(from crooksandliars comes this reporting of a newsweek poll):
"Evolution fares poorly in Newsweek poll
By: Steve on Monday, April 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 PM - PDT
The latest Newsweek poll included a variety of interesting questions about Americans and religious matters, including the not-surprising fact that 91% of the public say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. But perhaps more importantly, Newsweek also asked poll respondents about modern biology.
Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.
These poll results come just a few months after an international study was conducted to measure which countries were the most accepting on evolutionary biology. Of the 34 countries involved, the United States ranked 33rd. Only Turkey ranked lower.
This is not at all encouraging. "
(not that any of us can prove one theory over another here, but this poll smacks of a bit of a tilt toward those on one side...or i could be wrong and darwin's indeed on the outs right now)
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
DC United
speaking of spreading democracy...
...bob herbert has a good column here about DC's ongoing problem with political respect. because it's a district (as opposed to being a state) it is afforded no representation in Congress. and herbert brings up a very good point: while bush touts democracy as the current reason (well, one of a few) why we must "stay the course" in iraq, he and his cadre have worked very hard to keep it from happening in washington, dc. why? i dunno...maybe because it's primarily a democratic party oriented area (what with all of those pesky minorities and whonot) with half a million people? and considering that one electoral vote is two too many these days? and one extra representative or senator could be enough to tip the scales against him on a close vote or veto override?
i dunno.
the idea that the district should be kept from government representation, because it's the seat of power and should thusly be protected from partisan leanings is a joke. what i don't know is if these residents get to vote in the presidential primaries. hopefully, they do. all i know is that they have no voice in the senate or the house of representatives.
let's give them one. just one. then maybe they'll shut up and go back to shooting each other over whether they should get to own concealed weapons like all good americans.
...bob herbert has a good column here about DC's ongoing problem with political respect. because it's a district (as opposed to being a state) it is afforded no representation in Congress. and herbert brings up a very good point: while bush touts democracy as the current reason (well, one of a few) why we must "stay the course" in iraq, he and his cadre have worked very hard to keep it from happening in washington, dc. why? i dunno...maybe because it's primarily a democratic party oriented area (what with all of those pesky minorities and whonot) with half a million people? and considering that one electoral vote is two too many these days? and one extra representative or senator could be enough to tip the scales against him on a close vote or veto override?i dunno.
the idea that the district should be kept from government representation, because it's the seat of power and should thusly be protected from partisan leanings is a joke. what i don't know is if these residents get to vote in the presidential primaries. hopefully, they do. all i know is that they have no voice in the senate or the house of representatives.
let's give them one. just one. then maybe they'll shut up and go back to shooting each other over whether they should get to own concealed weapons like all good americans.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Jumpin' Jive
now, just what the hell is going on here?
over the past few months i've been witnessing the word "jive" used in countless web blogs, political commentaries, quotes from politicians and even in newspapers to describe situations where a person's actions don't conform to a person's words or stance on something.
example: bush's claim to be a uniter doesn't jive with any single thing he's done since he came into power.
when , in fact, the word to be used is "jibe". jibe originally was a term used at sea. it was a nautical term.
example: To turn a boat to take the wind on the other side, with the stern going through the wind. Unless the jibe is controlled, the boom will bang over and the sudden change of forces can cause momentary loss of control.
it, also, is a word used to describe consistency (or lack thereof).
example: agree with, as in: His alibi doesn't jibe with the testimony of eye-witnesses.
jive is slang for describing swing blues music. it is, also, used as a dismissive term when one person thinks another is handing him a bunch of bullshit.
example: BB King sings "My momma says she loves me, but she could be jivin' too".
only the urban dictionary has crossed the word "jive" over into sharing the same meaning as "jibe". and it's the fifth definition on the list.
but i guess it's the buzzword du jour and no one has the time to look into its etymology. we all know that politicians don't. and we all know that most political columnists won't.
think before you use the word. because jive don't jibe with jibe, it's just jive.
over the past few months i've been witnessing the word "jive" used in countless web blogs, political commentaries, quotes from politicians and even in newspapers to describe situations where a person's actions don't conform to a person's words or stance on something.
example: bush's claim to be a uniter doesn't jive with any single thing he's done since he came into power.
when , in fact, the word to be used is "jibe". jibe originally was a term used at sea. it was a nautical term.
example: To turn a boat to take the wind on the other side, with the stern going through the wind. Unless the jibe is controlled, the boom will bang over and the sudden change of forces can cause momentary loss of control.
it, also, is a word used to describe consistency (or lack thereof).
example: agree with, as in: His alibi doesn't jibe with the testimony of eye-witnesses.
jive is slang for describing swing blues music. it is, also, used as a dismissive term when one person thinks another is handing him a bunch of bullshit.
example: BB King sings "My momma says she loves me, but she could be jivin' too".
only the urban dictionary has crossed the word "jive" over into sharing the same meaning as "jibe". and it's the fifth definition on the list.
but i guess it's the buzzword du jour and no one has the time to look into its etymology. we all know that politicians don't. and we all know that most political columnists won't.
think before you use the word. because jive don't jibe with jibe, it's just jive.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Hmmm, Maybe Not Killing All The Lawyers IS A Bad Thing
J. Tony Serra, celebrated by filmmakers and fellow lawyers as an advocate for the downtrodden and jailed by the feds for dodging his taxes, was out of prison and back at work Wednesday -- suing over the low wages federal inmates earn and citing the 19 cents an hour he got for watering penitentiary gardens.
"I'm angry at a system that perpetuates, from my perspective, slave labor," Serra, 72, said at a news conference in his office on Broadway in San Francisco's North Beach. Behind him was a prisoner's painting showing a shackled and grimacing inmate in the hands of two guards.
He said he wasn't complaining about personal mistreatment -- his nine months at the federal prison camp in Lompoc (Santa Barbara County) and one month at a halfway house were "a 10-month vacation," he said -- but about systemic unfairness.
In the prison industries program, in which he and other inmates were required to work, he was assigned to water the prison gardens for five hours a day, 20 days a month, and paid $19 each month, or 19 cents an hour, Serra said. He said other prisoners whose work was much more arduous were paid between 5 cents and $1.65 an hour.
"Prison industries is a dirty secret," Serra said, describing a nationwide network of prison camps churning out products made by low-paid inmates for contractors and federal agencies that, he said, might otherwise buy the same goods from unionized private plants.He also sang the praises of "fabulous jailhouse lawyers" and of a multiracial society of inmates at Lompoc, where "white-collar millionaires and people right out of the ghetto were enjoying themselves together," united by their hatred of prison guards.It was vintage Serra.
"Tony has come out of his prison sentence even more energized to fight against injustice," said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who testified on Serra's behalf at his July 2005 sentencing hearing. "You put him in prison, he's going to not only look at potential injustices, but he's the kind of person that does something when he gets out. It probably would have been cheaper for the government just to put Tony on probation."
Hollywood latched onto the attorney in the 1989 movie "True Believer," in which James Woods played a character based on Serra, who wins an acquittal in a Chinatown murder case. Adachi, who worked on the real-life case as a college student, recalled that he and others "couldn't find a lawyer in town" to help the defendant before locating Serra.
Serra also successfully defended Black Panthers leader Huey Newton in a murder trial and has represented scores of controversial and unpopular clients while living a Spartan life and driving a rundown car.His prison lawsuit, like many of his cases, appears to be a longshot. Others have challenged the prison pay system, citing federal minimum-wage laws and other arguments, without success.
Serra's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in San Francisco, invokes federal labor law, the constitutional ban on slavery and U.N. standards for treatment of prisoners. Serra's lawyer, John Murcko, said the U.N. standards entitle prisoners to "equitable remuneration" -- which he pegged at $25 an hour -- and that federal labor law should entitle them to the federal minimum wage, $5.15 an hour.
The suit seeks damages for all Lompoc inmates in the prison industries program, a number Murcko estimated at between 300 and 500. Felicia Ponce, spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, declined to comment on the suit or on prison wages. Serra was freed March 13 after serving a sentence for his third tax conviction, a guilty plea to two misdemeanor charges of willfully failing to pay $44,000 in federal income taxes in 1998 and 1999. He had previously spent four months at Lompoc in 1974 for failing to file tax returns, in a protest against the Vietnam War, and was given probation for filing late returns in 1986.
"I'm a lifelong tax boycotter," he said Wednesday. To maintain his law practice, he said, he'll comply with a court order to pay $100,000 in back taxes, and will "do my best to abide by the law" in the future.
He said his California law license was suspended for six months but has been restored, because his convictions were misdemeanors rather than felonies. That allowed him to practice law during his last months in prison, helping fellow inmates with their criminal cases as well as with divorces, wills and other matters, he said.
After 44 years as an attorney, Serra said, "I want to practice vigorously another 10." That means staying out of prison, he said, because "you can't fight them from inside."
(italics and bold letters mine all mine)
"I'm angry at a system that perpetuates, from my perspective, slave labor," Serra, 72, said at a news conference in his office on Broadway in San Francisco's North Beach. Behind him was a prisoner's painting showing a shackled and grimacing inmate in the hands of two guards.
He said he wasn't complaining about personal mistreatment -- his nine months at the federal prison camp in Lompoc (Santa Barbara County) and one month at a halfway house were "a 10-month vacation," he said -- but about systemic unfairness.
In the prison industries program, in which he and other inmates were required to work, he was assigned to water the prison gardens for five hours a day, 20 days a month, and paid $19 each month, or 19 cents an hour, Serra said. He said other prisoners whose work was much more arduous were paid between 5 cents and $1.65 an hour.
"Prison industries is a dirty secret," Serra said, describing a nationwide network of prison camps churning out products made by low-paid inmates for contractors and federal agencies that, he said, might otherwise buy the same goods from unionized private plants.He also sang the praises of "fabulous jailhouse lawyers" and of a multiracial society of inmates at Lompoc, where "white-collar millionaires and people right out of the ghetto were enjoying themselves together," united by their hatred of prison guards.It was vintage Serra.
"Tony has come out of his prison sentence even more energized to fight against injustice," said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who testified on Serra's behalf at his July 2005 sentencing hearing. "You put him in prison, he's going to not only look at potential injustices, but he's the kind of person that does something when he gets out. It probably would have been cheaper for the government just to put Tony on probation."
Hollywood latched onto the attorney in the 1989 movie "True Believer," in which James Woods played a character based on Serra, who wins an acquittal in a Chinatown murder case. Adachi, who worked on the real-life case as a college student, recalled that he and others "couldn't find a lawyer in town" to help the defendant before locating Serra.
Serra also successfully defended Black Panthers leader Huey Newton in a murder trial and has represented scores of controversial and unpopular clients while living a Spartan life and driving a rundown car.His prison lawsuit, like many of his cases, appears to be a longshot. Others have challenged the prison pay system, citing federal minimum-wage laws and other arguments, without success.
Serra's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in San Francisco, invokes federal labor law, the constitutional ban on slavery and U.N. standards for treatment of prisoners. Serra's lawyer, John Murcko, said the U.N. standards entitle prisoners to "equitable remuneration" -- which he pegged at $25 an hour -- and that federal labor law should entitle them to the federal minimum wage, $5.15 an hour.
The suit seeks damages for all Lompoc inmates in the prison industries program, a number Murcko estimated at between 300 and 500. Felicia Ponce, spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, declined to comment on the suit or on prison wages. Serra was freed March 13 after serving a sentence for his third tax conviction, a guilty plea to two misdemeanor charges of willfully failing to pay $44,000 in federal income taxes in 1998 and 1999. He had previously spent four months at Lompoc in 1974 for failing to file tax returns, in a protest against the Vietnam War, and was given probation for filing late returns in 1986.
"I'm a lifelong tax boycotter," he said Wednesday. To maintain his law practice, he said, he'll comply with a court order to pay $100,000 in back taxes, and will "do my best to abide by the law" in the future.
He said his California law license was suspended for six months but has been restored, because his convictions were misdemeanors rather than felonies. That allowed him to practice law during his last months in prison, helping fellow inmates with their criminal cases as well as with divorces, wills and other matters, he said.
After 44 years as an attorney, Serra said, "I want to practice vigorously another 10." That means staying out of prison, he said, because "you can't fight them from inside."
(italics and bold letters mine all mine)
Friday, March 16, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Happy Birthday To Me
if you've been following the recent spate of federal prosecutorial firings by the Justice Department (and Alberto Gonzales) and thought to yourself "well, here's a new spin problem for Bush and Co.", perhaps you should take a look at this.
Seems there was another a few years back that smells just a bit coincidental and feels just a tad slimily familiar. Jack (Abram)off was being investigated (well, a lot of people were) for ties to corruption on the tiny island of Guam. just as the temporary (despite being in the position for a decade and being put there by Bush, Sr.) prosecuter was really getting going he was summarily demoted and a cousin of one of the "targets" was instated in his place (the cousin then recused himself due to confilct of interest and the whole issue of corruption went away). bad timing or good? abramoff brought down a few highly placed republican politicians when he was finally brought to justice here in the states. but why would Bush (or his handlers) worry so much about what happens in a protectorate? unless, of course, jack was making big money for republican politicians and big business (note the reference to sweatshops).
remember: in politics, the only species woth protecting is your own and the gophers digging your holes. and that is exactly what Jack was for the republican party: a gopher. he tunneled into where others couldn't be seen to go aboveground. and the only reason he got caught and couldn't be protected in the end was because he tried to sell indians some more infected blankets.
but this is merely a preamble to what is happening now. only eight out of the 93 federal prosecutors were fired or demoted. but of the eight only three had been given less than satisfactory evaluations. three were given positive evals and three were given satisfactory. one put away a couple of california republicans, one wasn't moving fast enough on voter fraud claims connected to democrats. one, in seattle, nobody knows why. one was removed to make way for a Karl Rove protege.
the administration and justice department fist claimed that all were removed due to poor performance evals. next, they said that while some were poor, others were just told to leave, because that's what a president can do. finally, alberto gonzales said mistakes were made and certain people speaking under oath to congress did so without all the proper information (when they were insisting that all removals were due to poor performance) and did not constitute perjury. he said he is responsible even though it's been proven that karl rove was bringing some of the complaints by republican politicians straight to him and the president and that the president "may have" related some of the complaints "informally" to gonzales.
it's also been proven that the move to purge the prosecutorial rolls of those not in line with administration policy dates back a few years. harriet miers, then legal counsel to bush, suggested firing all 93 and starting off fresh after the 2004 election. she was beaten down by those much smarter than her (i.e. karl rove), because the others knew all too well what kind of political backlash that would cause (damn skippy). instead, they took their time to figure out the worst of the worst (those who sought to punish people for breaking the law) vs. the best of the best (those who toed the administration's policies).
and, thus, this conservative republican administration is being seen for what it's best at: heavyhandedness vs. what it's worst at: evenhandedness.
if you hire a prosecuter to prosecute lawbreakers, then let that person prosecute them all.
p.s. i just realized that this is the two year anniversary of my starting this silly blog. happy birthday to me and to all squirrels.
Seems there was another a few years back that smells just a bit coincidental and feels just a tad slimily familiar. Jack (Abram)off was being investigated (well, a lot of people were) for ties to corruption on the tiny island of Guam. just as the temporary (despite being in the position for a decade and being put there by Bush, Sr.) prosecuter was really getting going he was summarily demoted and a cousin of one of the "targets" was instated in his place (the cousin then recused himself due to confilct of interest and the whole issue of corruption went away). bad timing or good? abramoff brought down a few highly placed republican politicians when he was finally brought to justice here in the states. but why would Bush (or his handlers) worry so much about what happens in a protectorate? unless, of course, jack was making big money for republican politicians and big business (note the reference to sweatshops).
remember: in politics, the only species woth protecting is your own and the gophers digging your holes. and that is exactly what Jack was for the republican party: a gopher. he tunneled into where others couldn't be seen to go aboveground. and the only reason he got caught and couldn't be protected in the end was because he tried to sell indians some more infected blankets.
but this is merely a preamble to what is happening now. only eight out of the 93 federal prosecutors were fired or demoted. but of the eight only three had been given less than satisfactory evaluations. three were given positive evals and three were given satisfactory. one put away a couple of california republicans, one wasn't moving fast enough on voter fraud claims connected to democrats. one, in seattle, nobody knows why. one was removed to make way for a Karl Rove protege.
the administration and justice department fist claimed that all were removed due to poor performance evals. next, they said that while some were poor, others were just told to leave, because that's what a president can do. finally, alberto gonzales said mistakes were made and certain people speaking under oath to congress did so without all the proper information (when they were insisting that all removals were due to poor performance) and did not constitute perjury. he said he is responsible even though it's been proven that karl rove was bringing some of the complaints by republican politicians straight to him and the president and that the president "may have" related some of the complaints "informally" to gonzales.
it's also been proven that the move to purge the prosecutorial rolls of those not in line with administration policy dates back a few years. harriet miers, then legal counsel to bush, suggested firing all 93 and starting off fresh after the 2004 election. she was beaten down by those much smarter than her (i.e. karl rove), because the others knew all too well what kind of political backlash that would cause (damn skippy). instead, they took their time to figure out the worst of the worst (those who sought to punish people for breaking the law) vs. the best of the best (those who toed the administration's policies).
and, thus, this conservative republican administration is being seen for what it's best at: heavyhandedness vs. what it's worst at: evenhandedness.
if you hire a prosecuter to prosecute lawbreakers, then let that person prosecute them all.
p.s. i just realized that this is the two year anniversary of my starting this silly blog. happy birthday to me and to all squirrels.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Rogue Festival, Week One, Part Two
the wheel of dad appearing only at the rogue festival:
this one is my one art shot of the first weekend:
this one is my one art shot of the first weekend:
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Rogue 2007, First Saturday
dear journal,
today was my second day of Rogue 2007. this was the first day that i remembered to bring my camera. the previous first day i was a nervous wreck getting ready for my first day as a truly free man who had ended a long relationship over a year before and was now about to see my ex for the first time since that fateful day. naturally, i showered, shaved and applied deoderant even though i knew i had nothing to prove despite the 10 pounds i had gained and the stress acne thqt now dotted my face. i could tell myself that i felt confident seeing my ex in oublic and did a good job of not smelling my pits after the second hour.
it didn't bother me, as well, that a cameraman was following me around and recording my every move. that's how stable i was. of course, i have no idea why i was being followed. unless it shows up on punked or jackass. than i'll understand hindsight, 20/20 and payback's a bitch.
nevertheless, i saw two shows on friday. my parents were in town for the festival (all the way from spokane) and my son was on his way down from san francisco via amtrak.
i began the festival with a group of shakespeare monologues tied together with interim preparatory exhalations. nicely done, inventive, not too shabby for an opemning night. after that, i hung around the same venue for some chart toppers from the year 1349. it was evidently a hell of a year for pop hits if you're into european folk tales told by a roast master. which it tuns out i was.
on saturday i began my true rogu-on with a show about a man who wanted to be a concert organist and settled for alcohol and the church (insert own punchline about man/organ/priest). chuckled, giggled, snarked my ass off to this one. but no pictures. i have a rule about taking photos in theater productions.
than, it was on to the trike shop, which i have pictures for. blake, the gang and his daughter chelsea did their best to convince us we should send them to liverpool. the one question left unanswered was: are we helping to pay for one way or round trip tickets?
next, i went over to dada, but i deleted her pictures and have nothing at the moment. so, i leave you with this shot of the ugliest marmoset i've ever seen:
to be followed by the cutest tyke at the fest so far:
followed by the hottest hootchie mama:
and then some too rapid percussion by stan of poplord (a great duo to check out at veni's):
and then there was me at home in front of the keyboard wondering if the cat i was housesitting would let me get some sleep tonight (as chris would say: overactive pussy CAN be a bad thing).
today was my second day of Rogue 2007. this was the first day that i remembered to bring my camera. the previous first day i was a nervous wreck getting ready for my first day as a truly free man who had ended a long relationship over a year before and was now about to see my ex for the first time since that fateful day. naturally, i showered, shaved and applied deoderant even though i knew i had nothing to prove despite the 10 pounds i had gained and the stress acne thqt now dotted my face. i could tell myself that i felt confident seeing my ex in oublic and did a good job of not smelling my pits after the second hour.
it didn't bother me, as well, that a cameraman was following me around and recording my every move. that's how stable i was. of course, i have no idea why i was being followed. unless it shows up on punked or jackass. than i'll understand hindsight, 20/20 and payback's a bitch.
nevertheless, i saw two shows on friday. my parents were in town for the festival (all the way from spokane) and my son was on his way down from san francisco via amtrak.
i began the festival with a group of shakespeare monologues tied together with interim preparatory exhalations. nicely done, inventive, not too shabby for an opemning night. after that, i hung around the same venue for some chart toppers from the year 1349. it was evidently a hell of a year for pop hits if you're into european folk tales told by a roast master. which it tuns out i was.
on saturday i began my true rogu-on with a show about a man who wanted to be a concert organist and settled for alcohol and the church (insert own punchline about man/organ/priest). chuckled, giggled, snarked my ass off to this one. but no pictures. i have a rule about taking photos in theater productions.
than, it was on to the trike shop, which i have pictures for. blake, the gang and his daughter chelsea did their best to convince us we should send them to liverpool. the one question left unanswered was: are we helping to pay for one way or round trip tickets?
next, i went over to dada, but i deleted her pictures and have nothing at the moment. so, i leave you with this shot of the ugliest marmoset i've ever seen:
to be followed by the cutest tyke at the fest so far:
followed by the hottest hootchie mama:
and then some too rapid percussion by stan of poplord (a great duo to check out at veni's):
and then there was me at home in front of the keyboard wondering if the cat i was housesitting would let me get some sleep tonight (as chris would say: overactive pussy CAN be a bad thing).
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
while this is merely a "non-paper" (meaning it lacks legal status) it is interesting and will not likely make the mainstream press in any meaningful way. but the mere fact that israel and syria have been meeting in secret for a few years to negotiate a new territory treaty while those between israel and the palestinians have unraveled repeatedly even before they were announced as dead is of note. if you click on the above link take a look at the map of the proposed parkway...it's huge, the entire golan heights. and it would be accessible to both syrians and israelis. read the article and you will see that, as of now, if all terms are met the syrians would disavow hezbollah (syria is the prime military and political backer of that terrorist organization).
will it actually come to pass? probably not. nothing ever really does in that part of the world. too many extreme factions within all governments that proclude any real attempt at peace. but this one is a new twist between two countries historically turned against one another.
will it actually come to pass? probably not. nothing ever really does in that part of the world. too many extreme factions within all governments that proclude any real attempt at peace. but this one is a new twist between two countries historically turned against one another.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran
Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.
also, KFSO in San Francisco is under attack by a blogger who has been emailing their so-called hate speech to advertisers and asking them whether they really want to continue supporting such language. and mediamatters has their response to KFO's claim that it is behind all of this. while i will not be able to listen in to tomorrow's broadcast it will be interesting to read in the aftermath.
also, KFSO in San Francisco is under attack by a blogger who has been emailing their so-called hate speech to advertisers and asking them whether they really want to continue supporting such language. and mediamatters has their response to KFO's claim that it is behind all of this. while i will not be able to listen in to tomorrow's broadcast it will be interesting to read in the aftermath.
Monday, January 08, 2007
jack and george
from 2003:
...yeah, didn't know him, never met him, don't know what y'all are talking about. i take pitchurs with lotsa peeples. don't mean i never met 'em.
...yeah, didn't know him, never met him, don't know what y'all are talking about. i take pitchurs with lotsa peeples. don't mean i never met 'em.Thursday, January 04, 2007
(from Daily News)
WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
(from Alternet)
"Casualties" in the military sense is the total number made unavailable for duty from all causes, including deaths and wounds suffered in combat as well as injuries, accidents and illness in a war "theater" such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the official Pentagon name for the invasion and occupation). So whether caused by "hostile" (24,965 as of Dec.27) or "non-hostile" (25,406 as of Dec. 2) causes, the Pentagon's own web sites record a toll of more than 50,000 so far in "OIF."
now, for those of you out there who think that saddam hussein's death is "great news" or a "vindication of our reasons for invasion" or "justice served", let me remind you of a few facts.
1) all of the weapons of mass destruction that he purportedly had in stock (which he evidently began dismantling after 1991) were supplied to him by us.
2) while our government has been recently declaring his war against Iran in the 1980's as "barbaric" and "unwarranted", it was supplying him with weapons, logistics and advisors during the actual event.
3) when he gassed the Kurds, mass-killed dissenting Shiites and executed family members our government turned a blind eye, because he was conveniently the enemy of our enemy (Iran).
4) when our government claimed that hussein was not allowing unfettered access to supposed weapons making sites just before our current invasion and had kicked out the UN inspectors, it was lying. the UN had reported in the months prior to the current invasion that hussein had stopped all obstuction and they were making spot checks of anything they wanted without advance notice and previously assigned "bodyguards". the UN inspectors also said that they were told by our government that it could not guarantee their safety when it started the "shock and awe" campaign and told them to get out of Iraq then and there (less than a week prior to the initial bombing).
5) NOT ONE weapon of mass distruction was found when, since and after we invaded this time. not one. the "smoking gun" seems to have been our government's ineptitude. remember that we went from 9/11 connections (that never had a shred of credibility) to WMD and its "mushroom cloud in 40 minutes" capability to "he's a brutal dictator" to "either we fight them over there or we fight them over here" to the spread of democracy (not necessarily in that order).
6) while some Iraqis celebrate his death, many more mourn the fact that it now seems that life was better back then. all they had to do was live their lives quietly and let hussein live out his derangement and everything was acceptable. they had electricity, gas, water, schools, mosques and churches, freedom (somewhat) of the press, women could hold public jobs and walk in the streets without having to wear black from head to toe...all of these things look very good to a country that cannot even send their children to school without bodyguards, cannot open their stores without fear of kidnapping and execution, do not know someone who has fallen prey to the myriad killing squads or US forces, and dare not publicly display their ethnic affliliation.
7) a somewhat popular argument for toppling hussein is that "we created him, we were reponsible for taking him out". this is given by war hawks to those of us who mention that we did indeed (while not creating him) back, arm and enforce his rule for many years. but this argument is fellacious an dissembling. the only reason he turned on the USA is because, after the Iran/Iraq war, our government encountered much criticism by foreign leaders for arming him in the first place with weapons of bacteriological and viral nature. because of this assault we stopped. when we stopped he retaliated through hyperbole and condemned us. instead of coming clean and admitting our mistake, we began a long war of detraction. and when Iraq invaded Kuwait we found our "out" as it were. we were much better friends with Kuwait at the time than we were with Iraq.
8) although it has not been completely verified or completely dismissed, the argument remains that iraq invaded Kuwait (in 1990?), because Kuwait was slantdrilling for oil into Iraqi soil. to make it simple, the argument goes that kuwait began the drilling on their territory, but drilled at a 45 degree angle (or so) to tap oil preserves in Iraq. simple to do, hard to detect without seismic stations (which all mideast nations have for this very reason and for oil reserve exploration). if it's true, we have a secular mideast nation attacking an islamic nation based on theft.
9) secular. our government wants "democracy" to spread and shine throughout the world. while it's only a 231 year old experiment many of us can agree that it seems to be working somewhat. but we just kicked the shit out of one of the only secular governments in the mideast. and secular is what we want. so long as a country is ruled by islamic law or sharia law we will make no inroads. they will accept our help in whichever avenue, but we cannot infringe on their holy writ for that is ultimate law. for example, Saudi Arabia: we supply them with military hardware and they send us terrorists to blow up our buildings and kill our citizens. but we still have no beef with them. then there's Pakistan. we supply them with military hardware and the ability to make a nuclear bomb, they declare they're on our side in the War On Terror, but harbor the Taliban and al-quaeda. and we claim we can't invade that sovereign nation in order to attack terrorists when we had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for that very reason. and Iraq and Afghanistan were sovereign nations. and we have no beef with Pakistan. Somalia is in the midst of an Islamic takeover and we stand back, even though the citizens don't want Islam and are being mass killed for it. do we have any sense of balance? or are we letting our government become just like the militias and sects that dominate all of these other countries? the one thing that will destroy us as a nation and idea is sectarian difference. and there's no better way to achieve this than to polarize the people, which is what has been happening for the last 20 years. you're either pro-abortion or you're not. you're either pro-handgun or you're not. you're either faith-based or you're not. you're either democrat or you're fascist. you're either republican or you're a terrorist sympathiser.
which may or may not get me to my point. killing saddam hussein was a stupid idea by our government. we paid for the trial and we knew how it would be decided. there was never a question of his guilt based on the accusations. and the fact that he was an asshole. but every country is ruled by an asshole. it's the nature of the beast. you want power, you will do whatever you have to do to achieve it. any country, every country. and the very act of killing hussein has made him a martyr. while the USA could not carry out the actual execution, its "we're not involved and this decision is that of the Iraqis alone" defense is seen as so much bullshit by the world and by most of the US citizens themselves. we caused this and we allowed it to happen. and, even as we claim to want to reach out to all Iraqis, we let the Shiite government lynch this man. he wore no hood and his executioners did (in Iraq and other countries the wearing of a hood or mask while killing another is seen as an act of cowardice). he was taunted by his executioners, which is also not allowed. he was killed on a holy day, which is not allowed. the current Iraqi government displayed complete and utter disregard for the rules and tenets that they claim adherence to every time they enter a mosque to pray. which makes them the same as our rulers.
at work i heard one fellow say that saddam hussein's death was "great news". i asked him why. he said "it's great. he deserved to die". i asked him how this affected his daily life and why he should be so glad. he replied "i don't know. i'm just happy that he's dead after all the people he killed". i asked him if, based on that, it would be okay for me to come into work with a smile on my face if our President Bush was assassinated, because of the 3000 soldiers and between 50,000 and 600,000 Iraqis that had died because of his decision to attack. he laughed and said it WAS okayso long as i didn't get happy if the lead singer of Slayer died.
and that's when i knew i still liked living in America. we can disagree on just about everything, but not when it comes to rock and roll.
WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
(from Alternet)
"Casualties" in the military sense is the total number made unavailable for duty from all causes, including deaths and wounds suffered in combat as well as injuries, accidents and illness in a war "theater" such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the official Pentagon name for the invasion and occupation). So whether caused by "hostile" (24,965 as of Dec.27) or "non-hostile" (25,406 as of Dec. 2) causes, the Pentagon's own web sites record a toll of more than 50,000 so far in "OIF."
now, for those of you out there who think that saddam hussein's death is "great news" or a "vindication of our reasons for invasion" or "justice served", let me remind you of a few facts.
1) all of the weapons of mass destruction that he purportedly had in stock (which he evidently began dismantling after 1991) were supplied to him by us.
2) while our government has been recently declaring his war against Iran in the 1980's as "barbaric" and "unwarranted", it was supplying him with weapons, logistics and advisors during the actual event.
3) when he gassed the Kurds, mass-killed dissenting Shiites and executed family members our government turned a blind eye, because he was conveniently the enemy of our enemy (Iran).
4) when our government claimed that hussein was not allowing unfettered access to supposed weapons making sites just before our current invasion and had kicked out the UN inspectors, it was lying. the UN had reported in the months prior to the current invasion that hussein had stopped all obstuction and they were making spot checks of anything they wanted without advance notice and previously assigned "bodyguards". the UN inspectors also said that they were told by our government that it could not guarantee their safety when it started the "shock and awe" campaign and told them to get out of Iraq then and there (less than a week prior to the initial bombing).
5) NOT ONE weapon of mass distruction was found when, since and after we invaded this time. not one. the "smoking gun" seems to have been our government's ineptitude. remember that we went from 9/11 connections (that never had a shred of credibility) to WMD and its "mushroom cloud in 40 minutes" capability to "he's a brutal dictator" to "either we fight them over there or we fight them over here" to the spread of democracy (not necessarily in that order).
6) while some Iraqis celebrate his death, many more mourn the fact that it now seems that life was better back then. all they had to do was live their lives quietly and let hussein live out his derangement and everything was acceptable. they had electricity, gas, water, schools, mosques and churches, freedom (somewhat) of the press, women could hold public jobs and walk in the streets without having to wear black from head to toe...all of these things look very good to a country that cannot even send their children to school without bodyguards, cannot open their stores without fear of kidnapping and execution, do not know someone who has fallen prey to the myriad killing squads or US forces, and dare not publicly display their ethnic affliliation.
7) a somewhat popular argument for toppling hussein is that "we created him, we were reponsible for taking him out". this is given by war hawks to those of us who mention that we did indeed (while not creating him) back, arm and enforce his rule for many years. but this argument is fellacious an dissembling. the only reason he turned on the USA is because, after the Iran/Iraq war, our government encountered much criticism by foreign leaders for arming him in the first place with weapons of bacteriological and viral nature. because of this assault we stopped. when we stopped he retaliated through hyperbole and condemned us. instead of coming clean and admitting our mistake, we began a long war of detraction. and when Iraq invaded Kuwait we found our "out" as it were. we were much better friends with Kuwait at the time than we were with Iraq.
8) although it has not been completely verified or completely dismissed, the argument remains that iraq invaded Kuwait (in 1990?), because Kuwait was slantdrilling for oil into Iraqi soil. to make it simple, the argument goes that kuwait began the drilling on their territory, but drilled at a 45 degree angle (or so) to tap oil preserves in Iraq. simple to do, hard to detect without seismic stations (which all mideast nations have for this very reason and for oil reserve exploration). if it's true, we have a secular mideast nation attacking an islamic nation based on theft.
9) secular. our government wants "democracy" to spread and shine throughout the world. while it's only a 231 year old experiment many of us can agree that it seems to be working somewhat. but we just kicked the shit out of one of the only secular governments in the mideast. and secular is what we want. so long as a country is ruled by islamic law or sharia law we will make no inroads. they will accept our help in whichever avenue, but we cannot infringe on their holy writ for that is ultimate law. for example, Saudi Arabia: we supply them with military hardware and they send us terrorists to blow up our buildings and kill our citizens. but we still have no beef with them. then there's Pakistan. we supply them with military hardware and the ability to make a nuclear bomb, they declare they're on our side in the War On Terror, but harbor the Taliban and al-quaeda. and we claim we can't invade that sovereign nation in order to attack terrorists when we had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for that very reason. and Iraq and Afghanistan were sovereign nations. and we have no beef with Pakistan. Somalia is in the midst of an Islamic takeover and we stand back, even though the citizens don't want Islam and are being mass killed for it. do we have any sense of balance? or are we letting our government become just like the militias and sects that dominate all of these other countries? the one thing that will destroy us as a nation and idea is sectarian difference. and there's no better way to achieve this than to polarize the people, which is what has been happening for the last 20 years. you're either pro-abortion or you're not. you're either pro-handgun or you're not. you're either faith-based or you're not. you're either democrat or you're fascist. you're either republican or you're a terrorist sympathiser.
which may or may not get me to my point. killing saddam hussein was a stupid idea by our government. we paid for the trial and we knew how it would be decided. there was never a question of his guilt based on the accusations. and the fact that he was an asshole. but every country is ruled by an asshole. it's the nature of the beast. you want power, you will do whatever you have to do to achieve it. any country, every country. and the very act of killing hussein has made him a martyr. while the USA could not carry out the actual execution, its "we're not involved and this decision is that of the Iraqis alone" defense is seen as so much bullshit by the world and by most of the US citizens themselves. we caused this and we allowed it to happen. and, even as we claim to want to reach out to all Iraqis, we let the Shiite government lynch this man. he wore no hood and his executioners did (in Iraq and other countries the wearing of a hood or mask while killing another is seen as an act of cowardice). he was taunted by his executioners, which is also not allowed. he was killed on a holy day, which is not allowed. the current Iraqi government displayed complete and utter disregard for the rules and tenets that they claim adherence to every time they enter a mosque to pray. which makes them the same as our rulers.
at work i heard one fellow say that saddam hussein's death was "great news". i asked him why. he said "it's great. he deserved to die". i asked him how this affected his daily life and why he should be so glad. he replied "i don't know. i'm just happy that he's dead after all the people he killed". i asked him if, based on that, it would be okay for me to come into work with a smile on my face if our President Bush was assassinated, because of the 3000 soldiers and between 50,000 and 600,000 Iraqis that had died because of his decision to attack. he laughed and said it WAS okayso long as i didn't get happy if the lead singer of Slayer died.
and that's when i knew i still liked living in America. we can disagree on just about everything, but not when it comes to rock and roll.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Cannon Fodder?
WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
left a comment with a blogger friend today that made me think about my blog and just why i still cling to it. and i can't come up with a validating reason. i don't write for you. never did. i started this to write for myself and vent my political unhappiness. but that doesn't work anymore. and i don't feel a need to tell you little details about my daily life. so, i think i'll make a new move with this blog and let it ride for a while. honestly, it's gotten to be boring and almost obligatory in that i must blog in order to increase my total number of posts. and that's just stupid and masturbatory.
i'll be back. probably sooner than later and all four or five of you can then revel in the unmitigated orgasmal ecstasy i used to provide on a regular basis.
until then, (in the immortal words of snoop dogg) lick me.
i'll be back. probably sooner than later and all four or five of you can then revel in the unmitigated orgasmal ecstasy i used to provide on a regular basis.
until then, (in the immortal words of snoop dogg) lick me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
