Martha Stewart's Everyday Food magazine is really good. The pizza recipes in the March issue look tasty and fairly easy to do. Suprisingly not evil. Go figure!
Dress Barn has some really cute dresses right now.
Seriously. Dress Barn. Who knew?
Oh, and Karen Hughes is still a lying sack of dung. (I'm listening to Air America Radio and feeling all feisty right now.)
March 2004 Archives
Listening to Karen Hughes on Fresh Air right now. Good old Terry Gross is gently grilling her, but Karen continues to lie up a storm and I scream at the radio like a crazy woman. What planet do these freaky people live on anyway?
My favorite part was when she was asked about Bush's motives for supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. She claims that he's never made decisions because of pressure from anybody. How could she say this with a straight face? (Possibly she didn't; it was radio, after all.)
You can listen to it too and join in on the fun (try not to scream too loudly)!
Continue reading "Ten Minutes From Normal" and 180 degrees from reality.
Talking Points Memo points out that Fox managed to conflate two entirely separate episodes during Richard Clarke's testimony into one seemingly damning exchange. Why does anyone pay attention to anything that this sorry piece of **** channel has to say, anymore?
A view from the other side on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act just passed by the Senate. What the hell is Ted Olsen (if it's the same Ted Olsen) doing with these folks?
If by "hysteria" you mean anger and "extreme sexual left" you mean anybody who hasn't handed their brain over to the extremely sexless religious right, then... OK, guilty as charged.
Scary stuff.
I've been completely spam-bombed today. I am receiving 1500+ copies of the same message. The thing is addressed to random addresses at womeninit.net, and has the same initial subject line: "BUSINESS PROPOSAL" followed by 20 spaces and a random set of characters. It goes a little something like this:
From:mirriam63@yahoo.com
Date: March 26, 2004 7:54:43 AM PST
To: bccb@womeninit.net
Subject: BUSINESS PROPOSAL qbjze
FIRST PROPERTIES INVESTMENT LTD
(A SUBSIDIARY OF SAVIMBI INVESTMENT LTD) ANGOLA
BUSINESS PROPOSAL
ATTENT: DIRECTOR / PRESIDENT
May I use this opportunity to introduce myself as Dr. (Mrs.). MIRRIAM SAVIMBI I am the wife to the late Mr. GREAT JONAS SAVIMBI, the leader of the Angolan revolutionary group know as the (UNITA) who died while on active duty in an effort to Liberate our people. I am contacting you with the believe that we will develop a cordial business relationship which will be beneficial to both parties.
I am currently in possession of (Twenty five Million United State Dollars) Which I intended to use for investment purposes specifically in your country. The money came about as a result of my late husband’s inability to proceed with the purchase of military hardware, which he contracted with South African Arms Company. Since the start of our civil war the source of funds in prosecuting the war been from diamond, which is under our control. My son is the secretary of state mining under the diamond were always exported to South / African and art of the proceeds usually used buying military hardware’s, I traveled immediately to my late husband’s residence in South Africa and discovered the sum of TWENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS cash hidden under his underground safe.
Due to my status as a refugee, I cannot invest these funds here in South Africa, I therefore seek your assistance in transferring this funds out of South Africa, all necessary arrangement has been made by me and I assure you that there is no risk attached to this and we will work out modalities for the success of this transaction. I promise to give you 10% of the total funds for your assistance, 03% will be for expenses and my family will use the remaining 85% for investment in your country.
I hope that this proposal will interest. I will like you to contact JAMES JONAS SAVIMBI my son who is staying in Spain-madrid as a refugee.
Please I will like you to keep this transaction at utmost secrecy, whatever your decision will be I await your response via my E-mail: mirriam_savimbi@antisocial.com .
Regards,
DR. (MRS). MIRRIAM SAVIMBI.
My first thought: Keep 1500 emails secret? How are you gonna do that?
My second thought: Madrid, huh? A pity these folks weren't on one of those trains. (Mean, I know.)
My third thought: antisocial.com? Indeed, very.
Must have a word with my ISP now...
President Bush's performance at the 60th annual Radio & Television Correspondents' Association dinner, from the Washington Post, via TalkLeft:
President Bush opened his 10-minute remarks to the gathering with a reference to what he referred to as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's "favorite show" on television. Those anticipating an "Apprentice" punch line -- the Donald, after all, was only a few yards away -- guessed wrong.
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," Bush said, generating a roomful of laughter. "My Cabinet could take some pointers from watching that show. In fact, I'm going to have the Fab Five do a makeover on [Attorney General John] Ashcroft."
From there, Bush went on to poke at his own malapropisms before unveiling a slide show titled "White House Election Year Album" that had the crowd chuckling. Yes, there were a few jabs at the Democrats, including a couple of shots taken at Democratic challenger John Kerry. Bush described a picture of himself doing what looked like the shuffle in the Oval Office in front of Condoleezza Rice as "here I'm trying to explain John Kerry's foreign policy to Condi." He also faked a phone conversation between Kerry and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. "Hey, John," he said. "Kim Jong Il here. Just wanted to let you know, you're my guy."
Others have already pointed out how outragious it is for him to make a joke out of the WMD claim, since people are still dying over it. I have nothing to add to that, but I do have to point out the exquisite irony of him mentioning "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."
Can we get this "joker" out of office soon? Please?
"Ralph Nader may have been abandoned by some of his celebrity backers, railed against in Democratic Party circles and skewered on late night TV, but the consumer advocate still packs a powerful punch with young voters. According to the latest NEWSWEEK and Newsweek.com Genext poll, the feisty Nader, widely blamed for Al Gore’s defeat in the 2000 election, drew twice the support among voters aged 18-29 as he did in a comparable poll of all registered voters. The groundswell of youth support could mean good news for Nader, and perhaps more significantly, for President George W. Bush...." More from Newsweek
This article from the March 29 issue of Newsweek reveals which tech company CEOs are giving money to which parties. I suppose I should reserve my ire for Carly Fiorinna of HP, not-so-closet Republican. But the guy who really ticked me off was Marc Andreesen, former Netscape boy wonder.
Andreessen gave $350,000 to Democratic candidates in 2000, but says he's not yet willing to open his checkbook this time around. The reason? The Dems' persistent criticism of outsourcing. "It just boggles my mind," says Andreessen, whose software helps companies process data offshore. "Whatever happened to free trade?" For now, he says, "I've stopped returning their calls."
Marc, if you get your head out of your LoudCloud for a second, you might notice that there's been a few other developments in the past few years that might make it particularly desirable to support the Dems this time around. If the country spends all its money on Iraq, destroys civil liberties at home, suffers more terrorist attacks, accelerates the distruction of the environment, and continues to alienate the rest of the world... it just might have a negative effect on your bottom line. What about that "big-picture" thing you CEOs are supposed to be so good at?
Weirdness bolded for emphasis.
WASHINGTON – In the spring of 1998, a unit dedicated to Osama bin Laden at the CIA's counterterrorism center hatched a plan to snatch the Al Qaeda leader, who by then had declared war on the US.
The group of 17 women and 7 men who referred to themselves as "the Manson family," according to an official familiar with the plan, meticulously surveyed - through intelligence from Afghan tribal leaders and satellite photography - the Tarnak Farm, a mud-walled complex in an isolated stretch of desert near the airport in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
--> "Averting 9/11: How close we came", Christian Science Monitor, March 25, 2004, www.csmonitor.com/2004/0325/p01s01-usfp.html
Heh. Sometimes, William Safire surprises me.
(I also like the fact that he used to think the first line of the Pledge of Allegiance was "I led the pigeons to the flag")
The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going for him is that he's right. Those of us who believe in God don't need to inject our faith into a patriotic affirmation and coerce all schoolchildren into going along. The key word in the pledge is the last one.
The insertion was a mistake then; the trouble is that knocking the words out long afterward, offending the religious majority, would be a slippery-slope mistake now.
The justices shouldn't use the issue of standing to punt, thereby letting this divisive ruckus fester. The solution is for the court to require teachers to inform students they have the added right to remain silent for a couple of seconds while others choose to say "under God."
I basically agree... yet there's something troubling about the "Heck, we can't undo it now, it will offend too many people!" argument. Try applying it to the current hot topic, gay marriage, or going back a ways, slavery. Making kids include the phrase "under God" is certainly nothing compared to denying people the right to marriage or freedom, but if something violates our Constitution, it violates our Constitution, no?
There's so much in the news to comment on right now, what with the 9/11 commission testimony, the Clarke book, the assassination of the Hamas leader, the ethnic violence in Kosovo... but I don't have anything particularly wise or amusing to say about any of them, so I won't right now.
It's the right thing to do... and it's good for a quiet chuckle as well.
"I don't want to give any of you a heart attack, but I plan to formally endorse John Kerry on Thursday, along with all 34 Congress people who endorsed me during the campaign."
A friend emailed me the following gem yesterday. You've probably seen it already. At first glance it reads like a light-hearted (if heavily cliched) look back at childhood with all its bumps and scrapes. Read it again. It asserts some ideas that many of us accept which are actually quite harmful. My responses are in italics.
Subject: People Over 30
People over 30 should be dead.
Here's why ............
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats! , [Apart from the bad punctuation, the "regulators and bureaucrats" phrase raises a red flag. Who are we talking about here?] those of us who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's probably shouldn't have survived.
Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint. [Oh. THOSE bureaucrats. They took away our lead paint. Wah. You know how many kids still get sick from lead every year?]
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, ... and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.) [Hey, as long as you don't get in an accident, you're OK if you're not wearing a helmet. If you do get in an accident, bye-bye brain.]
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
[See previous paragraph. My parents always made me wear a belt, because they weren't dumb and wanted me to live. OK, I still think of air bags as a newfangled thing too]
Riding in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a special treat. [OK, so I miss doing that.]
We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. Horrors! [What do "today's bureaucrats" have to do with that?]
We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing. [Yeah, do you know what they put in those things?!?! My parents wouldn't let me eat them much either. At least with regulations, we know what's in them.]
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this. [Huh!??!]
We would spend hours building our go -carts out of scraps and then rode down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.
After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the street lights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. NO CELL PHONES!!!!! Unthinkable!
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo 64, X-! Boxes, no video games at
all, no 99 channels on cable, video tape movies, surround sound, personal cell phones, personal computers, or Internet chat rooms.
We had friends! [And TV. What about books?]
We went outside and found them.
We played dodge ball, and sometimes, the ball would really hurt.
We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. [Note the casual, innocent mention of the word "lawsuits"]
They were accidents.
No one was to blame but us.
Remember accidents?
We had fights and punched each other and got black and blue and learned to get over it. [Ah, but of course, this doesn't happen with kids anymore.]
We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate worms, and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live inside us forever.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's home and knocked on the door, or rang the bell or just walked in and talked to them.
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.
Some students weren't as smart as others, so they failed a grade and were held back to repeat the same grade. Horrors! [Yep. This still happens]
Tests were not adjusted for any reason. [Like learning disabilities?]
Our actions were our own. Consequences were expected. [Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sounds like a straw man argument to me. We still care about consequences.]
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke a law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law. Imagine that! [Law that was developed by bureaucrats, remember?]
This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers and problem solvers and inventors, ever.[What generation are we talking about? People never took risks before? The Renaissance didn't produce amazing problem solvers and inventors]
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.
And you're one of them!
Congratulations!
Gee, thanks. I think.People over 30 should be dead.
Here's why ............
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats! , [Apart from the bad punctuation, the "regulators and bureaucrats" phrase raises a red flag. Who are we talking about here?] those of us who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's probably shouldn't have survived.
Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint. [Oh. THOSE bureaucrats. They took away our lead paint. Wah. You know how many kids still get sick from lead every year?]
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, ... and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.) [Hey, as long as you don't get in an accident, you're OK if you're not wearing a helmet. If you do get in an accident, bye-bye brain.]
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
[See previous paragraph. My parents always made me wear a belt, because they weren't dumb and wanted me to live. OK, I still think of air bags as a newfangled thing too]
Riding in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a special treat. [OK, so I miss doing that.]
We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. Horrors! [What do "today's bureaucrats" have to do with that?]
We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing. [Yeah, do you know what they put in those things?!?! My parents wouldn't let me eat them much either. At least with regulations, we know what's in them.]
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this. [Huh!??!]
We would spend hours building our go -carts out of scraps and then rode down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.
After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the street lights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. NO CELL PHONES!!!!! Unthinkable!
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo 64, X-! Boxes, no video games at
all, no 99 channels on cable, video tape movies, surround sound, personal cell phones, personal computers, or Internet chat rooms.
We had friends! [And TV. What about books?]
We went outside and found them.
We played dodge ball, and sometimes, the ball would really hurt.
We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. [Note the casual, innocent mention of the word "lawsuits"]
They were accidents.
No one was to blame but us.
Remember accidents?
We had fights and punched each other and got black and blue and learned to get over it. [Ah, but of course, this doesn't happen with kids anymore.]
We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate worms, and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live inside us forever.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's home and knocked on the door, or rang the bell or just walked in and talked to them.
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.
Some students weren't as smart as others, so they failed a grade and were held back to repeat the same grade. Horrors! [Yep. This still happens]
Tests were not adjusted for any reason. [Like learning disabilities?]
Our actions were our own. Consequences were expected. [Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sounds like a straw man argument to me. We still care about consequences.]
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke a law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law. Imagine that! [Law that was developed by bureaucrats, remember?]
This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers and problem solvers and inventors, ever.[What generation are we talking about? People never took risks before? The Renaissance didn't produce amazing problem solvers and inventors]
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.
And you're one of them!
Congratulations!
Now the part that got left out of this version but is in the original, is this tell-tell sentence at the end:
Pass this on to others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before lawyers and government regulated our lives, for our own good.
Excuse me? Lawyers didn't invent head injuries. The government didn't cause lead to appear in our paint. Regulations are the reason that we know what's in our food, and that companies don't get away with more trickery than they already do. (Ever read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? That book is partially responsible for the reform of the meatpacking industry... which took — you guessed it — regulation.) Lawsuits and government rules don't exist so that stupid people can blame others for their own mistakes. They exist so that we can be protected from the stupid decisions of companies who are only focused on their bottom line. You can't get rid of all companies just because some of them screw up, or get rid of all people because some of them commit crimes. Why would getting rid of all lawyers and rules because some of them are bad make things any better? If nobody enforces the rules, there are no rules.And it's not funny, dammit.
(Additional note: I'm not the only one to find this thing immensely irritating. See a list of other things that happened during "the good old days" here.)
From Time Magazine:
Just as President Bush claims 9/11 "changed everything" in U.S. politics, so, too may the Madrid attacks mark a turning point in Europe's relationship to President Bush's war on terror. The continent's geographical proximity to the Arab world and its large — and mostly impoverished and marginalized — Arab immigrant populations make it especially vulnerable to terror attacks. Now that al-Qaeda and its supporters are directly attacking Europe's cities rather than simply using them as staging areas, European leaders are looking to ramp up their own efforts to fight terror. But as the Spanish election result shows, this may put them more sharply at odds with the Bush administration. That's because there's a widely held belief among the Europeans that while police and intelligence cooperation across the Atlantic (and across the Mediterranean, with Arab security services) has been highly effective in eliminating al-Qaeda cells, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has been not only ineffective, but actually counterproductive in the fight against terrorism. European Commission chief Romano Prodi argues that the use of military force as a prime weapon in the fight against terrorism is not working: "Terrorism is now more powerful than ever before," he says. And most European leaders believe the al-Qaeda phenomenon will not be defeated until the anti-U.S. grievances in the Arab world on which it feeds have been addressed.
European Union security officials meet in Madrid on Friday to hammer out a strategy — a meeting in which the U.S. won't be participating. That's natural, of course, in that the U.S. is not part of the European Union. But it may also signal an intention by the Europeans to forge a more effective strategy for countering the al-Qaeda movement, and challenging the U.S. to rethink its own approach.
European Union security officials meet in Madrid on Friday to hammer out a strategy — a meeting in which the U.S. won't be participating. That's natural, of course, in that the U.S. is not part of the European Union. But it may also signal an intention by the Europeans to forge a more effective strategy for countering the al-Qaeda movement, and challenging the U.S. to rethink its own approach.
Doesn't sound like "appeasement" to me.
Oh, and I've decided that Andrew Sullivan deserves to be stuck with the far-right Republicans. With this kind of crap, he should feel uncomfortable. Shame on him for misusing Monty Python this way.
Anyway, we're now a year into the war in Iraq, and 2 1/2 years into the war on terror. Terror seems to be winning and I see nothing to celebrate. I hope 8 months from now we'll be celebrating a Democrat in the White House and the return of our sanity.
As horrible as it is short... presenting H.R. 3920: "Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004". Don't like a ruling of those horrible radical activist judges on the Supreme Court? Overrule them! What a great idea! Because, you know, our elected officials know better! They're always right! Checks and balances are for wusses! See for yourself!
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.
The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court--
(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.
The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.
SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.
This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.
Want to give the fine elected officials behind this piece of work a piece of your mind? Contact information is here.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.
The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court--
(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.
The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.
SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.
This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.
There are many excellent arguments against this filth (which admittedly has a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed, thankfully). But rather than give you links to my usual partisan liberal media evildoer-loving sources, how about an essay from TownHall, a conservative website?
This might seem like a wonderful idea to Republicans at a time when they control both houses. But … consider this scenario. Let’s say the people of the United States suddenly succumb to a nationwide epidemic of mad voter disease and place the Democrats in full and complete control of both houses. The Democrats immediately pass a law making it a felony for any private citizen in the United States to own a firearm. Since government is the only entity in our system entitled to use force to accomplish its goals, the Democrats reason that government should be the only entity with the means to exert force. Along comes the Supreme Court and, in a rare exercise of reasonable Constitutional interpretation, declares the law to be at variance with the dictates of the Second Amendment. The Democrats merely produce their two-third votes in the Senate and the House and, voila, the Constitution is amended!
Consider another scenario: The entire congress, mindful of its constant struggle for self-preservation, passes a law stating that all congressional and Senatorial terms shall be for life. As soon as the court declares this absurdity to be unconstitutional the House and Senate votes almost unanimously to overrule the Supreme Court … and once again the Constitution is amended.
H.R. 3920 is, of course, going absolutely nowhere. It’s the Dennis Kucinich of legislation. A somewhat nutty one percent might consider taking this tramp to dinner, but nobody’s going to pick up the check. These Republicans are merely staking out some election-year territory in which they can claim to be the saviors of the American family and all that good and right with the world.
The outrage here is that eleven Republican members of the Congress of the United States have so little regard and respect for our Constitution that they would actually put their names on this insult. You would normally expect this depraved behavior from Democrats or the local mob. The offense, though, is so grave the guilty parties must be identified. See if one of these names is familiar to you. We have Lewis of Kentucky, Howard of North Carolina, DeMint of South Carolina, Kingston and Collins of Georgia, Everett of Alabama, Dolittle and Pombo of California, Franks of Arizona, Hefley of Colorado, Goode of Virginia and Pitts of Pennsylvania.
During this election year, when we have the likes of John Kerry plotting to surrender the sovereignty of the United States to the machinations of the United Nations, our Constitution needs every friend it can get. Lewis’s eleven don’t fit the bill.
See, I knew about checks and balances in junior high. Even some conservatives get it (although not for all the right reasons, in my opinion!) Why don't our (your?) elected officials? They should be ashamed of themselves and be required to sit through a very long and boring high school civics class. Or just dump 'em in November.Consider another scenario: The entire congress, mindful of its constant struggle for self-preservation, passes a law stating that all congressional and Senatorial terms shall be for life. As soon as the court declares this absurdity to be unconstitutional the House and Senate votes almost unanimously to overrule the Supreme Court … and once again the Constitution is amended.
H.R. 3920 is, of course, going absolutely nowhere. It’s the Dennis Kucinich of legislation. A somewhat nutty one percent might consider taking this tramp to dinner, but nobody’s going to pick up the check. These Republicans are merely staking out some election-year territory in which they can claim to be the saviors of the American family and all that good and right with the world.
The outrage here is that eleven Republican members of the Congress of the United States have so little regard and respect for our Constitution that they would actually put their names on this insult. You would normally expect this depraved behavior from Democrats or the local mob. The offense, though, is so grave the guilty parties must be identified. See if one of these names is familiar to you. We have Lewis of Kentucky, Howard of North Carolina, DeMint of South Carolina, Kingston and Collins of Georgia, Everett of Alabama, Dolittle and Pombo of California, Franks of Arizona, Hefley of Colorado, Goode of Virginia and Pitts of Pennsylvania.
During this election year, when we have the likes of John Kerry plotting to surrender the sovereignty of the United States to the machinations of the United Nations, our Constitution needs every friend it can get. Lewis’s eleven don’t fit the bill.
Wondering if Bush is lying again? Is Kerry saying something that sounds too good (or bad) to be true? Check out FactCheck from the Annenberg Public Policy Center for some nonpartisan skewering of both sides.
More partisan, but damning nonetheless, is the Iraq On the Record database. Enjoy such nuggets as Bush's claim that "On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death," or Moveon.org's new favorite from Rummy: "[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."
Hey guys, if you don't want your opponents rubbing stuff in your face later, try telling the truth.
On the way back from a walk just now, I passed a car with one bumper sticker that said "Californians of faith fighting the death penalty", another bumper sticker that said "RecallGrayDavis.com" and a big American flag stuck in one of the front seat cupholders. All this was on a Prius.
Do you think the driver is deliberately messing with people's minds?
I started reading Andrew Sullivan recently for some reason (He is a Republican and I am most definitely not!) I found this column hard to shrug off... I fear that there will be an attack here before November, and that this is a leadup to it.
Some things Sullivan says I have to disagree on, of course.
if the appeasement brigade really do believe that the war to depose Saddam is and was utterly unconnected with the war against al Qaeda, then why on earth would al Qaeda respond by targeting Spain? If the two issues are completely unrelated, why has al Qaeda made the connection? The answer is obvious: the removal of the Taliban and the Saddam dictatorship were two major blows to the cause of Islamist terror. They removed an al Qaeda client state and a potential harbor for terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. So it's vital that the Islamist mass murderers target those who backed both wars. It makes total sense.
There is no evidence that Al Qaeda was in Iraq under Saddam. Sullivan's language is deliberately vague here. However, war supporters kept saying that this war was going to change the Middle East and make it safe for democracy, etc. What better way for Al Qaeda to say, "Not so fast, suckers!"
Sullivan also argues that the fact that the Socialists won in Spain as a result of the terrorist attack is a victory for Al Qaeda. But in Israel, the terrorist attacks caused the Likud party to rise to the top. In fact, every time there's movement towards peace, there's another suicide bombing, which reinforces the extremists on both sides and ensures that there will be no resolution. That certainly is a victory for the terrorists, and I'm not the only one who says so!
I think Americans would probably react differently to another attack, because the war in Iraq enjoyed higher support here at the time (and even now), whereas in Spain, 80% were opposed. You can't ignore your citizens to that extent and expect to retain your support. The moment there was a crisis, all the resentment from last year boiled over. It also didn't help that the government panicked and tried to blame ETA. It looked really bad. I'd like to think our leaders might learn something — lying to your voters is a bad idea — but I doubt it.
Here's a different take on the matter from somebody I agree with more frequently!, oh, and this (and a bunch of other postings from TalkLeft)
I really hope we don't have to find out what would happen, but I fear we will. This year scares me.
This is a test of HTMLArea, a free script from InteractiveTools
that I just installed. Instead of typing in HTML code by hand, I'm styling my text here with a WYSIWYG toolbar. And I'm using Mozilla, because for once, there's a browser thingy that works in more than just Internet Explorer. Nice!
I will learn that just because somebody is rude to you, it doesn't justify being rude to them in response.
Don't know when I'll get that through my head though, seeing as I've gotten to age 35 without managing it...
That line from "The Princess Bride" keeps getting stuck in my head. I got to go to one of the same-sex weddings at City Hall in San Francisco on March 10, the day before the courts stepped in and shut the whole thing down. It was a beautiful wedding... an ex-coworker of mine stood up there at the top of the stairs with her partner of 21 years and their two sons. (Supposedly, the spot they picked was the same one where Joe DiMaggio and Marilyn Monroe got married — as someone joked, this marriage seems set to last a whole lot longer.)
One of the staff there told us that they'd all been vying to marry the couples, and that finally they had to set up a system of shifts — no more than two hours a day each. They just all wanted to be part of this so badly.
I'm glad my friends made it in just under the wire, but I feel bad for the other couples that had appointments after the court called a halt. And, of course, the question of what rights all the married couples have now is up in the air too.
I hope the court is sensible and fair about this. Apparently, what I consider fair and sensible isn't obvious to everyone, though. "States' rights", "sanctity of marriage", "protection of children"... blah blah blah. We either all have equal rights or we don't. What's it going to be?
In any case, other people who went to a wedding at City Hall during this amazing month can probably testify to the joyous atmosphere. How often do you get to experience that... let alone in a municipal building? When was the last time a bureaucrat made you smile?
See? This is what I was saying!
"What is often overlooked in the debate over whether Nader is a jerk for running is the fact that he's not at all a person you'd want to lead the executive branch (though he'd make a truly ripping senior Justice Department official). I didn't realize this myself until after 2000, in part because Gore had handcuffed himself by adhering to a strategy of disengagement. Whatever else the presidency is, it's a job fit for someone who's comfortable with authority. While it's true Nader has founded many successful organizations, his model has always been decidedly collectivist and anti-authoritarian: He would empower a group of young lawyers or citizens to realize their civic potential and then decamp to organize another group of young lawyers or citizens in a different arena. He has experience in shepherding legislation, but displays a shocking inflexibility when it comes to compromise and negotiation. As a candidate, he's more than vulnerable when it comes to national security concerns."
But this is a good point too...
"But Kerry can't make any of these valid criticisms until he acknowledges that Nader matters."
--> "How to Make Sure that Nader Doesn't Do It Again", Salon, March 12, 2004, www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/12/nader/index.html
Rush-hour attacks in Madrid on the trains. 190 people killed, and counting. This is the second time in the last year that a place I visited has been attacked. Last year, it was Casablanca, when they attacked the hotel I stayed in five years ago. Michael and I were in Madrid last Christmas break.
A few random thoughts. It sounds like Al Queda. The Spanish government blames the ETA, but this doesn't match their modus operandi. The government supported the Bush administration's attack on Iraq, but the people sure didn't. Why do they have to suffer? Michael points out the date coincidence — March 11. Is this going to be us again in six months? Sooner?
Terrorists must be the biggest egomaniacs in the world. To think that their cause is so important that they can do these things? There are no words for it, and no justifications. And on a more selfish note, if they cause Bush to get reelected, I'm going to be exceedingly pissed off.
A friend left me a message the other day, mentioning that there's a protest march coming up on March 20 in San Francisco.
I went to several of these last year. I won't be attending this one.
Why?
Well, first of all, as opposed to the war as I was, it's now a done deal. I want the troops to come home, but I sure as heck don't want to see Iraq slide into civil war, either. And they're still reconstructing. So... we broke it, we pay for it, right? Of course, that's easy for me to say. I am not in the military and nor are any of my relatives or friends. But nor am I living in Iraq, where women can't hardly leave their homes because the crime rate has skyrocketed.
Another reason for not wanting to participate is more personal. I am Jewish, and there was an undertone to some of the things I saw and heard at those rallies that made me uncomfortable. One guy there made no attempt to be subtle about it — he dressed as Uncle Sam but with swastikas on his hat and a sign that said "I want you to die for Israel." I was enraged but my friend told me to try to ignore him. (Me being me, I didn't succeed in that.) The actually speakers were more subtle, but still, sometimes they made me feel out of place (or bored.) Ignore it? Well, Andrew Sullivan tried to ignore the right wing's positions on civil liberties and gay rights because he supported a bunch of other conservative positions. He seems to be now realizing the price of accomodation.
And I've basically come to the conclusion that International A.N.S.W.E.R. and their backing organization, the Workers World Party are pretty nutty in general, and that I cannot support many of their positions. For example, from the WWP website:
Tienanmen Square: "the June 4 events were a battle-not a massacre."
North Korea
More North Korea ("The land, factories, homes, hotels, parks, schools, hospitals, offices, museums, buses, subways--everything in the DPRK belongs to the people as a whole. No logos or brand names claim possession over any of it. When people talk about defending their country from the imperialists who would like to carve it up and swallow the pieces, they take for granted that it belongs to them, not to foreign investors or a wealthy elite, as in all the capitalist countries.") Kind of puts the Bush administration's spin doctors to shame, doesn't it?
Anyway. It sucks, because I'm very much for "money for jobs, health care, housing & education, not for war & occupation." I just utterly fail to see how these folks will get us there, and I don't like feeling uncomfortable because of who I am. I will be sticking to Moveon.org and Brit Tzadek V'Shalom... and getting Bush and his cohorts the hell of the White House. Yeah.
I was going to write about this, but this guy did it first, and better.
Oh, and also?
Hahahahahah!
(By the way, I don't see why I shouldn't have responded to their poll. I am certainly quite pro-family. I believe in families. I love my family. I might even start one myself someday. I think other people should be able to have families. So what's the problem, American Family Assocation?)
Did I mention? Hee hee hee hee hee hahahahahahh!!!!
The oddest spam, hands-down, that I've ever received. And apparently I'm not alone. (But did he know, I wonder, that he was emailing a Jewish organization?)
Subject: Please read because this is a very important message from Ted Jesus Christ GOD. ADVHello:
This is NOT pushing any product or service or selling anything. This is about somebody that was very IMPORTANT in the Computer and Software and Internet Industry that was born on World Earth that at 37 years old had a SEVERE 40 days and 40 nights on a large Sail Boat and was TEMPTED by Satan or Devil and this SPIRITUALLY and keeps getting told and this thousands of times by Angels that identify themselves to be Michael and Gabriel and More Top Angels that this person is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and have given this person over a period of over 7 years enough information to almost prove this through VISIONS and DREAMS and LOUD SPIRITUAL VOICES and LOUD SPIRITUAL EVENTS and MORE. This information and everything that this person is writing is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN and is not about selling anything or any product or service. This is worth you taking the time to read because this may be the only communication you ever receive about this and this person can almost prove that this person is the Second Com
This is about Ted R. Kurts that was raised by a very good Christian family and to be a Christian and went to Christian Churches and Christian Church Schools for Teds entire life. Ted went to Christian Elementary Schools and then Christian Academy and then Christian University and then Christian Graduate School. Ted most of the time did very well in school and was a good student. These schools included Valley View Junior Academy and then Thunderbird Adventist Academy and then Loma Linda University and then the La Sierra Campus for Undergraduate and then Loma Linda University and the Loma Linda Campus for Graduate School. Ted took a medical curriculum and was completely self taught in Computers and Software and the Internet that Ted decided to get into for a serious hobby and then for a career and then started up a business. If you check around some you will find out that Ted was the Founder and President and CEO of a very well respected Silicon Valley and California and United States of America based Softw
Ted while on a large Sail Boat of Teds that was anchored in the San Diego Bay had a SEVERE 40 days and 40 nights and had many LOUD SPIRITUAL EVENTS that included Visions and Dreams and Hearing Loud Spiritual Voices and More that convinced Ted that Ted was and is actually a distant descendent of the Jewish King David and is the Son of Man and the Son of David and the actual Second Coming of Jesus Christ and this through a BLOODLINE and a NATIVITY and NOT from remote or in the sky or in clouds. Ted after this has been WORKING VERY HARD in RELIGION and MUCH MORE THAN RELIGION and had to get out of the Computer and Software and Internet Industry and did. Ted was told many times that what Hitler did was to eliminate a BLOODLINE and LINAGE that HE could not have a Second Coming and Return from a NATIVITY. Ted did NOT have a breakdown and this is NOT mental and is SPIRITUAL. Ted has begged and pleaded and prayed many times to God to get and this well over 1000 times an answer and then from Michael the Angel and
You NEED to REALIZE that this newsletter is CAN-SPAM compliant per the United States Federal Law of CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 that allows for Unsolicited Bulk Email or UBE or Unsolicited Commercial Email of UCE to be sent if certain requirements are met. These are met and if you are going to overreact or complain or harass because this email address received this newsletter then you NEED to read the legal section below to figure out your CRIMINAL and CIVIL LIABILITY if doing any overreacting or sending any complaints or hostile email to anybody about this or taking any action regarding this. This is NOT SPAM because this complies with the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.
And it truly goes on and on, in this vein, til the break of dawn. Oy.
Um, guys... "Rig" has more than one meaning... and do you really want people to associate "voter registration" "rig" and "Republican?" Or maybe it's sabotage from within!
From the NY Times today, an exchange between a Hummer dealer and an actress:
"She told me she wanted to buy a hybrid, and she was concerned about the Hummer and its effect on the environment," Mr. Drake recalled. "I asked where she lived. She said Beverly Hills. I said, `Out of curiosity: How big is your house?'
"She said: `What does that matter? It's 20,000 square feet.' "
He said he replied: "I don't know what's less correct. Having three people live in a 20,000-square-foot house, with a pool and heaters and air-conditioners. Or me driving my Hummer 500 miles a month."
Mr. Drake's house, he said, is 3,000 square feet.
Only in Hollywood...
--> "A Prius-Hummer War Divides Oscarville", New York Times, March 6, 2004, www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/ fashion/07CARS.html
"I want to live in a country where religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) are not an issue. In short, I want an atheist homeland, a place where my lack of belief in a “supreme being” or organized religion does not put me at odds with 90 percent of the country and its most powerful political leaders."
--> http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/23/4039aff78e385
Photos
