resist

Pictures from the Peace March on Washington

2007-01-28T23:35:00.000-05:00

tags: Iraq, protest, march, demonstration

March on Washington

2007-01-19T17:49:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you have all heard the latest plan to "surge" 20,000 more troops into Iraq and I'm betting most of you aren't happy with this. Well, you have a chance to show your opposition if you can get to Washington DC next weekend. On Saturday, January 27th there will be a march to protest against the war and I hope some of you can get there, if not I'm sure there will be local demonstrations and actions around the country.

I will be traveling to D.C., so if anyone wants to meet up (or wants to give me a place to crash for a night or 2 other than on my friend's dorm room floor), then get a hold of me and we can work something out.

More information about the march is available online:

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3436

Peace

tags: Iraq protest march rally demonstration Washington

Iraq Study Group says "US policy is not working"

2006-12-07T12:35:00.000-05:00

Basically the report says that Iraq is a mess and will only get worse unless diplomatic measures are pursued aggressively. Overall it calls for a change in strategy, a new course if you will.

Here are some highlights:

Without setting a timetable, the group also asserted that the United States could withdraw most combat troops by early 2008. But to reach that goal, the panel said, the Bush administration must immediately reassign far more US troops to advise Iraqi Army units, aggressively pursue the help of Iraq's influential neighbors, and place new pressure on the Iraqi government to reach a political settlement between warring ethnic groups.

"Current US policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation," said the report. "Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost."

We will have to see if Bush's White House listens to the outside advice, it has not been known for doing that in the past however.

tags: Iraq war study

Rumsfeld to resign!

2006-11-08T13:15:00.000-05:00

Wow, the GOP announced that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will be stepping down from his position today. This follows many calls for his removal including most notably in a recent editorial from the Army Times.

They clearly wanted to wait until after the election for this, but this is good. It will hopefully mean that change will be acceptable and forthcoming regarding the war in Iraq.

It's about time.

tags: Rumsfeld resigns Iraq resignation war

Democrats win major gains in elections

2006-11-08T13:10:00.000-05:00

Not much to say that has not been said elsewhere. The Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives and by all appearances they are going to win control of the Senate as well. The pendulum has swung back.

tags: election Democrats House Senate

President Bush on Iraq: It's Never Been "Stay The Course"

2006-10-23T23:22:00.000-05:00

I'm calling shenanigans.

tags: Iraq Bush

The end of the the Great Experiment?

2006-10-22T20:02:00.000-05:00

You may not have heard of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 because of a boy hungry congressman, but you should know about it.

Republicans proposed, debated over, and passed the act which gives Bush control over who is an "enemy combatant" and what constitutes torture. At the same time Foley gets thrown under the bus as distraction.

It's all a set up, game over. They drew the line in the sand, now America can torture, imprison people indefinitely as long as Dear Leader says so, and people don't care because a minor sex distraction overruled it in the media.

I really just have a bad case of outrage fatigue right now, I'm waiting for the elections, but I know that those are a flimsy joke to make us all feel like we participate and have a say. Sigh.

I don't know if I can express how major suspending Habeas Corpus really is, it goes back to the Magna Carta. I've always been proud to live in a country that gives a fair and speedy trial even to the worst criminals.

Ok, I realize nobody cares because hey look, the Dow is over 12,000! And gas prices have come down a little! But most people don't own stocks and are still suffering under growing debts. How many of you are going to have outragous debts to pay off after school, how many worry about paying for adequate health care. I have a solution: Gitmo, they'll give you a cage to sleep in and treat any medical problems you have (granted the torture probably caused them)

Habeas Corpus isn't some silly civil liberty like privacy concerns or something, it is the essential right. "The Great Writ."

My America doesn't torture and it does not hold people indefinitely without charge, especially American citizens (like Jose Padilla).

Take your stand on this side of the line or enjoy corporate feudalism. Don't let fear and hatred guide you towards what profits the greedy and buries the rest of us in debt. If we don't, the great American experiment is in its true form over.

/end rant.

tags: habeas corpus military Bush

It's time for discussion

2006-09-25T00:43:00.000-05:00

We as a country are at a point where we need to have a serious discussion with our neighbors and assess the direction we are heading in the War on Terror. No real discussion has occurred because anybody who raises a challenge is labeled as unpatriotic and a terrorist appeaser.

The fact is there are other options, and if this democracy is to work we have to discuss them seriously. Opinions should be respected on their merits and not just attacked if they do not agree with your view.

Bush has admitted to having secret prisons, spying is going on unchecked by the system of "checks and balances" (read: get a warrant), the Administration wants to make sure they can torture people and then not show them the evidence gathered against them (if they ever see a trial), intelligence agencies now say that the war in Iraq has actually made the terror threat worse.

What are we doing? Is this the America we want? Is this the shining example of hope and liberty we love?

It's time for everyone to ask themselves these questions and discuss the answer with their neighbors.

I have asked myself and here are my answers: The US shouldn't torture, the US shouldn't have secret prisons, the US shouldn't have secret trials, the US shouldn't spy here at home without warrants, the US should either give our troops everything they need to secure Iraq (like we should have done originally), or we should leave. I want a better way.

What is your answer?

tags: politics questions terror

How to steal an election

2006-09-22T16:13:00.000-05:00

This is about 10 minutes long but an absolutely necessary video to watch. Princeton researchers demonstrate how easy it is to rig an election with a Diebold electronic voting machine.

Our democracy is being hijacked, we need paper trails to ensure clean elections.

tags: Diebold election voting rig

How Bush Uses 9/11

2006-09-11T21:20:00.000-05:00

Sometimes pictures can say so much more than words.

tags: 9-11 flag Bush

It's Privacy Stupid

2006-09-08T00:27:00.001-05:00

People may not agree in many issues, but there is one thing that many Americans are passionate about, and that is their privacy.

This is what should be focused on to unite people this election.

1. Change vs. more of the same
2. It's privacy, stupid
3. Don't forget health care

tags: privacy

A Voice in the Streets is a Vote for Change

2006-09-07T07:46:00.000-05:00

“And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?”

It has been five years since the 9/11 attacks and the current government has done more to hurt what this country stands for than even terrorists could. Here are a few of the concerns:

1) A general lack of interest in American social and economic inadequacies in favor of an aggressive and distracting foreign policy. Schools, infrastructure, and wallets suffer.

2) Subversion by the current Administration of basic rights granted in the Constitution. The loss of certain individual privacy following the passage of the Patriot Act, and through a broad interpretation of powers granted by Congress, is unnecessary to the greater war on terror and the loss of such rights is a greater threat to the American way of life than a possible event of random terror. Checks on power have been removed.

3) A complete disregard by the Administration for accountability. When things go wrong token assurances are given but no real change is pursued. "Leakers" are outed while their directing bosses remain. Poor choices for government appointments are let go when the appointer is left unaccountable.

4) The Administration’s claim that it can declare an individual as an enemy combatant who cannot challenge their own detention in a traditional court of law has taken the Executive's actions out of the realm of judicial oversight, a fundamental piece of the checks and balance system. According to the claim any individual, foreign or US citizen, can fall into the legal black hole of permanent unchallengeable detention.

5) It is apparent that the wars abroad have no benefit to the American people. Lives are lost as new terrorists are created in retaliation to the invasions. Soldiers die while Administration linked corporations profit in direct correlation.

6) The citizens want their voices heard but the system functions to mute any challenge. The filter of the bureaucratic republic allows Bush to be "the decider," but only for himself and the small circle he hears around him rather than the broader population he is supposed to lead. Votes are meaningless nuisances to their exploitative security.

7) Americans starve and freeze in our own streets, but countless millions of dollars are spent on placing our soldiers in harm's way to fight abroad or to imprison nonviolent offenders in record numbers.

9) Fiscal and economic policies have damaged the people in lost incomes, jobs, and retirements. Corporations get away with economic murder and the perpetrators receive what is essentially a slap on the wrist compared to the suffering their victims must face. The policies in place allow the people to be plundered by corporations and the government that allows it alike.

10) The government is owned by those who have the most money. Lobbying and campaign contributions dictate who benefits directly from any politicians post. The will of the people is not funneled through money; it is spoken by the masses who grumble with no voice or power individually to change their situation.

Enough is enough.

In the current situation the people do not own the government, the government owns the people. Their strength is in our sitting idly by as they do as they please with our money and our lives. They do not fear us as we are not a united challenge to them. We allow it.

Change comes through strength, and strength comes in numbers.

Regardless of philosophical differences concerning specific divisive issues, we must come together in opposition to a system that currently ignores the America that is by the people and for the people. The issues will remain, but the forum to discuss them can change.

Politics is about community and how we interact, it is about our schools, our roads, and how we take care of each other.

Politics is about consensus, and open dialogue. Not hate and covered ears.

Interaction is difficult, yes, but America is built upon communities coming together as a single, more powerful whole. The system in place denies this through division and the current forum of politics ignores the grievances of the common people in favor of the powerful few.

In this movement everybody can have play a role, spreading the word of change is what is important. Let's get started.

Remember, the buildings may be theirs, but the streets belong to us. Use them, go out and greet your neighbors and tell them that you want change.

Resist October 26.

we-resist.net

Perpetual wars destroy Americans

2006-09-03T02:10:00.000-05:00

A follow-up to my last post about the connections between the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.

The War on Drugs has coincided with a consistent increase in drug supply.

Along with the increase supply has been an dramatic rise in arrests and convictions.

When supply stabilized in the late 90s, so did the number of arrests.

As the supply skyrockets due to opium poppy growth since the US invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, the number of arrests have shot up in turn. (Although statistics get hazy after 2002 for incarceration, arrests still rose dramatically)

You have heard of the military-industrial complex. The current nature of law enforcement in the War on Drugs works the same way. This narco-industrial complex provides jobs to all those who deal with the users on the streets.

In this war the police get funding to arrest, the prison cells get packed tight, and people are hired, normally through taxes, every step of the way. Why would anyone want to end a war like that?

Jobs are created, but is it worth it? Communities are destroyed as more of the population is put in prison (a percentage which we are already world leaders in).

The War on Terror is a very similar war, creating opportunities for the military-industrial complex. Is it worth it?

Troops are being killed and America is making more enemies throughout the world, all the while the government is eroding away our basic rights and liberties here at home in order to fight this war.

The priorities are clear, and it is obvious that these wars are not designed to be won. They have to exist perpetually in order to maintain funding. We must always have enemies to fight, even if it means creating new ones, just like drugs always need to be in supply to justify the war against them.

note: edited for clarity 4:35 am 9/3/06

tags: war drugs terror

The War on Drugs is not a war against drugs

2006-09-02T19:44:00.000-05:00

The War on Drugs is intertwined with the War on Terror, but not just in the area of funding that comes to most minds. The War on Terror has allowed more drugs to flow into the streets, destroying American lives at the hands of a government that punishes common users for nonviolent offenses.

America's invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks has resulted in an unfortunate side effect that the current occupation forces are doing little to combat. Poppy cultivation has exploded in the country, especially in the southern provinces. The poppy is the plant that the drugs opium and heroin are created from.

Afghanistan, already the world's leading producer, has seen its cultivation shoot up 60% in the past year. The Afghan crops now account for 92% of the world supply, adding such a large quantity of drugs to the world market that the supply outstrips the demand.

The ultra-conservative Taliban government had nearly eradicated opium production preceding the US invasion in 2001, in fact production world-wide had stabilized and even showed signs of decreasing. Their removal has taken away any obstacles preventing farmers from growing poppies in order to make money to feed their families. In a country where good jobs can be hard to come by, growing poppies to sell into the global drug market probably seems like an easy source of income.

Unfortunately, right now curbing the expansion of opium production is not a priority for the troops sent there in order to fight a resurgent Taliban resistance and establish an orderly, democratic government. In the meantime the drug trade goes unchecked, fueling a supply of cheap drugs into the world.

The policy now is to wait until the drugs hit America and people get addicted to the cheap supply. There will be more non-violent offenders to fill the jails and necessitate money to fuel the War on Drugs. If the War on Drugs really wants to make a difference, then it should limit the supply and focus on helping addicts rather than incarcerating them. Prisons make criminals, and nonviolent offenders charged with many drug related offenses should not be there, it is a waste of taxpayer money and increases the chance that they will commit further crime, not to mention the destructive effect pulling people out of their communities has.

I suppose this news from Afghanistan would not be as big of a problem if the effects in the US were not so resoundingly negative, compounded by the destructive nature of the laws set up under the War on Drugs. If we treated our addicts, attempting to make them productive members of society, then some of the negativity could be avoided.

The War on Drugs has other problems as well, but the unchecked availability of drugs shown in Afghanistan combined with harsh sentences for users is filling our prisons with record numbers of inmates. The US already has the highest incarceration rate in the world, do we need to lock up more? This is a tough system to change as it as a huge bureaucracy behind it. People are paid in all aspects of the War on Drugs, such as the police, prison guards, or companies that supply law enforcement.

The solution is not to escalate the current version of the War on Drugs and merge it with the war on terror. The whole idea behind the War on Drugs must be examined.

The War on Drugs is not a war against drugs, otherwise we would be eradicating the production sources in Afghanistan, it is a war against people here in America and the War on Terror has actually helped to escalate that war.

tags: opium Afghanistan heroin Taliban poppies drugs

Is America prepared for Snakes on a Plane?

2006-08-23T23:51:00.000-05:00

OK, I saw Snakes on a Plane, and believe it or not...I really enjoyed it. It is over the top, but that is the aim and they just do it so well.

We have these reports of terrorists attempting to use extremely unlikely means to bring down a plane in the world, but remember...it could be worse. We could have motherfucking snakes used to take down planes!

Quick overview of the movie, I do not think I will be giving away any real plot spoiler shockers here, but skip it if you think necessary:

-Guy witnesses murder.
-Must travel by plane to testify against murderer.
-Snakes placed on plane to prevent him from testifying (either by biting him directly or by taking down the plane)
-People fight back before snakes succeed in their mission.

Yes, there are probably easier ways to take down the plane, but they are just not as grabbing. The likelihood of the plot working are remote, despite the efforts necessary to simply smuggle the illicit cargo. The plan is attempted only apparently after all other options were exhausted.

If terrorists have gotten to the point of having to concoct a difficult to mix liquid explosive without the assistance of a lab, I think our security has already forced them to reach for plots. Their options of attack have been limited since 9/11 and the most drastic security upgrade was made.

Clearly things can still be smuggled on planes if someone has the determination, but now any potential terrorists must now deal with the prospect of fighting against an angry cabin of passengers unrestrainedly trying to stop them. The would-be "shoebomber" was beaten into submission before he was able to complete his attempt.

My problem with the latest threat is the implausibility of it. Is it really necessary to scare everyone over something which is unlikely to succeed and that people on planes are already prepared to stop? Here is the process from The Register (emphasis added):

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.

The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.

It takes a long time and requires constant monitoring but at best the whole scheme will blow out a few windows. Aloha Airlines Flight 243 managed to land after it lost a section of the roof at 24,000 feet. One person was killed, they were a member of the crew who was not wearing a seatbelt at the time.

If we let ourselves become scared of every unlikely source of death, we might as well start carrying snake anti-venom on every flight...oh wait, no liquids allowed.

tags: SoaP terrorism planes airlines

Save the Hopeline

2006-08-01T11:03:00.000-05:00

Here is the deal. 1-800-SUICIDE, the national hotline that has been a lifeline for countless people for the past eight years, is facing a crisis of its own.

The Substance Abuse & Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA), a division of Health & Human Services, has decided to create their own government run system where they would have direct access to confidential data on individuals in crisis. The federal government has since cut off all funding to 1-800-SUICIDE and left $266,000 in bills to be paid from already allocated funding.

Donate, talk to friends, representatives, do what it takes to save this vital source of help for the most desperate members of society.

tags: 1-800-SUICIDE

Bush wants power to jail anyone indefinitely

2006-07-29T12:56:00.000-05:00

I guess it is inevitable that legislation will be proposed giving Bush the power to declare anyone a terrorist and have them locked up indefinitely. The people in charge have to figure out a way to keep people locked up now that the Supreme Court said they could not use the easily rigged tribunal system.

This is America, everyone deserves a fair trial to challenge their detention. A fair trial requires an open process with oversight to make sure the system is not abused.

"Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda."

If this sort of legislation does pass then eventually someone will abuse it to secure their own power. It may not be Bush or his cronies, but it will happen.

tags: terrorism detainee constitution legislation war terror

Massachusetts ConCon 2006

2006-07-19T00:11:00.000-05:00

Last Wednesday I attended the 2006 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention and just want to share what I saw their basically.

I got there at 7am to hop in line so I could get 1 of 125 tickets to get into the viewing gallery so I could actually see our politicians in action (trust me, action is used loosely). I waited outside for an hour or so and was eventually led inside where I waited another few hours to actually get my ticket. Not as exciting as waiting for Red Sox tickets I suppose, but I guess it beats real work.

The security officers in charge instructed everybody who received tickets on the rules on how the day would go. First of all we were to remain quiet in the gallery, meaning no cheering or booing. All stickers needed to be removed and any t-shirts with messages printed on them needed to be turned inside out. After the rules were explained we were told to be back by 12:30, at which time we would be let into the gallery.

On to the ConCon.

It really amazes me sometimes that we pay these people to work. They are more like easily distracted children than professional representatives. I got to see both the Senate and the House of Representatives there in action and I do not think either could really be said to have been impressive to watch. They talk amongst themselves and pay no attention to the speakers, they are never really in the room anyway. Instead, they are generally just outside talking and negotiating out of view with their colleagues.

One main proposed amendment debated would make health care a fundamental right to all residents of Massachusetts. The idea of this amendment is that it would support and further the efforts to reform health care in the state. Many have the goal of a single payer system run by the government, putting a powerful private insurance lobby out of business, and this amendment is one tactic being used to try to achieve that goal. If the amendment were to pass then later lawsuits could be filed so the courts could find that under the new words of the Constitution that the current health care system is inadequate, forcing the issue to be tackled within the state legislature.

Anyway, it got sent to a study, essentially killing it since it is possible that results may not even be reported until after this legislative session. Senator Jehlen said, "if this is not going on in this Constitutional Convention or before the November election, when if ever it would go to the ballot? Would it be dead forever" to which the Chair replied "thatÂs correct" because "a vote for this study is a vote against the ballot question." Glad they are working efficiently though. They can vote for a study without explicitly voting against the amendment, all knowing that by doing so they are effectively killing its chances of being adopted.

Another topic tackled was election reform. Lets just say nothing passed, and with the Dems firmly in control there was no real debate (not just over this, over anything).

The big topic of the day however was the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There were hundreds of people demonstrating in front of the State House representing both sides of the issue, with gay rights supporters on the State House side of the road facing off with anti gay marriage protesters on the other.

The two sides have attempted to portray this issue very differently, but I slightly new tactic was used by the ban promoters this time. The supporters of gay marriage continued to show this as a civil rights issue and there was the usual morals and family values argument from their opposition, but this time the opposition's main argument was to put this vote to the people and see what they have to say.

My view is this. If gay people want the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of being married to the person they love then good for them, they should. I do not believe that the constitution should be used to limit a group of people's rights as this amendment would do, it should instead protect rights from threats. Some people argue that it is bad for society because a gay marriage does not produce children and therefore should not be tolerated, but if gay marriage is banned its not as if they will suddenly create heterosexual families. Some people are gay and wording is not going to change that, might as well accept it and realize that their gayness does not affect your straightness.

The contentious vote however never happened. The Convention was adjourned until two days after the general elections in November, sparing many legislators from having to publicly make a vote that may look bad within their districts. Democrats from conservative district and Republicans from more liberal districts both feared having their vote used against them in the upcoming elections. There was apparently an agreement beforehand that everybody would vote for the recess, but this presumedly fell apart on the floor once it was clear that the motion would definitely pass. By the time everybody had actually voted how they wanted the vote was actually fairly close, 100-91 to postpone until November 9th.

The people from MassEquality, who want to protect gay marriage, feel that they do not have enough votes right now to block the amendment from getting to the ballot in 2008 and want more time to work on the case. The proposed amendment needs 50 votes both this year and next in order to get on the ballot in the 2008 elections where the people of the state can vote on it. I feel however that it should have been debated and voted on before the election, postponing it was an easy way out for many on both sides of the issue and does a disservice to the people.

Well, that was my day at the State House.

tags: ConCon constitutional convention Massachusetts amendment gay marriage health rights

Supreme Court Implies Bush War Crimes?

2006-07-19T00:02:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court recently struck down the military tribunals being used at Guantanamo. The American Bar Assoociation applauded the Supreme Court’s decision as "a reaffirmation that the Rule of Law must be observed in our country as well as abroad."

The decision affirms that checks and balances within government are important and that the government has the responsibility to adhere to its obligations, such as following the requirements set forth in the Geneva Convention.

My view though is that this decision essentially declares that Bush has indeed violated the Geneva Conventions, a war crime a believe. I know the US does not allow it people to go before the war crime courts, but still, quite an important decision in setting the agenda in the war on terror.

tags: Guantanamo Hamdan Bush Rumsfeld Geneva

The Middle East is Hell

2006-06-29T01:15:00.000-05:00

A group linked to Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier and is threatening to execute him.

Israel has started bombing bridges and attacking power plants, apparently preparing for a full escalation of violence. Their jets have even ominously buzzed Syrian airspace in a warning to Damascus based Hamas who they feel was behind the kidnapping.

Militants in the Fatah movement have just executed an Israeli settler.

al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimied to have launched a missile with a chemical warhead on it...Israel probably will not be restrained if that is true.

tags: Israel

Flag Burning Amendment Fails

2006-06-29T01:08:00.000-05:00

The measure was rejected by one vote in the Senate. One vote. The flag-burning epidemic in this country will surely grow uncontrollably now.

Of course, the proper way to dispose of a flag is by burning it. Apparently the patriotic members of the Senate who voted for this do not know that.

A flag is a symbol and symbols can be powerful. Taking away an effective means to represent anger towards the government is an insult to the rights that this country are supposed to believe in. I may not agree with a flagburner, but the fact that they can make that bold statement truly does say that something is special about the United States and its relationship with its citizens.

tags: flag burning

North Korea to Tempt U.S. War Planners

2006-06-19T22:18:00.000-05:00

North Korea is expected to launch a new missile. You know, North Korea, that other part of the Axis of Evil.

if there is a launch without any advance notice from the government in Pyongyang, there will be no basis on which to assume it is only a test.

So, is the US planning to retatliate?

tags: Korea

Bush Teases the Blind

2006-06-15T00:10:00.000-05:00

Bush was in a particularly playful mood during his press conference today, discussing mainly his surprise trip to Iraq. The trip was really a 5 hour stopover in the greenzone that because the situation is so stable there had to be unannounced and required him escaping quickly.

Anyway, back to the press conference. This quote pretty much sums it up:

Then he was told a reporter he playfully teased about wearing sunglasses during the press conference has a serious vision problem and is legally blind.

tags: Bush shades blind

Where Real News Comes From

2006-06-08T10:09:00.000-05:00

tags: daily show Jon Stewart comic

Zarqawi is Dead

2006-06-08T09:32:00.000-05:00

The military has said that the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq has been killed. Great news actually since this guy as a foreigner had stated goals that were well beyond a homegrown insurgency.

My question though is will this make any difference?

Its a great success for moral now doubt and shows that military intelligence is not completely some sort of oxymoron. Unfortunately I fear its only symbolic and want affect the dangers faced daily by the troops on the ground.

I guess we will see how much control he actually had, and how his death will affect the insurgency.

tags: Zarqawi Iraq al-Qaeda insurgency

Why blame politicians when you can blame gay people?

2006-06-05T16:01:00.000-05:00

Doesn't the United States have bigger problems to tackle instead of debating a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I seem to recall a missing 6'5" arab terrorist, some war going on in the middle east, the fact that I paid almost $50 at the gas pump yesterday and that the markets tanked today because of inflation and recession fears.

Glad to see that the politicians care about protecting everyone from the evil gay invasion though.

Bad news for those in power touches the press so to scare up votes they resort to gay-bashing, nice.

tags: gay marriage

Obesity leads way out of energy crisis

2006-05-30T21:37:00.000-05:00

An easier, more efficient way to create hydrogen?

In a feasibility study funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, bioscientists at the University of Birmingham have demonstrated that these bacteria give off hydrogen gas as they consume high-sugar waste produced by the confectionery industry.

So as we fatties in America eat lots of sweets, the waste from the creation of those products can be fed to bacteria who produce hydrogen gas...cool.

How I See the NSA's American Spying

2006-05-11T23:14:00.000-05:00

My take on the revelations of domestic NSA spying and huge phone databases on US citizens. And yes, AMERICAN spying, none of this "terrorist surveillance program" BS.

Public: Holy shit, the NSA is doing what?
Bush: The program is perfectly legal.
Idiots: Oh, ok..well if you say so...you seem trustworthy.
Public: But, um..that just doesn't sound right.

DOJ: We want to investigate the NSA's domestic spying program.
NSA: Sorry, you don't have the clearance to look at the info...but don't worry, its legal.
DOJ: Well, could we get the clearance?
NSA: Well...the thing is, no, but its all legal, trust us.
DOJ: Oh ok, sorry for the trouble.
Public: Holy shit, they're all either power hungry or incompetant...or both
Idiots: Why do you support the terrorists?
Public: If the millions of people the NSA has records on are indeed terrorists then we have a bigger problem than debating the ability to spy on Americans, we need to rethink some definitions.
Idiots: ...support the troops...

Bush: They want to hurt us, and this is all legal...besides the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.

29

2006-05-11T23:11:00.000-05:00

Bush at 29%. That's some mandate.

What the hell happened to Stanley?

2006-05-11T20:54:00.000-05:00

Enjoy:

Told that he needs to improve his PR rating a bit, George W.
Bush goes to an elementary school to talk to the kids. After his talk he
offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and Bush asks his
name.

"Stanley," responds the boy.

"And what is your question, Stanley?"

"Well, actually, I have three questions. First, why did the U.S.A.
invade Iraq without the support the the United Nations? Second, why are
you president when Al Gore got more votes? And third, whatever happened to
Osama Bin Laden?"

Just then, the bell rings for recess. Bush informs the kiddies that
they will continue after recess.

When they resume, George says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right ---
question time. Who has a question?"

Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks his
name.

"Harry," he responds.

"And what is your question, Harry?"

"Actually, I have five questions. First, why did the U.S.A. invade Iraq
without the support of the U.N.? Second, why are you president when Al
Gore got more votes? Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Fourth,
why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And fifth, what the hell
happened to Stanley?"

Thanks Em ;)

USDA says Iraq is going well, must be true

2006-05-08T15:30:00.000-05:00

This is just hilarious. The White House gave the US Department of Agriculture a memo of talking points stressing the Administration's progress in Iraq. The general idea of them all is to slip them into everyday briefings and meetings. Things must be going really well when the USDA is expected to propagandize.

Here's a few of my favorites:

Several topics I'd like to talk about today - Farm Bill, trade with Japan, WTO, avian flu, animal ID - but before I do, let me touch on a subject people always ask about.... progress in Iraq.

So before I begin talking about the civil rights climate at the USDA, I'd like to address the situation in another nation that is just now forging the path to democracy.

USDA is actively engaged in helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous - one that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists and will serve as a model for freedom throughout the Middle East.

But before I begin discussing the productivity of American agriculture, I'd like to take a moment to talk about another nation that is just now beginning to rebuild its own agricultural production.

Iraq is part of the 'fertile crescent' of Mesopotamia. It is there, in around 8,500 to 8,000 BC, that mankind first domesticated wheat, there that acgriculture was born. In recent years however, the birthplace of farming has been in trouble.

Ha, such smooth transitions. There are a lot of references to not being a safe haven for terrorists and serving as a model for freedom in the Middle East.

Link to memo[pdf]

Anything to meet recruiting quotas

2006-05-08T15:09:00.000-05:00

Normally I do not care about recruiter's talking to kids outside of malls and other youth hangouts trying to sell the military career. In general the people recruited are indeed young adults capable of rationally deciding whether they want to join the military, but this case pissed me off.

Jared Guinther is autistic and essentially lives in his own world due to the socially debilitating disorder. He didn't even know about the war in Iraq until last fall when his parents told him about it after a recruiter stopped him outside of local strip mall. The recruiter offered him the usual money as well as "more buddies than he could count." This offer of course was made to an autistic young man who has difficulty making friends. All standard tactics though.

Recruiters in Portland and nationwide spend several hours a day cold-calling high school students, whose phone numbers are provided by schools under the No Child Left Behind Law. They also prospect at malls, high school cafeterias, colleges and wherever else young people gather.

The 18 year old signed up, and for a very dangerous career as a cavalry scout. His mother tried to ask the recruiter and his supervisor to review the case since his disability should have prevented him from enlisting. The response from the supervisor was not very helpful.

"He was real cocky and he says, 'Well, Jared's an 18-year-old man. He doesn't need his mommy to make his decisions for him.' "

In general, yeah he is 18, but would it hurt to look into it.

The real problem is he just does not understand the consequences of this, he equates war to killing someone on XBOX and does not even know how long he signed up for. (4 years)

A reporter confronted the supervisor, Sgt. Alejandro Velasco, about Jared's case but he said he did not know about the specific case although he later said he mentored Jared because he was going to become a cavalry scout. This part is good.

After he had spoken for a few moments, Velasco suddenly grabbed the reporter's tape recorder and tried to tear out the tape, stopping only after the reporter threatened to call the police.

Classy, but the actual recruiter's actions were not much better.

The Guinthers said that on Tuesday evening, Cpl. Ansley showed up at their door. They said Ansley stated that he would probably lose his job and face dishonorable discharge unless they could stop the newspaper's story.

Like I said, I normally do not care about recruiters but they should at least check to make sure the kid knows what he is getting in to.

31%

2006-05-08T14:44:00.000-05:00

31% in USA Today. I wonder what happens when Bush's approval rating dips below 30%. It seems like one of those psychological barriers where people think "wow, everyone who is left supporting him is on the fringe of society."

World War III Has Begun

2006-05-06T14:05:00.000-05:00

Bush has declared that the War on Terror® is World War III. He stated this in reference to the downing of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania on 9/11. The passengers' fight to regain control of the plane from the terrorists is called heroic by Bush who said, "I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III."

There you have it, WW3 in here, we all knew that we would live through it though didn't we?

Accountability is not an option

2006-05-02T00:23:00.000-05:00

We have a problem. Bush has 'decided' that he can choose what laws he is going to obey depending on how they line up with protecting his own power.

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Of course at the same time as he deflects any sort of responsibility or accountability away from his Administration the White House is looking into prosecuting journalists who are involved in reporting leaked information under espionage laws. It has never been done before, and normally just the responsible government officials are fired or prosecutred, but this would seriously alter the relationship between the government and the press.

The administration and its allies say that all avenues must be explored to ensure that vital national security information does not fall into the hands of the nation's enemies.

In other words, prevent the press from reporting things that make the Administration look bad. Domestic spying, secret prisons, prisoner abuse, etc.

Bush has decided that he is above the law but the press must face severe consequences for reporting the truth. Anything to save his own ass.

Bush Under Attack From Colbert Nation

2006-05-01T15:16:00.000-05:00

Stephen Colbert of the 'Colbert Report' spoke at the White House Correspondents' Association meeting, but hardly anyone is talking about the attack he launched on the GOP establishment. He pokes at the approval rating wound that Bush is suffering from right now. All in all Colbert proved that he does indeed have balls.

So, Mr. President, pay no attention to the people that say the glass is half full. 32% means the glass -- it's important to set up your jokes properly, sir. Sir pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash.

Of course, no matter what happens a good American should stand by this President because of what he is good at, like selling perfectly staged message from any disaster that can be spun.

I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.

The President stands by his story no matter what, and spins things to line them up with his predetermined beliefs.

The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will.

Colbert "attacks" the press who release secret information, saying that its only "superdepressing" and they should just write down what the White House tells them to. The press he says is too harsh on the Administration, that they should just be content with the show they are given.

Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your questions, after all? I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.

Colbert was hilarious, scathingly on point. The President was visibly uncomfortable and the press that relies on the force fed news did not know what to make of it, instead they ignored it and went on portraying the President as adorable, writing about a bit with a Bush look a like but generally ignoring the glaring truths that Colbert brought out. He exposed Bush and all those who rely on him as nothing but truthiness rather than truth.

Go here and thank Stephen for his balls.

Totopoly

2006-04-25T09:45:00.000-05:00

One of the more visible concentrations of wealth and information in the United States is currently the media industry. Every word, sound, and image each of us sees has been filtered through the hands of one of a handful of companies (which actually own large shares of eachother through subsidiaries). The other concentration is a reemergence of an old problem, the telecom monopoly.

Since AT&T's local phone service was broken up into the seven "Baby Bells" there have been a series of mergers bringing us ever closer to returning to the state of monopoly.

Both media and telecom deal with information, the former controlling what is shown to people and the latter transferring the words and ideas of its clients. Moderating what information people have access to is certainly power, but it is much easier to analyze people when their own words can be analyzed.

When everyone is on the same system it sure is easier for Bush's "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (read: domestic spying) to catch what people are saying. Recently an AT&T whistleblower alerted the public of how the information on their networks was being routed through the NSA secretly.

Here's the real issue that makes this complicated. Terrorists do not use fixed numbers. They know, as do drug dealers, that prepaid cell phones are the way to go. So what really needs to happen is voice recognition must be employed to catch key words and phrases and recognize known problematic voices. Trying to figure out where these calls are coming from and going are more difficult when multiplie carriers are involved, I sure have not seen the FEDS worrying about the reestablishment of the telecom monopoly it once broke up.

This control and funneling of information is also related to the debate in Congress concerning the required neutral behavior of the Internet Service providers towards the information carried through their networks. Currently they cannot favor any site or traffic or block or slow access to any given site. Doubt that they will?

AT&T and the telcos are threatening to charge Google and other Web sites extortion-type fees unless Google and others pay for adequate bandwidth. But Google and others may soon have this answer for them: No, thanks. We'll build our own fat pipe into customers' homes.

This action is a response to this threatening question posed by AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre:

“Why should they be able to use my pipes for free?”

Ultimate control and funneling of information is leading towards an era of complete surveillance of all information at the same time as service providers are allowed to restrict their opposition's traffic and viewpoints. Welcome to complete control of information, the totopoly.

New audio tape of terror unleashed, Bin Laden who?

2006-04-23T15:27:00.000-05:00

The newest audio tape attributed to the most wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden attacks everything from Denmark to the West cutting off support to the Hamas led Palestinian government. Praise for the genocide in Sudan is even mentioned, something the US government is basically ignoring. I thought this guy was supposed to be taken care of 4 years ago.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

Well, apparently the answer to that is "Alive."

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

The US still seems to be a priority to bin Laden though. The question really is if Osama is still concerned with US, but Bush is not concerned about bin Laden, should we be concerned about US and how everyone is being protected? Does not really matter probably, but can Bush keep any promises? (to the American people that is, ones made to his Texas buddies don't count)

A New Low (even by Bush standards)

2006-04-21T17:27:00.000-05:00

The great dec(v)ider has hit a new low in approval ratings, and this time its from one of his strongholds, Fox News. According to the poll only 33% of Americans approve of how Bush is handling his job.

So 2/3 of people are not happy, but what is the other 1/3 thinking?

"I'm the decider"

2006-04-20T09:24:00.000-05:00

You would think Bush would take a hint over growing calls for Rumsfeld's resignation or a substantial shakeup in general. Rove has apparently been relegated back to his first term role (is that better?) Essentially a meaningless token. With the Chief of Staff switch the White House is claiming a functional difference, but Bush has already undermined all pretense that anything will change. The employees aren't the problem, the boss sets the tone.

Bush has shown that he prefers a tight circle of advisers and does not welcome the advice of outsiders. As Bush put it on Monday, in asserting that he would not fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, "I'm the decider, and I decide what's best."

Whoa. The only shakeup that will make any real difference is removing the source.

So think about it, if you are sick would you rather treat just the symptoms or head straight for curing the cause of the infection?

Don't bring the uranium if you ain't got the guns

2006-04-12T18:22:00.000-05:00

An image to go along with the talks of planning a nuclear war against Iran.

(click for full size)

Iran announces enrichment, US mulls using nukes

2006-04-11T19:41:00.000-05:00

Today Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country has successully began enriching uranium for what it continues to assert is for peaceful means. The statements have not been confirmed but the State Department still believes that it will be years before Iran actually has a nuclear weapon

Obviously this has been condemned by the White House as a step towards a nuclear weapon. These developments follow recent speculation in the US as to what plans for preemptive war are being considered. One story says that in order to fully destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities tactical nukes must be launched.

So a plan to prevent nuclear war is to start a nuclear war? Makes sense to me.

Of course, what soldiers could be sent in? Plenty of nukes around.

Vermont calls for impeachment proceedings

2006-04-08T19:57:00.000-05:00

Vermont formally passed a motion today asking Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush.

"This is far bigger than a fringe movement on the left," said Dan DeWalt, a 49-year-old woodworker who drafted the Newfane impeachment resolution. "Vermont has a long tradition of speaking out on issues beyond our borders."

Unfortunately the GOP controlled Congress won't give a shit, but its the right idea and somebody needs to push this.

I have a feeling they just got back from watching 'V for Vendetta' though. Well at least Margaret Lucenti seemed to have taken something from it when she said that "you know in your own hearts and minds that something is terribly wrong in this country,"

The Rise of a Dictatorship

2006-04-03T17:50:00.000-05:00

It can clearly be read into any of my postings that I am not a strong supporter of the Bush Administration by any means. However I do not normally make as powerful claims as I am now. I feel the need to write this and challenge the President's power because the Supreme Court has failed to do their duty to uphold the law and protect the rights guaranteed to this country.

Today the Court rejected an appeal by Jose Padilla, the American citizen originally labeled as a would be "dirty bomber." Padilla's appeal was a challenge to the government's original claim that they could hold him indefinitely without charges as an "enemy combatant" (a claim they still make).

However, when it appeared that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court the government decided to drop the enemy combatant label and charge Padilla in a normal criminal court, though the dirty bomb charge was conspicuously missing. No explanation has been given as to why he was held for three years without being charged, why they decided to finally charge him, or why the dirty bomb claims have been dropped.

The clear attempt to sidestep a challenge against the power to hold US citizens indefinitely has apparently worked. Essentially this still means that anybody, including an American citizen, can be held indefinitely without charges if the Administration labels them as a "enemy combatant"

OK, so where am I going with this you ask?

Let's talk about dictatorships, specifically the Nazis to help make my point.

Nazi Germany has their own national "catastrophic and catalyzing"[pdf pg 63] event which outraged the populace and gave support to the rising dictatorship. On February 27, 1933 the Reichstag, the German Parliament, was set on fire. This event parallels our own tragic attack on 9/11. In Germany the fire was immediately followed by the Reichstag Fire Decree, which officially removed civil liberties as well as habeas corpus (but I will get to that later). Of course, after 9/11 the Patriot Act was quickly passed, putting in place new rules for surveillance, allowing secret searches and removing restrictions preventing the government from investigating without cause.

For the Nazis, this step laid the groundwork for a more expansive legal argument to justify their actions. The true leap to dictatorship took place with the passing of the Enabling Act, granting the government the authority to create it own legislation and policy while at the same time being able to stray from the constitution.

These are the powers that Bush has been claiming under the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed shortly after 9/11 in order to conduct the War on Terror. This is the legislation that his claims of legality of the domestic surveillance program without need for judicial oversight have come from. Under this bill Bush has argued that he can order anything he wants if he deems it in the best interest of the war on terror. This is also the same bill which Bush has claimed the legality of the "enemy combatant" label, thus asserting an ability to rescind habeas corpus, or the right to challenge ones detention. This case has been furthered through more recent congressional legislation and certain rulings within the court system.

The Nazis had one further step towards creating a full dictatorship. The decentralized Weimar Republic was dismantled as state parliaments were dissolved and state administration was put under control of the central government, what was to be called the Third Reich.

Look around, let's not let this get out of hand. Sure, terrorists want to attack us and there are steps that need to be taken to prevent that, but at what cost? Our freedom, our civil rights, what it means to be America? It seems to me that the tactics currently being employed (preemptive attacks, detention camps, secret prisons, etc.) are only creating more hatred against Americans around the world. Are we safer than before 9/11? Has it been worth it? Enough is enough.

Of course, I'll let Bush give his side of the story:

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."
- President George W. Bush, July 26, 2001.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
- President-elect George W. Bush, December 18, 2000.

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."
- Texas Governor George W. Bush, July 1998.

Well argued, I guess it would be a heck of a lot easier for him. Besides, do any of you still think your vote/voice matters anymore as it is? He could just streamline everything and do the thinking for you...

Guantanamo Military Tribunals Go Before Supreme Court

2006-03-28T18:16:00.000-05:00

After almost four years locked up in Guantanamo Bay, Salim Ahmed Hamdan is having his case heard in front of the Supreme Court. Hamdan, who is Yemeni, worked as a driver for Osama Bin Laden. The challenge facing the court is whether "he can be put on trial with fewer legal protections before a type of military tribunal last used in the World War II-era."

The Court has already ruled that the president does not have a "blank check" regarding the rights of US citizens. However, that does not affect any of the 490 foreign "enemy combatents" still in the camp. (only 10 have been charged with crimes) The Bush administration recently released the names of the men held, but only after a lawsuit won by The Associated Press.

Justice Breyer had this to say about the tribunals:

''If the president can do this, well then he can set up commissions to go to Toledo, and in Toledo pick up an alien and not have any trial at all except before that special commission.''

Chief Justice Roberts, recently selected by Bush, has withdrawn from the case because he upheld the administration's case in a ruling he made as a lower court judge previously. Justices Alito, also recently appointed, and Scalia are expected to vote in favor of the tribunals.

Last year a law was passed which bars detainees from filing a writ of habeas corpus. Essentially this prevents them from challenging their detentions before a court.

Of course, I would just like to say that all of this comes as the government has claimed that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over this case. Effectively preventing any supervision of the executive and military in the handling of the tribunals.

These men have lost their right to exist under the plans of the Bush government. Initially they could not even contact family and lawyers. Now they are being stripped of any right to even have there question heard as to why they are being detained. Congress has already signed over all control to the executive branch, but if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government in this case then we will lose all pretense of checks and balances.

The throwing out of habeas corpus may not mean anything to most people, although it was important enough to make it in the Constitution, but the loss of something as fundamental as the system of checks and balances we learned about in grade school should ring true to all.

Write your president about this one.

What does it mean to be American?

2006-03-27T17:16:00.000-05:00

I think all of the protests have made it clear that these plans for immigration reform are showing a real problem in this country.

The division stems from a debate over citizenship eligibility going on in the Senate. Their terms give shelter to social-service organizations looking to help illegal immigrants (I want to type illegal citizen for some reason, seems to fit). However this is in conflict with a house resolution making it a crime.

Bush is in favor of a guest worker program (they go home eventually) but no amnesty for those who enter illegally. That does not make sense, looking anywhere else in the world where this has been tried, they want to stay. Can you blame them?

The plan is to have huge detention centers to handle illegal immigrants who, after the laws are in place, have committed a felony for being in the US illegally.

A proposal by Democrats would allow for a special provision so 1.5 million agricultural workers could carry a "blue card" over a 5 year basis. They would be able to come and go as they please.

Republicans want to only allow an exemption in severe medical cases. After they will throw them back over the 700 mile fence they want to build along the border with Mexico.

We are a country of immigrants. Don't allow this country to pull a final thread from the American dream as we watch retirements disappear, a military bogged down in an unclear war, and stories of losing privacy and sense of independence. Generations have risked everything to come to this country just for the hope of a better life. The dream may appear to be slipping away to us here, but don't let it be taken away from those immigrating here clinging only to the hope of a better life. That is America isn't it? We can make a difference to make something better.

Historical Evolution of Culture and DNA

2006-03-23T21:41:00.000-05:00

So basically this story explains how certain pressures may have actually given rise to genetic differences in ethnic populations within historical times (going back only a few thousand years). While this seems like very interesting research it also reminds me of biological justifications of past atrocities such as the Holocaust. People seem to forget that science was used to support the claims and actions of the Nazis. This research claims that certain aspects of a populations nature may not simply be cultural but actually built into their genes.

Another area of research into genetic determination of later traits is the analysis of whether homosexuality is something that is set before birth, largely out of the control of later environmental factors. Research seems to be pointing that this may in fact be at least partly the case.

Now here is the problem. A cultural or environmental trait is more difficult to pinpoint and if deemed undesireable, more difficult to eradicate. Genetics allows eugenics, selectively eliminating any "undesireable" genes from the population. The Nazis did this through the mass slaughter of a whole race of people along with forcing breeding programs to create their desired Aryan race.

Just something to think about.

Will Vermont Impeach George W. Bush?

2006-03-18T20:24:00.000-05:00

An interesting tactic is being employed in Vermont in an attempt to bring the impeachment discussion to the national stage. Since the GOP controlled federal government will not start the process, the state I am currently writing this from is trying to force it.

Definitely worth following.

Hottest Temp. On Earth Created, May Actually Be Useful

2006-03-08T23:26:00.000-05:00

"One thing that puzzles scientists is that the high temperature was achieved after the plasma’s ions should have been losing energy and cooling. Also, when the high temperature was achieved, the Z machine was releasing more energy than was originally put in, something that usually occurs only in nuclear reactions."

Cool. I wonder if the first scientists who observed a nuclear reaction releasing energy said "well, ain't that the darndest."

New source of energy? Definitely worth doing some more research into it. Either that or just look into new ways to blow shit up.

The Long War Eradication

2006-03-08T01:38:00.000-05:00

~~The War on Terror~~
~~The Global War on Terror~~
~~The Global Struggle Against Extremism~~
The Long War

No matter what you call it its still an endless war against whoever they want.

"Meaningful Consequences" for Iran

2006-03-07T12:01:00.000-05:00

Since Osama is still on the run (Dead? Does not matter I guess, if anyone has read Orwell's 1984 bin Laden is Emmanuel Goldstein. Evil. Always a threat. Could strike at anytime.) Anyway, he has not been caught, Iraq is devolving into a civil war, maybe the third time's a charm? Just in time too, I was getting bored with news from Iraq. I think I speak for everyone when I say I want fresh arenas to kill in.

Cheney today told AIPAC (pro-Israel lobby) that Iran will face "meaningful consequences" if it does not obey the rules. This comes on the same day the White House said that it opposes any enrichment of uranium by Iran. Of course Bush has been in Pakistan and India, countries who do have nukes and the US says nothing. Only yesterday a story was released that Iran has been making and sending weapons into Iraq to kill US troops.

Does all this sound familiar?

A real war against a country that can offer some defense might be a change anyway.

Some Concise Questions

2006-03-01T00:04:00.000-05:00

Three things I challenge anyone to explain regarding 9/11, because I can't.

Why did the secret service fail to protect Bush?
Why did the Air Force stand down?
Why are at least 7 hijackers still alive?

I only bring this up again because:

1) The secret service usually has a hissy fit over security yet they knew unknown hijacked planes were flying around. They did nothing, how could they know Bush was not a target?

2) A plane hit the pentagon...the pentagon, the center of our nation's military power! That is all.

3) The living hijackers just show that the real hijackers used fake IDs, the FBI knows this but keeps the original list. The real point is who really hijacked the planes?

Port Deal More Extensive Than Thought, Does it matter?

2006-02-27T20:55:00.001-05:00

The port deal is dragging down Bush's numbers (an all-time low 34%) but everyone should really ask themselves if they believe he even cares.

Not too mention that Dicks at 18%. Too be fair, I think shooting a man in the face gave him a few bonus points that he is shedding now.

Regardless, 3 more years of this? I for one want off this ride, since it looks like our captains have long since abandoned us.

and now for something completely different...

2006-02-24T21:13:00.000-05:00

Stand Up
--------

Its on us to stand up
To this criminal cartel
Lookin in through the flash
And seein the hell
Into the gaze of a beggar
Who got nothin to sell
We gotta claim what is ours
And break through the shell

Our eyes closed to the problems that they shield using fear
Let's tear down that facade of brown men who appear

but why now. . .

When there's a monkey leering down
From his kingly white perch
Leading us down this path
Cause we fall for the church
Back through the playground
With our boys in the dirt
Somethings gotta be done
Before we all feelin the hurt.

So lets get our ass up to shout out with all we got
And force them to listen as we storm through this rot

Some drugs, a jail, the secrets of mail

Do you feel safer now than
Before they were hailed?

(Please respond, comment, criticize and link to this)

Mmm . . . sweet, sweet alcohol

2006-02-24T14:33:00.000-05:00

Do you think its weird that 190 proof Everclear has 5% more ethanol than the ethanol they've been pushing for fuel? Should we dilute some Everclear with gas or dilute our gas with Everclear?

I really wonder where all this excess corn is coming from. US farmers could produce a lot, but they will always be restricted by other demands. Besides, growers have no real incentives in most cases to choose one or the other and costs are probably cheaper elsewhere as the demand rises.

That means its going to come from somewhere else. Agribusiness. Food corporations have already been taking food from developing nations for years, although they do not get subsidies anymore. Maybe if that food is instead used as fuel they will get subsidies for relieving the dependency on foreign oil.

Food or fuel?

But who knows, and on the bright side, if you're stuck somewhere you can put a hose into the tank and get hammered.

Focus on our real issue here

2006-02-22T23:15:00.000-05:00

I think we should skip over the whole UAE port sale and focus on the fundamental problem. Obviously the nation is afraid of the word "Arab" in another country's name, but the port sale is business. The only reason to be afraid is if our ports are not safe and secure, allowing these Arabs to infiltrate. Well, apparently its our lucky day. Back in 2002 the Senate passed legislation to prevent exactly the sort of terrorism everyone is worried about. . . and that was way back when only 1-2% of incoming containers were inspected. Wow, that was a scary time, glad its safer now.

Let's just see how that has come along.

Oh.

Was it scary then, is it safer now?

To quote President Palmer in the Allstate commercials, "are you in good hands?"

(also, the United Arab Emirates? who thought that was a good idea?)

Ok, now that that's through here's a quote from the legislation:

"The Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001," would authorize $966 million in appropriations through fiscal year 2006 to fund new customs inspectors and agents at U.S. ports, as well as security planning, infrastructure improvements and new cargo screening technology.

Funding for security is running out (right before elections too). How better to push for more money than to link "Arab" with "port" through this sale? Remember, this most likely is a safe sale, the beneficial push for funding this sale gives the bureaucracy outweighs the cost of a terrorist attack from this sale in order to preserve the "growth" of an industry using security.

The money though will not be from the same source. The Bush Administration has pushed to include the issue under the umbrella of his Department of Homeland Security, will people still buy it come September?

Calm Like a Bomb

2006-02-21T14:52:00.000-05:00

Lyrics to Rage Against the Machine's "Calm Like a Bomb" (written by Zack de la Rocha):

Feel the funk blast x5

Yo, yo, yo, yo, yo, yo, check it out, yo, yo, yo

I be walkin' god like a dog
My narrative fearless
My word war returns to burn
Like Baldwin home from Paris
Like Steel from a furnace
I was born landless
This is tha native son
Born of Zapata's guns
Stroll through tha shanties
And tha cities remains
Same bodies buried hungry
But with different last names
These vultures rob everything
Leave nothing but chains
Pick a point on tha globe
Yes tha pictures tha same
There's a bank There's a church a myth and a hearse
A mall and a loan a child dead at birth
There's a widow pig parrot
A rebel to tame
A whitehooded judge
A syringe and a vein

And tha riot be tha rhyme of tha unheard
what ya say, what ya say, what ya say, what? x4

Calm like a bomb
Ignite x9
Calm like a bomb
Ignite x9

This ain't subliminal
Feel tha critical mass approach horizon
Tha pulse of tha condemned
Sound off America's demise
Tha anti-myth rhythm rock shocker
Yes I spit fire
Hope lies in tha smoldering rubble of empires
Yes back through tha shanties and tha cities remains
Tha same bodies buried hungry
But with different last names
These vultures rob everyone
Leave nothing but chains
Pick a point here at home
Yes tha picture's tha same
There's a field full of slaves
Some corn and some debt
There's a ditch full of bodies
Tha check for tha rent
There's a tap, tha phone, tha silence of stone
Tha numb black screen
That be feelin' like home

And tha riot be tha rhyme of tha unheard
What ya say, what ya say, what ya say, what? x4

Calm Like a bomb
Ignite

There's a mass without roofs
There's a prison to fill
There's a country's soul that reads post no bills
There's a strike and a line of cops outside of tha mill
There's a right to obey
And there's a right to kill
There's a mass without roofs
There's a prison to fill
There's a country's soul that reads post no bills
There's a strike and a line of cops outside of tha mill
There's a right to obey
And there's a right to kill (?)

So my question to anyone out there who is also "calm like a bomb" is when are we going to ignite?

New Image of Cheney Shooting Incident

2006-02-20T23:13:00.000-05:00

Just came across this leaked image of the Cheney shooting incident:

Thanks for the laughs Dick. Every time I read that the Vice President shot a man in the face I giggle.

Guantanamo Bay: Where are the riots?

2006-02-19T19:07:00.000-05:00

"On Thursday, the United Nations Human Rights Commission issued a scathing report on the violations of democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law at Guantanamo Bay: indefinite arbitrary detentions, hearings that mock fair process and justice, coercive and violent interrogations, and other violations of laws and treaties."

People are dying in riots throughout the Muslim world over cartoons (let's hope they don't get South Park). The Bush administration continues to operate an actual attack on human rights and nobody seems to care outside of a grumbling few, many of whom could be appeased simply by opening up access to the prison.

Maybe they should try Amsterdam's approach to changing an increasingly negative image of its famous red light district. The city recently offered an "open day" to allow the curious to see the locations and interact with the people who make the area work. If the UN were allowed unfettered access to Guantanamo, including interviews with detainees, then the US could at least attempt to shed some of its negative image.

In reality, access is restricted for a reason, Guantanamo Bay is a human rights violation and is best kept hidden until they figure out what to do with the mess.

Lawmakers Wary About Cheap Oil

2006-02-16T19:48:00.000-05:00

"They said they are concerned the oil deals are 'part of an unfriendly government's increasingly belligerent and hostile foreign policy toward' the United States."

If Venezuela wants to assist in heating the poor of the Northeast by offering cheap oil then we should thank them for their generosity. Instead lawmakers bicker over petty political differences even while the President has stated his goal of reducing dependency on Middle East oil. Would you rather be proud or warm?

Cheney Shoots Hunting Companion

2006-02-12T20:24:00.000-05:00

"Katharine Armstrong, the ranch's owner, said Sunday that Cheney was using a 28-guage shotgun and that Whittington was about 30 yards away when he was hit in the cheek, neck and chest."

I hear that there is a need for a few extra guns in Iraq, and it sounds like Dick might just have the stuff.

Domestic Surveillance Faces Senate

2006-02-06T17:55:00.000-05:00

The debate over the Bush Administration's domestic wiretapping program faced the Senate Judiciary Committee today and amid partisan questioning received general skepticism. Senator Leahy sums up the issue pretty succinctly:

"But instead of doing what the president has the authority to do legally, he's decided to do it illegally, without safeguards."

The justification for removing the safeguards was explained by the need of a lower standard of evidence than the secret FISA courts required.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who headed the N.S.A. when it began the surveillance, acknowledged in a recent speech that officials running the program have demanded a standard of evidence lower than generally demanded by the courts, including the special FISA court. The N.S.A. program calls for "a reasonable standard to believe" there might be wrongdoing, rather than "probable cause," said General Hayden, now the principal deputy director of the new national intelligence agency.

Of course, this is all necessary because as described by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales the US is facing "a stateless, faceless enemy." (that could be anywhere at anytime I presume)

Senator Leahy later confronted the administration's claim of exemption from the requirements of the 1978 FISA legislation.

"Mr. Attorney General," Senator Leahy said at one point, "I'm getting the impression this administration picks and chooses what it's subject to."

Gonzalez made a strong effort to make clear that the threat is greater today than ever, making the need for warrants too restrictive in today's war on terror.

Senator Teddy Kennedy responded with this soundbite before retreating to his office to ingest what I guess would be some sort of alcohol, at least something to make him bloated and red. (though he makes a good point)

"We've got terrorism now, but it was a nuclear threat then"

The really priceless part though came when Senator Feingold accused Gonzalez specifically of misleadingly lying about the program.

Mr. Feingold was clearly angry when his turn came to question Mr. Gonzales. "You wanted this committee and the American people to think that this kind of program wasn't going on," he said. "But it was."

Not so, Mr. Gonzales insisted. Last year, he said, Mr. Feingold asked him whether he thought the president could authorize eavesdropping "in violation of the law," and that the question was therefore hypothetical.

"I was telling the truth then," the attorney general said. "I'm telling the truth now."

Aren't you glad these people are in charge?

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

2006-01-31T14:27:00.000-05:00

"They have joined with others in common cause as members of 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C."

Well, this definitely will not be mentioned at the State of the Union tonight, although 9/11 itself will undoubtedly be invoked to justify new pervasive methods in the war on terror. It is sad that 4.5 years after 9/11 there are still many questions as to what really took place. Some of these questions are so fundamental and obvious that they challenge the accuracy of the official story.

For me, the most fundamental question though is who ordered the air defense stand down? This person allowed at the very least a plane to smash into the Pentagon, the center of the nation's military power! If our defense system had worked properly this never should have happened.

"'Let's see if we get some truth,' said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband on Sept. 11, 2001, and will listen to Bush with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)."

Even without the atmosphere of conspiracy theories, these questions exist and the American people deserve answers.

Exxon Suffers Through High Oil Prices With Record Profits

2006-01-30T23:25:00.001-05:00

"Exxon Mobil, aided by strong energy prices, disclosed Monday that it had set a record for profits among American companies, reporting $36 billion in annual income."

Glad they are hurting with the people in these hard times of high oil and energy prices.

For a little perspective:

· ExxonMobil's profits of $36bn would singlehandedly have paid for the cost to the New York economy of the attacks on the World Trade Centre on 9/11.

· The company, which trades on the British forecourt as Esso, has produced more profits in a year than the economies of 125 of the 184 top countries ranked by the World Bank.

· The $36bn is the same amount of money that America ploughed into farm subsidies in 2003. Equally, it is the net worth attributed to the second richest man in the US, Warren Buffett.

In case for some reason it was unclear that corporations and countries are essentially the same. They are both large entitities with competing interests to protect themselves and the many people supported through their ventures.

"In one measure of Exxon Mobil's wealth and influence, its revenue of $371 billion surpassed the $245 billion gross domestic product of Indonesia, an OPEC member and the world's fourth most populous country, with 242 million people."

A Struggle Against Majority Tyranny

2006-01-23T21:26:00.000-05:00

"He understood that the newest incarnation of despotism was likely to be ushered in by the 'avowed lover of liberty' who is a 'hidden servant of tyranny.'"

A comparison of political climate between the days of Alexis de Tocqueville, writer of "Democracy in America," and today. Interesting is the relevance of Tocqueville's writing still today, 170 years later.

Bush Calls on Public to Forget 9/11

2006-01-23T18:59:00.000-05:00

"I knew right after September the 11th, though, that the attacks would begin to fade in people's memory. I mean, who wants to constantly go through life thinking that you're going to get hit again? Who wants to kind of re-live those days in your memory? As a matter of fact, I asked the American people to go on about your life. But given the fact that it's human nature to forget, or try to put in the past, put the pain in the past, I want to assure you and our fellow Americans I'm not going to put it in the past. The threat to the United States is forefront in my mind. I knew that at times people would say, you know, it may be an isolated incident, let's just don't worry about it. Well, for me it's not an isolated incident. I understand there is still an enemy which lurks out there."

Its ok folks, nothing to see here, forget about 9/11 because George, who in his infinite wisdom has found room in his brain to store the tragedy, is going to be ever watchful in the hunt for terrorists. Glad that's finally settled, but I wonder how long until he invokes it again.

(later in the speech)

"I like to remind people the Patriot Act may be set to expire, but the threats to the United States haven't expired. And exactly what has changed, I asked out loud, after the attack of September the 11th and today?"

I'm listening, what's changed?

Countries Scramble to Prevent Spread of Avian Flu

2006-01-23T16:38:00.000-05:00

Do you think they will try this?

Maybe not, but they should definitely consider it.

How confident are you with your Googling?

2006-01-19T19:50:00.000-05:00

The US government's quest to invade privacy and strip away rights is absurd in its reach. No real security thus shown can be justified by the steps taken to invade the freedom we hold dear. These steps instead show an Administration bent on gaining access to every part of life. The Justice Department yesterday requested every Google search made over a two month period. Although this seems to be a terrible way to prevent children from viewing porn, which is the DEPJUS's justification under an embattled act, it would be very good at finding patterns in individual's searches to label them. So there you go, a list of all "enemies," foreign and domestic.

Of course, more rights need to be taken away first and what amounts to martial law declared before such a list would be useful without violating certain legal restrictions still in place. Conveniently Osama made an appearance today, remember, more sacrifices may be necessary in this war, right?

Iran's Development Through Nukes

2006-01-18T21:43:00.000-05:00

Iran attempting to obtain nuclear power make sense for the country on pure economic lines. Iran's main source of hard currency and wealth, its oil, is used everyday to supply power to Iran's electrical grid. The country produces nearly 4 billion barrels per day but at the same time consumes 1.425 billion barrels per day. Clearly if they could use an alternative source of electrical energy the many millions of barrels of oil saved can now be sold much more profitably on the open market.

Unfortunately right now the only way to gain access to that extra oil is through the nuclear supplied power grid. Of course, the US and allies will condemn this action, rightfully so probably. There is also another part of the nuclear path for Iran, this being that they are a totalitarian regime not to be trusted with the power. On the other hand, Iran is racing to achieve arms most likely because they know that the US does not invade nuclear countries, not necessarily planning to use them offensively. Regardless, what a mess.

So, I guess this problem comes down to if the American people believe that Iran is enough of an imminent threat to sacrifice many young lives for. Curious that Israel, India and Pakistan have not been challenged for their possession of nukes acquired outside of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed and asserts its right to research for power under.

Iran is probably trying to break its reliance on oil and development using the extra profit and independence. Nukes are that path and in today's political climate peaceful acquisition of nuclear energy is not allowed therefore in order to achieve it for civilian use, military arms must be developed to protect the country from foreign destruction of the whole process.

How to create and use an Iranian threat

2006-01-14T21:48:00.000-05:00

Well, this timeline from Atrios is so plausible its scary:

How It Goes

Winter/Spring - The clone army of foreign policy "experts" from conservative foreign policy outfits nobody ever heard of before suddenly appear on all the cable news programs all the time, frowning furiously and expressing concerns about the "grave threat" that Iran poses. Never before heard of Iranian exile group members start appearing regularly, talking about their role in the nuclear program and talking up Iran's human rights violations.

Spring/Summer - "Liberal hawks" point out that all serious people understand the serious threat posed by serious Iran, and while they acknowledge grudgingly that the Bush administration has fucked up everything it touches, they stress, and I mean stress, that we really must support the Bush administration's serious efforts to deal with the serious problem and that criticisms of such serious approaches to a serious problem are highly irresponsible and come only from irrational very unserious Bush haters who would rather live in Iran than the U.S.

Late Summer - Rumsfeld denies having an Iran war plan "on his desk." He refuses to answer if he has one "in his file cabinet." Andy Card explains that you don't roll out new product until after labor day.

Early Fall - Bush suddenly demands Congress give him the authority to attack Iran to ensure they "disarm." Some Democrats have the temerity to ask "with what army?" Marshall Wittman and Peter Beinart explain that courageous Democrats will have the courageous courage to be serious and to confront the "grave threat" with seriousness and vote to send other peoples' kids off to war, otherwise they'll be seen as highly unserious on national security. Neither enlists.

Late October - Despite the fact that all but 30 Democrats vote for the resolution, Republicans run a national ad campaign telling voters that Democrats are objectively pro-Ahmadinejad. Glenn Reynolds muses, sadly, that Democrats aren't just anti-war, but "on the other side." Nick Kristof writes that liberals must support the war due to Ahmadinejad's opposition to gay rights in Iran.

Election Day - Democrats lose 5 seats in the Senate, 30 in the House. Marshall Wittman blames it on the "pro-Iranian caucus."

The Day After Election Day - Miraculously we never hear another word about the grave Iranian threat. Peter Beinart writes a book about how serious Democrats must support the liberation of Venezuela and Bolivia.

Positions available, infidels need not apply

2006-01-14T21:23:00.000-05:00

"After the U.S. military invaded Afghanistan to oust its Taliban rulers, authorities found a locker full of applications to join al Qaeda's holy war overseas.

Among the alleged applicants: Jose Padilla, the former ''enemy combatant''"

Well, I suppose every growing organization wants to see applications to ensure that their new additions are guided to the right track.

Since the prosecutor in the Padilla case produced the alleged document on Thursday many people became very interested in this branch of the terrorist group's recruiting methods. A copy of Padilla's recently revealed application was acquired and posted on the web by Jesus's General. It seems though that the form he used is now outdated and has been replaced by a more extensive questionnaire.

All jokes aside, I really do not know what to make of this.

Tom Delay's House of Scandal

2006-01-13T11:21:00.000-05:00

A visual representation of how Tom Delay has sold out America.

Democratization Is Not A Priority

2006-01-09T00:20:00.000-05:00

"Microsoft has shut the blog site of a well-known Chinese blogger who uses its MSN online service in China after he discussed a high-profile newspaper strike that broke out here one week ago."

Thanks to Daedalus over at washingtonrox for pointing out this one.

Clearly this does not help to promote democratization in China. Of course, that would be assuming that the US and the corporations want that in the first place. I think Microsoft's actions in this case show what the real agenda is.

"Mr. Zhao said in an interview Thursday that Microsoft chose to delete his blog on Dec. 30 with no warning. "I didn't even say I supported the strike," he said. "This action by Microsoft infringed upon my freedom of speech. They even deleted my blog and gave me no chance to back up my files without any warning.""

Report: Bush on shaky legal ground with wiretapping

2006-01-07T01:04:00.000-05:00

"A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments."

I just want to clearly say, duh. There are specific laws on the books that deal with the exact issue the President faced. That being the need for the speedy ability to intercept calls involving known terrorist suspects. Circumventing the provisions laid out by FISA to address such cases is clearly illegal and his stance that he was authorized by congress to do so is less than shaky, its laughable.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J) said that "It looks like the president's wiretapping was not only illegal, but also ensnared innocent Americans who did nothing more than place a phone call." Think about that.

Abramoff manages to even dress like a criminal

2006-01-07T00:35:00.000-05:00

Not a lot of posts lately because I am on vacation and hate dial-up. I just had to post this picture of Jack Abramoff even though it is a little late.

OK, I'd think the first rule of going to court on fraud and corruption charges would be to not dress like a 1920's gangster. Who does he think he is, Al Capone?

The fallout of the corruption investigation into his dealings could get messy, really messy.

Lawmakers are getting rid of any connection to Jack as quickly as they can but hopefully that will not be effective in shielding them from the repercussions. Reports still say that as many as 60 politicians could be implicated though.

Some in the mainstream have been saying that this is a bipartisan scandal, which is true. Both sides of the aisle are corrupt, but the GOP is going to be feeling this one more, Jack is their boy.

Time to start throwing the I-word around

2006-01-02T16:24:00.000-05:00

"Time to send a message to the cabal of greed and corruption that has taken over our government and tell them that their ass is grass and weÂve got a bunch of lawn mowers fully gassed and ready to start cutting."

I have not been a Bush fan for most of his presidency but up until recently have resisted suggesting impeachment as a legitimate option, but now I feel it may be a necessary course of action. The latest revelations of unwarranted domestic spying is just too much, especially when the American public has been directly lied to by a man who feels that because the country is at war he is above the law. The United States is based upon the rule of law, an idea that even the President must adhere to. The job of the president is to uphold and protect the constitution, not to ignore it at his own whim. Bush swore an oath to perform this duty during both of his inaugurations.

Beyond the so-called "Snoopgate," the Bush administration has shown its utter disregard for the law and its outright hypocrisy in its handling of the lead up to the Iraq war. After the outing of Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative in retaliation to discredit his investigation into the fake Niger yellowcake uranium documents, Bush declared that he would fire whoever leaked that information. Clearly that leak has not been all that important to Bush though. Now that his illegal spying operation has been outed he has demanded and obtained a Justice Department investigation, not into the illegal wiretapping, but into the leak itself. The Plame leak was a malicious attack to protect the fraudulent evidence used to sell the Iraq war, whoever leaked the spying story was simply doing their duty by exposing an illegal operation within the government. The former being dirty politics and the latter being patriotic whistleblowing. The incidents were no different in magnitude but were different in kind.

This president needs to go. He abuses his power over our troops and the population in general. The under-equipped, overstretched troops are just pawns in his game. He has made it quite apparent that he does not care about the well-being of the American people, who are no safer today than they were in September 2001. That should have been made clear when Bush's aides had to show him a DVD of Katrina coverage to get him to react seriously to the disaster. People may remember rapper Kanye West's comment that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Unfortunately Kanye made the mistake of confusing race and class. He should have said "George Bush doesn't care about poor people," that would have been an accurate statement. If you are rich, have influence, or are just his buddy, you are all set because he will take care of you. The whole basis of his presidency has been to protect his cronies.

This is America, this must be stopped. The electorate is too slow and too easily scared into voting his way, therefore Congress must be pushed to act. So I will say it clearly and resoundlingly, IMPEACH.

What a difference a party label can make

2006-01-02T01:18:00.000-05:00

If you have wondered what Clinton's opponents said when accusing him of his "high crimes and misdemeanors," click this link. There are some interesting comments which are conspicuously absent now when a President has basically installed himself above the law.

A Final Note on the Atlantic Hurricane Season

2005-12-30T22:54:00.000-05:00

Not only is the 2005 the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, it now is tied for having the latest developing storm on record with Tropical Storm Zeta. 2005 was a crazy year.

Bush Denied Wiretaps So Ordered Them Illegally Instead

2005-12-28T22:17:00.000-05:00

Government records show that the Bush administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

The main issue at hand in the so called "snoopgate" is whether the US is a dictatorship or a nation in which even the top official must bow to the rule of law. By bypassing the secret FISA courts, Bush has clearly decided that what would have been applicable laws do not supercede his ultimate authority. He has flagrantly ignored established laws and given himself near dictatorial power. The only step needed to truly achieve that status would be the suspension of free, fair elections (well, it is argued that that has happened already). I say this needs to stop, but what kind of nation do you want to live in?

I can't take another second of 2005...they're doing what?

2005-12-26T08:50:00.000-05:00

"'Enjoy New Year's Eve a second longer,' the institute said in an explanatory notice. 'You can toot your horn an extra second this year.'"

Don't forget to postpone that kiss, or in my case, delaying the continuation of my traditional act of drinking as much as possible.

A little early, but here's to hoping for a better new year.

How not to bring down a building

2005-12-25T03:40:00.000-05:00

Sure, demolitions are fun, but how easy are they in practice?

Apparently it is harder to get a building to fall straight down than I had would have thought from watching TV.

Neat video though, a leaning building is not something you see everyday, unless you live in Pisa of course (that's humor, I'll be here all week folks, try the veal)

Is anyone ever above the Constitution?

2005-12-24T23:00:00.000-05:00

"CONGRESS rejected the Bush Administration's request for war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, according to the former Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle."

What amount of abuse of executive power will be enough to bring about a challenge to Bush's supreme authority? Clearly Congress will not muster true opposition on its own. It has been far to complacent in towing the Presidential line in all matters of the war on terror. Stir up the fear, count the votes. Beyond partisan politics though, the case of domestic spying should be extremely disturbing. The fact is the vast majority of the cases would have been approved by the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but Bush allowed and apparently encouraged the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy domestically without seeking warrants from the court. These warrants would be very easy to obtain as the FISA court has only denied 5, yes 5, requests since its inception in 1978. Even if the spying needed to be done immediately, it could occur for 72 hours while waiting for a warrant. Skipping this process of judicial oversight, as cooperative as it may be, leaves free reign for abuses. It is an unnecessary step and an insult to the basic values and protections of all Americans.

Of course, even the NSA says what Bush has told it to do is illegal.

As the administration continually flaunts its power over and status above a "goddamned piece of paper," maybe it is time for the mainstream American public to start seriously considering impeachment.

Bush Leaning Towards Iran

2005-12-16T02:31:00.000-05:00

"HUME: And one last country, Iran.

BUSH: Yes. Well, it's a real threat. You might remember, I called it an axis — part of the Axis of Evil for a reason."

This is from Bush's latest interview with the extremely critical, in depth, and "fair and balanced" Fox News anchor Brit Hume. Bush then declares that he is "concerned about theocracy that has got little transparency," (which is torturing my brain's grammar centers) and "a country whose president has declared the destruction of Israel as part of their foreign policy" (sort of true, but I would not really call it a foreign policy) "that will not listen to the demands of the free world to get rid of its ambitions to have a nuclear weapon." Wha? Now, I will not deny that the leadership of Iran should not be trusted on that one, but where is he getting his facts? Because, at the very least, at they are doing a good job of selling that they are not trying to develop nuclear weapons, it just seems fair that Bush backs up his statements with some proof though... too much to ask? Regardless of where he is coming from intelligences wise, mark one in the Iran column.

The rest of the Iran exchange is essentially meaningless, but here it is:

HUME: What's your objective?

BUSH: My objective is to, like it is elsewhere in the world — let me just start over. My objective is what I said in my second inaugural address: to end tyranny. And my view of a peaceful world is one in which democracies live side by side. Democracies are peaceful countries. And I also believe in the universality of freedom and therefore...

HUME: So for the current rulers of that country?

BUSH: I would hope they'd be wise enough to begin to listen to the people and allow the people to participate in their government.

(Followed by the hard-hitting follow up)

HUME: Tell me about this room and how you use it, when you use it.

Syria or Iran, Who's Next?

2005-12-14T00:29:00.000-05:00

"Syria must comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1595, and 1636 and end its interference in Lebanon once and for all."

Ignore the link, its just a quick statement condemning the murder of a Lebanese politician that the administration is blaming on Syria, I just liked it as a lead in.

This rhetoric sounds familiar.....But I do not think Syria is next on Americas hit list (maybe Israel's?), Bush still needs them for the "extraordinary rendition" interrogation program. He has stressed that "change of governments" are still necessary to protect American's at home.

Iran has always been my guess as the next target though, but they actually have some means of defending themselves. It would be unfortunate to launch an attack on them as democratization is just a step away in Iran, even if its not the "western" version that would be forced upon them. Their religious leaders are out of touch with the general population (go to bottom), especially those born and raised since the 1979 Islamic revolution. They sure are preparing for a US "shock and awe" campaign though. In case you were wondering, yes, those could take down aircrafts and cruise missiles, essential elements to the first wave of an invasion.

Of course, the US condemns both countries for supporting terrorism, so maybe it will come down to a coin toss? However, Iran has been meddling with the US's state that is being built in Iraq to ensure that it will be the only winner of this war. Remember, secular Iraq (though sunni controlled) and shi'ite Iran fought a war way back when the US was still friends with Saddam's Iraq, so needless to say they come out of this with some gains. For those of you who did not know that tidbit, that is indeed current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

Fighting a war with Iran may spare the Bush Administration from explaining how the war that has killed over 2,000 young American troops will in the end only benefit another member of the "Axis of Evil." Syria has been interfering to gain influence as well, but apparently less effectively, although they would bean easier target militarily.

On the other hand, instead of trying to figure out who is next through messy politics, maybe we should just follow the oil?

I for one welcome our new robot overlords

2005-12-13T11:11:00.000-05:00

"Now, the five-year-old droid is ready to take on simple office work, greeting visitors and fetching refreshments."

Getting closer everyday to "the future" folks. I know I can't wait to have my own robot butler to replace this pesky monkey butler. But seriously, its 2005, isn't about time we had humanoid helper robots? Seems like there is finally some serious progress being made by Honda. Maybe they could get to work on flying cars too (start small and make me my hoverboard first though) They may need help from Mattel on that one though.

Stressed Out? Having a Bad Day? Better not fly.

2005-12-12T19:32:00.000-05:00

"Rigo suffered from a bipolar disorder. He was already agitated when he boarded the plane, but in the final moments before the jet pulled away from the gate, his anxiety became so acute he bolted from his seat and ran for the door. And why not? Everything connected with American aviation anymore traumatizes those in perfect emotional health, let alone anyone struggling with bipolarism."

Noone but the air marshals heard anything about a bomb or recall anything other than him saying he had to get off the plane and running frantically. Strange though that the spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, Dave Adams, was reported to say that Rigo ran up and down the aisle yelling "I have a bomb in my bag." Murder.

US Flunking Out of War on Terror

2005-12-07T16:56:00.000-05:00

"The 10-member bipartisan panel -- whose book-length report about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks became a surprise bestseller -- issued a 'report card' that included 5 F's, 12 D's and two 'incompletes'"

Here is all you need to know:

The Official 9/11 Commission that released a report with safety recommendations back in July 2004 has reincarnated itself as the 9/11 Panel. They have released a final report which includes the following grades for improvements in safety in the US:

F C F D C C- F C D I C
B D B- B B C I D D B-
B D D D B F B D B C+
D B C F B+ A- C B D D

GPA = 1.62

(just one possible form of calculation, but it is a fair representation)

So do they get put on academic probation? And if so, will they be expelled if they do not bring their grades up next year? Or could everyone just stop paying their "tuition"?

9/11 Panel Final Report (Dec. 2005)
9/11 Panel Grade Summary
Official Commission Report (July 2004)
Bush Administration "Fact Sheet" Response

Immigration is the New Gay Marriage

2005-12-05T11:39:00.000-05:00

"Reflecting a desire among many conservative Republicans for a harder line against illegal crossings, Bush used his weekly radio address to repeat a promise to promptly return all illegal immigrants."

Bush has begun the push to campaign for the Republican's next controversial issue in order to bring supporters of strict immigration reform to the polls, even if they do not know/care deeply about the issue yet. Don't worry though, the strategists and spin doctors will soon enough turn the debate into another way to divide Americans while at the same time promoting the all to familiar "with us or against us" attitude.

As with gay marriage, the opposition to strict control is in general not really opposition at all since they have not themselves been rallied together by politicians seeking to further their own cause. It may be more accurate to say that the "opposition" really does not care. They will be less likely to be driven to the polls, unknowingly falling victim to another republican vote grab. Bush pushes the issue in his most recent radio address, saying, "illegal immigration and border security are issues that concern Americans." Well, that is at least partly true, it concerns mostly his supporters and those who are not troubled will be by the next election at least.

Bush's latest radio address has raised some of the campaign attack points. Apparently not content on settling on centering the debate around purely economic and social institutional issues, the threat and fear is already beginning to be pushed to make the votes fall in line because according to Bush, the problem "involves smugglers and gangs that bring crime to our neighborhoods. Faced with this serious challenge our government's responsibility is clear. We're going to protect our borders."

Divide and conquer.

As Many As 60 Congressmen Involved in Bribery Scandal

2005-12-02T20:47:00.000-05:00

"The Abramoff affair could have much wider implications. A reporter for BusinessWeek, on a television interview program, said that his Justice Department sources had told him that as many as 60 congressmen could be implicated in the bribery scandal-far more than enough to threaten control over the House of Representatives, where the Republican majority is 231-202, with one independent."

It is just interesting that it is difficult to find this story easily on any of the mainstream news sites. This is another one of those stories that has bigger implications than the news outlets would lead us to believe. With enough Representatives involved to alter the balance of power in the House, this investigation, along with sinking support of the war and its effect on next year's senate elections, could create a major roadblock for the Bush administration to work around. Now the question is whether this story and its implications will be swept aside, or if America stands up and takes notice of the corruption built into the government at all levels. What does anyone else think will come of this?

By the way, if the full number of 60 are involved then 13.8% the House could be dragged into this (that's not an insignificant amount). Of course, these will only be the ones caught. Politics as usual.

How and when will it end?

2005-11-30T17:12:00.000-05:00

The Bush Administration had an excellent chance to whip up support for a war with ever weakening public support today when it released the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” Instead, they gave the people what appears to be a big steaming pile of BS.

The world should consider it scary that this is the most well thought out and coherent plan that the Government can cook up regarding Iraq. The document spouts numerous problems and reasons why the troops should fix them without ever giving specifics as how the coalition is actually going to foster change and fix the threats to stability. The methods that are given are either to vague to have any real value or tackle problems that just require a “duh” response.

It says that many things will happen but never actually says when or how those apparent benchmarks will occur. This leads a rational thinker to believe that either the writers do not know or they do not care. Either way it means trouble ahead. If the way they see the war going is anything like this strategy report then it will be too long, repetitive, and not really change anything.

The flagrant self-congratulating and fear mongering of this document should offend the public. In one conveniently front placed section, “The Consequences of Failure,” the authors play upon the fear of terrorism to set up the digestion of the following meaningless drivel. The constant referral to terrorists spawning in Iraq to besiege us here if the nation does not achieve “victory” is sickening. Especially since the only reason there actually are “terrorists” in Iraq is due to the invasion’s destabilization of a previously secular regime that was opposed to fundamentalist groups like al Queda as these organizations threatened to undermine Saddam’s dictatorship. This has given the opposing groups an opportunity to thrive amongst the desperate people of a war torn country by offering an alternative dream for their homeland that seems more appealing than the image the US shows them.

Bush’s speech regarding the victory strategy was more of the same, even invoking September 11 as a fear builder at the beginning. So I ask, how and when are the benchmarks for ending this threat going to be achieved on the ground so the troops can come home? If there is an answer, show it.

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (pdf)
Bush's Speech

Sorry for that rant. On one positive note about the document though, it used my new favorite word, “Saddamist.”

(added 12/4/05)
comment from Grace that I thought was perfect:
The only positive thing I can think to say about the National Strategy for Victory is that it is one of the most professionally typed government documents I've ever read.

... exactly, along with Saddamists of course

Hint at Iraq Plan in Press Briefing

2005-11-29T20:54:00.000-05:00

"So as part of the speech tomorrow, we are going to be releasing a document called the 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.' It's an unclassified version of the plan that we've been pursuing in Iraq, and it will be made available to the American people."

So apparently the Bush administration is going to take a stab at explaining the war in Iraq afterall. While not being the dramatic State of the Union address I expected, the title of the document to be released tomorrow makes some bold claims and hints at the underlying effect that the war will have on Americans. My hope is for a clear set of directives and benchmarks of success, my expectation is a steaming pile of BS cooked together to draw on "patriotism" to prevent evildoers from harming more Americans (who would not have been there in the first place without the war), but that's not the point. The point is fear, as long as the document and their related speeches can paint Iraqi rebels as evil threats to their way of life, the war will continue. Of course, the US may not buy it? This is what is currently still being force fed to Americans:

Excerpt from President's Remarks:

We believe in the freedom of people to worship and speak their mind, the freedom of the press to print what they want. They believe in the opposite. They have a dark vision of the world. They have made their intentions clear. They want to establish a totalitarian empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia. And one way for them to accomplish their objective is to drive us out of the Middle East, is to cause America to become isolated. It's not going to happen on my watch. (Applause.)

but ...in the next breath

One of the reasons I'm proud to stand here with Marilyn is she understands the stakes, as well. It's important to have a -- somebody from the United States Congress from that district, from her district, who understands that on September the 11th, 2001, an enemy declared war on the United States of America, and we must do everything in our power to protect the American people.

How did 9/11 slip in there with Iraq again? Indirect, not so subtle.

1000th Execution Stopped

2005-11-29T20:33:00.000-05:00

"'No case has been more troubling,' Warner told WTOP radio earlier on Tuesday. 'Rest assured there is no case I have spent more time thinking about, praying about and reflecting on than this case.'"

The would be 1000th execution in the US has been stopped by the Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, just a day before scheduled. Lovitt was on track to be the 1000th person executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Warner had decided to commute the sentence to life in prison in the face of doubt regarding the handling of evidence. A clerk had destroyed potentially exculpatory DNA evidence in the form of a bloody pair of scissors used as evidence against Lovitt at the trial. This commutation means that the 1000th will in all likelihood occur on December 2nd.

Holographic Challenge for DVDs

2005-11-28T20:38:00.000-05:00

"the holographic discs also can read and write data at 10 times the speed of the DVDs currently in the market, or six times that of blue laser discs."

Thinking about what to replace that worn out old DVD player with? Probably not... but they will be sold to you soon when the new disc formats come out in early 2006. Skip the Blu-ray/HD-DVD format battle, wait for holographic discs. 300 GB of storage (that's a lot) and 10x the transfer rate, I say it may be worth the extra year, even if you have to pay a little more.

Calls for Bush to Explain Iraq

2005-11-27T17:43:00.000-05:00

"I think it would be to Bush's advantage. It would bring him closer to the people, dispel some of the concern that, understandably, our people have about the loss of life and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public"

Apparently I am not the only one who is wondering why Bush does not just come out clean and say what his plan is in Iraq. The troops are there, so ridiculing those who would call for their withdrawal without at least giving a valid, well-explained alternative is damaging to his own position and raises more concerns regarding the outlook of the war. He is the President, he has essentially unlimited access to the media and could use this at the very least to help his own cause if he cannot ease the minds of a troubled population regarding the war. Basically by sticking with the lets not talk about it attitude he is leaving himself open to more criticism that can only be addressed with a thoughtful address to the nation, not just to his supporters. He may be planning to use the State of the Union address to lay out his case, he better check his facts this time though. I don't think he has the political leeway that he had in selling the war in the first place.

Pentagon Expanding Its Domestic Surveillance Activity

2005-11-27T14:56:00.000-05:00

"'We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without even a [congressional] hearing,' Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence"

I don't really have much to say about this. Just wanted to post it for people to read and think about how much "domestic surveillance" (read: spying) the military should be allowed to partake in.

Al-Jazeera Demands Answers to Bush Bombing Memo

2005-11-26T18:56:00.000-05:00

"When we are talking about bombing a TV station like that I think it is of historical value to know what's happened."

It appears that al-Jazeera is following up on the rumors that British Prime Minister Tony Blair actually had to persuade George not to bomb the headquarters of the international Arab news network in Qatar. I thought and still think that this will be buried. (Remember the Downing Street memos?)

These claims are based on a memo that the British government has since banned from being published, raising more suspicions regarding the intended actions of Bush. The question that immediately pops into my head is if this is true, how was Bush planning to carry out a bombing attack against an independent news network based in a sovereign country on relatively good terms with the US? Cruise Missile? Precision bombing raid? Stage a terrorist attack? - that last one is interesting because to me it seems to be the only way it could be pulled off without creating intense international condemnation of the US. The other options would be possible though as the Bush administration has previously criticized al-Jazeera for being the voice of al Queda and could have tried to build up that connection somehow. (Maybe that is what was happening at the time and then he was talked out of it by Tony) Well, interesting story to follow at least, we'll see what happens.

A Mother Lost

2005-11-25T17:35:00.000-05:00

"Investigators believe Mattausch struck the woman, his great aunt, in the head with some sort of heavy object before dragging her down to the basement and stabbing her to death."

I want to send my condolences to my uncle. He is one of the most caring, genuine people I know and I hope he knows we are all here for him too.

Unfortunately I heard about the death on Thanksgiving but was not told that it was a murder until today. The woman is Opel Williams, my uncle's mother. He lives on the east coast and seemed to be holding up well yesterday, but I do not know if the exact circumstances yet. My uncle must be very hurt as the confessed, Robert Mattausch, is his cousin. While I never met the woman, everything I have heard has been positive, a sweet lady who will be missed.

RIP

Did Texas execute an innocent man?

2005-11-25T11:28:00.000-05:00

"You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."

Now some please correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly positive it has never been proven that an innocent person has been executed. That does not mean it has not happened, in fact I believe that it is likely it has happened it just has not conclusively been proven. Unfortunately many times states are reluctant to investigate controversial cases for fear that it will come out that they executed an innocent person. This case will most likely not change anything but it is interesting to think about.

The only eyewitness, Juan Moreno, says now that he knows the seventeen year old Ruben Cantu did not shoot him in during a violent attack in 1984. Moreno claims that he felt pressured by authorities to testify against Cantu. At the time he was an illegal alien and feared what would happen if he did not say what they wanted to hear in the capital trial.

Cantu's co-defendant, David Garza, has claimed that he lied when he told authorities that Cantu was with him and committed the murder. Garza, who was 15 at the time of the murder, has said in a signed affidavit that his lies have helped to send an innocent man to his death.

The investigation probably will not go any further, but it raises some serious doubts about the system of capital punishment as administered by the government. If you have any opinions please be sure to comment, I would love to hear some other viewpoints as this situation is very interesting to me.

Turkey Day!

2005-11-25T01:46:00.000-05:00

Well, these are late but well worth posting still. I'm stuffed full of good food right now, a successful day in my book. Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving, enjoy:

The Bill O'Reilly Blacklist

2005-11-23T15:07:00.000-05:00

"If Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it."

Bill O'Reilly recently made this comment in reference to the city of San Francisco, which has shown strong opposition to GW2 through votes and other statements denouncing the war. Maybe he just does not like their gayness? Probably a combination of lots things anger Billy about the city though. After an uproar from "far left Internet smear sites" he proclaimed that he was going to publish a blacklist of his enemies on his website to intimidate those who would attack him with their fact based smear campaigns (ok I added that last part for the Colbert Report fans out there, "you're on notice"). He did promise the list though, join today!