falopian tube has to burst), or the embryo has to die, before they'll terminate an ectopic pregnancy (for those who don't know, an ectopic pregnancy is where the embryo implants in the falopian tube and begins to grow. The falopian tube is as thick as a pencil so I assume you can all imagine what the chances of that embryo surviving to the point where it can be born are.)
The bishop down there lobbied heavily for the new law. He's the bishop who replaced Romero, the "liberal" bishop who was murdered by the same people who are no doubt allied with the church on this law.
Despite the Vatican's opposition to condoms, a senior cardinal said in comments published Friday that condoms were the "lesser evil" when considering the scourge of AIDS.
How nice of him. It's sad when even the "liberal" alternative is this wishy washy about such an important issue.
In the wide-ranging interview, Martini also suggested that even single women could be implanted with frozen embryos if the alternative is letting the embryos die or be discarded.
Wow, even those useless single women? What a liberal!
He voiced support for in vitro technology using zygotes — fertilized eggs in which the chromosomes of the egg and sperm haven't yet combined — rather than more fully developed embryos.
He said that seemed allowable because in the zygote stage — which occurs 18-24 hours after fertilization — "there are still no signs of singularly definable human life."
Better consult the Vatican talking points, looks like someone's getting dangerously close to a personal visit from the Pope.
However, he acknowledged that in abortion, there were cases when the life of the mother was at risk where abortion might be considered the "lesser evil."
This is the huge problem with "liberal" catholics, especially clergy. They know what is right but they have to bend over backwards to keep the Vatican happy. He should just realize that no matter what he does the church will hate him. They have no use for liberals in the modern church.
"In such cases, it seems that moral theology has always supported the principle of the legitimate defense and the lesser evil, even if it concerns a reality that shows the dramatic fragility of the human condition," he said.
Looks like someone should visit El Salvador so he can see first hand what the catholic church's opinion on abortion is.
In El Salvador a woman has to be rendered infertile (her falopian tube has to burst), or the embryo has to die, before they'll terminate an ectopic pregnancy (for those who don't know, an ectopic pregnancy is where the embryo implants in the falopian tube and begins to grow. The falopian tube is as thick as a pencil so I assume you can all imagine what the chances of that embryo surviving to the point where it can be born are.)
The bishop down there lobbied heavily for the new law. He's the bishop who replaced Romero, the "liberal" bishop who was murdered by the same people who are no doubt allied with the church on this law.
In the top ten worst movie ideas EVER...
ww.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/leisure.startrek.reut...
This is going to bomb so bad Bush'll probably start a war with the production company...
This'll make Star Trek - Nemesis look like Mission Impossible II...
I promise you, this'll be a failure on par with Ben Afleck playing Jack Ryan in that last Tom Clancy movie. You try bringing in new actors to play Kirk and Spock and it's not going to work. And if you try to make Leonard Nemoy and William Shatner play younger versions of themselves it'll just be laughable.
This is going to bomb so bad Bush'll probably start a war with the production company...
This'll make Star Trek - Nemesis look like Mission Impossible II...
I promise you, this'll be a failure on par with Ben Afleck playing Jack Ryan in that last Tom Clancy movie. You try bringing in new actors to play Kirk and Spock and it's not going to work. And if you try to make Leonard Nemoy and William Shatner play younger versions of themselves it'll just be laughable.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Texas Justice...
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060322/us_nm/bars_dc
Seriously? Arresting people for being drunk in bars? WTF?
What's next? Arresting people for being naked in the shower? Gotta protect the children after all.
And I thought Republicans were all about freedom and the government not intruding unnecessarily into people's lives. I guess that's only true if you're running a religious cult/militia...or bombing abortion clinics.
Seriously? Arresting people for being drunk in bars? WTF?
What's next? Arresting people for being naked in the shower? Gotta protect the children after all.
And I thought Republicans were all about freedom and the government not intruding unnecessarily into people's lives. I guess that's only true if you're running a religious cult/militia...or bombing abortion clinics.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Idiots...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060317/ap_on_re_us/st_patrick_s_day
Dunleavy set off a firestorm this week when he told the newspaper: "If an Israeli group wants to march in New York, do you allow Neo-Nazis into their parade? If African Americans are marching in Harlem, do they have to let the Ku Klux Klan into their parade?"
Because you know it's totally the same thing. When was the last time the gay Irish-American community attempted to exterminate the Irish from the face of the earth?
To suggest there's any similarity is to discount the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis (and now at the hands of neo-Nazis) and the suffering of African Americans at the hands of the Klan. Both are genocidal organizations, Irish American homosexuals are not a genocidal organization.
Referring to the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization, Dunleavy said, "People have rights. If we let the ILGO in, is it the Irish Prostitute Association next?"
Prostitution is illegal and is an occupation, homosexuality is neither of those things. But maybe if they were engaged in illegal activity that would work in their favor, I'm sure they let Sinn Fein march under their own banner.
It's unfortunate that conservative Irish Catholics, and the Church itself, hold such sway in this. It saddens me that my heritage is being used to discriminate.
Dunleavy set off a firestorm this week when he told the newspaper: "If an Israeli group wants to march in New York, do you allow Neo-Nazis into their parade? If African Americans are marching in Harlem, do they have to let the Ku Klux Klan into their parade?"
Because you know it's totally the same thing. When was the last time the gay Irish-American community attempted to exterminate the Irish from the face of the earth?
To suggest there's any similarity is to discount the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis (and now at the hands of neo-Nazis) and the suffering of African Americans at the hands of the Klan. Both are genocidal organizations, Irish American homosexuals are not a genocidal organization.
Referring to the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization, Dunleavy said, "People have rights. If we let the ILGO in, is it the Irish Prostitute Association next?"
Prostitution is illegal and is an occupation, homosexuality is neither of those things. But maybe if they were engaged in illegal activity that would work in their favor, I'm sure they let Sinn Fein march under their own banner.
It's unfortunate that conservative Irish Catholics, and the Church itself, hold such sway in this. It saddens me that my heritage is being used to discriminate.
Too close for comfort...
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/17/115226/185
This is really too close for comfort. 4 votes away from privatizing Social Security. And the thing that amazes me most is that every Democrat voted against it. Even Lieberman, Bush's man in the Senate, voted against it. Even the other DLC DINOs voted against it. Thankfully there are still 7 Republicans who care about seniors (or see the disadvantage this would put them at come election time). Evidently Santorum didn't get the memo though since he faces a tough race against a very conservative Democrat (too conservative, he's the Casey in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) this year.
This is really too close for comfort. 4 votes away from privatizing Social Security. And the thing that amazes me most is that every Democrat voted against it. Even Lieberman, Bush's man in the Senate, voted against it. Even the other DLC DINOs voted against it. Thankfully there are still 7 Republicans who care about seniors (or see the disadvantage this would put them at come election time). Evidently Santorum didn't get the memo though since he faces a tough race against a very conservative Democrat (too conservative, he's the Casey in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) this year.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Only Bush can damage our relations with the world...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports...
Yeah, because only Bush can damage our relations with the Middle East and the rest of the world.
Bush should just give up, the kool-aid drinkers aren't even buying it this time.
Yeah, because only Bush can damage our relations with the Middle East and the rest of the world.
Bush should just give up, the kool-aid drinkers aren't even buying it this time.
Milosovic...
www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/11/milosovic.obit
He got better than he deserved. He was allowed to live the majority of his life in comfort while perpetrating horrible crimes against humanity. When it seemed justice would finally be served he dies.
He got better than he deserved. He was allowed to live the majority of his life in comfort while perpetrating horrible crimes against humanity. When it seemed justice would finally be served he dies.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)