Monday, December 31, 2007
This applied to Chelsea when she was growing up in the White House. This applied to her when she was at Oxford, for her time at Oxford was after her father's eight years and wholly unrelated to anything her mother may have done or was doing.
They have pulled Chelsea off the shelf and inserted her into the political arena, YET they argue she should not be subject to questions from the media.
At what point will the media call them on this?
If she does not want to be quetsioned, which she has EVERY right not to be, then go back into hiding, but you cannot jump out into the crowd and urge people to vote for your mother and then say you won't answer quetsions.
What a sham and a shame.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The movie industry is equally upset, frantic even at the drop in movie attendance and film purchasing.
I would be just as frantic or more if I were them. It is a good thing they have a scapegoat. If they didn't, they would have to confront the real problems they face and that takes courage, strength, and intelligence.
The courage to face the truth - the majority of movies are bombs. Not because they are illegally downloaded, but because they are bombs. Mayer and Goldwyn would never have stepped into the pile of shit the studios have today. Films for entertainment not for political indoctrination. the 1950s political films do not even remotely come close to the budget busting political attacks put out today in the name of entertainment.
Strength to make the changes necessary to save your industry even though it will hurt in the beginning.
Intelligence to balance the issues, understand the causes, and recognize that your billions are not being lost on illegal downloads, they are lost on useless musicians paid 100 times too much and actors paid 10 million more than they should be paid, films that should never see the light of an office let alone a studio. Unfortunately, the RIAA, film studiso, music companies are lacking all three so they look for scapegoats and blame the downloaders.
You want to turn your industry around. Here is how you do it:
- the actual Cd costs pennies.
- 1/6 of all musicians, drop them. There are too many producing the same stuff and overwhelming/flooding the market.
- 1 new Cd every 8-12 months and no sooner, can be longer.
- singers - paid according to units sold based upon preceding sales numbers or if a new artist, some standard fee. A musician cannot make 20 million unless their CDs consecutively sell enough units to add up to 20 million, which they will never do.
These adjustments will bring the price of CDs down 20-30%. You will see a spike in purchases.
Allow songs on the internet to be downloaded, but follow Radiohead's example. Devise your Cds so any copying will result in a loss in quality. People will download, enjoy the song and buy the Cd because they want the best quality and it is now cheap enough they could buy two instead of one - AND GUESS WHAT - THEY WILL!
You want to know what will happen if you follow your current insane plan - people will begin trading their CDs. You will see a DRAMATIC drop in sales at that point and ain't nothing and no court anywhere that will listen to you whine at that point. STOP the madness before it comes to that because it will go there.
Want to save the movie industry. STOP making so many stupid films. Honestly - just cuz you hate Bush doesn't mean the entire country is interested in any anti-Bush film just cuz. You spend over $350 million dollars on the anti-war/Bush films and gross an amazing $50 million. Whooppee. Talk about loss. If everyone downloaded a stupid movie it would never equal $250 million or $300 million. be thankful they do - otherwise it would be a whopping 48 people who go an watch your movie and that would be a crying shame. Stop with the intellectually stimulating films - they are less intellectual and less artsy than you think, and second, we don't care because they are not entertaining. Make films that entertain. If we want morality crammed down our throats we will go to church, not the theater.
Actors get paid not based on their highest grossing, but the three last films produced averaged. If they bomb 3 times, they ain't making $20 million. They will be working for whatever the term - standard wages. That will bring the films down considerably. Use Hollywood sets, use the lots you built over decades instead of flying off to Austria or Switzerland - just because the actors and directors want a vacation doesn't mean we need to pay for it. Learn to tighten your belts. Make do. Lower ticket prices from 10 back to 7.50-8.00 and leave them there. 2 times as many people will go to the theater and you can push back video releases by six months and keep the films out longer.
Loss up front in both industries. Suck it up. 6 months to a year and your problem will be LARGELY solved. You lower ticket prices and I promise you without reservation, a dramatic increase in attendance.
Don't believe for one moment raising rates to $11 or $12 will compensate because as you do, fewer people will go to the theater and your numbers will drop.
Look, films cost $10-11 now. Your attendance has dropped between 15-30%. Purchase of illegally downloaded/copied movies has increased by 5-10%. Answer - lower ticket prices to $7-8 and you will see an increase in attendance by 30-40% washing away almost entirely the purchase of illegal downloads and honestly, at that point you'd be making more money anyway.
Fail to make changes and you will be suing everyone because everyone will be trading films, CDs ... and your business will fail.
Continue at your risk, but stop blaming someone who downloaded 20 songs by an artist no one knows and a song that isn't sold any longer. Some people download 1 song by an artist because they want one song now 17 crappy tunes that cost $20 too much. They want one and they want to be able to listen to it anywhere at any time without downloading licenses. Fix these issues and you save your industry. Fail, and your industry sinks.
We have as many opinions in this country as we do people - on every subject. A few watch Jerry Springer and maybe a few still believe Elvis is alive, that UFOs fly our friendly skies, that bigfoot and creatures from middle earth transform into what appear to be earthlings, all the way over the ledge with the 9/11 conspiracies.
We do have our share of fruitcakes, nuts, fools, idiots, and retarded rodeo clowns, BUT that number is, as a whole, insignificant statistically. Less than 1% of a population at any given time is irrelevant as to what their opinions are and we tend, generally, as Americans, to be middle-of-the-roaders (not to be mistaken for middle -earthers although the US is or could be in the middle of the earth depending on ones perspective. The number of fools and idiots, nuts, and fruitcakes who believe the nonsense listed above are deserving of a strong suggestion that they not reproduce, for all our sakes.
That is generally how Americans regard idiocy.
Then we have the flavorful retarded rodeo clowns who run around screaming and hissing about repairing American relations around the world. One presidential candidate said they would immediately send two former presidents on a round-the-world tour to tell the world we are back (and open for business I presume) and work very hard to repair relations with all the nations of the world that have, for seven or eight years been trampled upon. I assume that also means the Lincoln Bedroom is back up for sale.
A wise owl would ask - who are these nations we must repair relations with. Anyone who does not ask that question is neither wise nor very useful, instead they play to rhetoric and the retarded rodeo clown mentality (aka Jerry Springer guests).
So who are they, these esteemed nations we must work so hard to rebuild relations with ???
Today we work on Egypt, tomorrow, the rest of the world:
We give to Egypt on average of 2.5-3 billion dollars a year in aid. This aid, whether called a bribe or suggested as to be a bribe, is intended for the government of Egypt to use to help the people of Egypt and indirectly, increase our likability factor among the masses who should benefit from our donations. Color it whatever way you wish - International Aid intended to be used for global warming centers or homeless shelters - doesn't matter - it comes out the same - it is our way of making nice and 2.5-3 billion should get some nice out of it. We get none that is or would be discernible by the average middle-earther.
A population that believes (73-80%) no Arab, no Egyptian, no Muslim male took part in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Over 90% of the conspiracy believers believe THE Mohammad Atta is still alive and in hiding for his life.
A population swept up in believing that the Protocol of the Elders of Zion was actually real, and have a myth spun around the fabrication to offer up a goodly story - that the Holocaust did not occur.
A population that believes (78-90%) that Israel is sending prostitutes into Egypt and or the West Bank (which in some stories becomes interchangeable) with AIDS in order to infect Egyptian men. A population that believes Israel causes earthquakes and does so to wreak havoc on the world in their grand design for controlling the planet.
A population that believes (92%) that Israel is an enemy of their state, with a majority believing Denmark is also an enemy of their state.
What can you say about a population (60-80%) who are in denial about the most fundamental of issues? How do you discuss anything with them? When their intelligence services believe the same lies the retarded rodeo clowns on the street believe - how do you converse with these people?
Surely not by the news - they believe that the Jews and America control Al jazeera - reason: to give a bad image of Arabs to the world.
That Jews steal body parts from Palestinian children. (Not easy to do - they are busy using the blood of Christian babies in their pastries - they don't have time to be gouging out eyes from palestinian children, most of whom are armed and dangerous unlike their Christian counterparts).
What do you make of a population that believes the Jews killed Yasser. Hard to do - he died of AIDs complications from all the little boys he molested.
When the Achille Laurel was hijacked - what did Mubarek do? The ship docked and the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, hijackers of the ship, were given an escort off the ship and away to freedom (for some). What about the passengers - they spent hours being grilled by retarded rodeo clowns - also known as Egyptian security police. I believe they were still being grilled when the Egyptian airline carrying the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer was forced down by US airforce F-18s hours later, in Greece.
What can you say to these people and why do you want to bend over for them - the best they deserve is to be treated as they treat everyone else. That's my new rule - treat them as they would treat us. I read accounts by scores of passengers on their treatment at the hands, not of the murderers, but the Egyptian Security police.
Finally, October 31, 1999 - Egypt Air Flight 990 crashed into the Atlantic killing 217 people on board. The Boeing 767 made a 40 degree dive with the engines shut off. After an exhaustive investigation, the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) concluded that it was a deliberate act on the part of the Co-Pilot. Planes can withstand 5 degrees or a 10 degree dive or climb, but a 40 degree dive, engines shut off would have created a speed close to 700 mph, 86% the speed of sound - the plane would have come apart as it sped toward the ocean/cement. The black box found provided tape recordings - the pilot gets up to the bathroom and leaves the cockpit under the control of the copilot. While the pilot is away, the copilot begins to recite prayers before turning the plane into a descent. Then the engines were shut off. The pilot makes it back and is screaming at the copilot - what are you doing, what did you do. The copilot ignores his screams and holds the controls pointing the plane toward the ocean cement fast approaching.
End of facts.
Egyptians blame Boeing. they say the co-pilot has a daughter who needed medical treatments he would bring back from the US on his flights. He would never do such a thing and leave his daughter, nor would he do something so unIslamic. The NTSB conclusions must be fabricated and a lie - Egyptians are convinced the NTSB covered up the crash and blamed it on the poor co-pilot. The percent who believe this, according to the polls - 93% of those polled believe it was a cover up by the NTSB and Boeing was responsible.
The logic - Boeing didn't want to be responsible so they paid the NTSB off and the US government to protect Boeing from bad headlines in the press.
I ask again - how do you converse with people whose national identity is one of conspiracy and fear. What on earth do they do with the billions we provide them? Surely it is not used to develop an educated populace for it has failed.
Everything is a conspiracy with them. If it isn't, that is a conspiracy. If it isn't the Jews it has to be the Americans.
They should be very concerned about how and what we think of them.
Yet, we have a few people who fell out of the stupid tree, hitting every branch on the way down, who believe we need to rebuild relations with the world.
Iraq - their government and people should, if they are rational and at all reasonable, be very very appreciative of everything the US has done for them and there is NOTHING on earth we can do better to make them like us any more.
Afghanistan - this is another Iraq issue - there is nothing we can do in Afghanistan that will make them like us one iota more that we have not done or given or do every day. Our blood has been shed for them and many understand that. No hugging by Obama or Edwards or Clinton, Biden, Kennedy, Richardson will change anything in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Thus far - Pakistan and Egypt have been sorted as has Iraq and Afghanistan.
In later episodes we will sort out the other 180 odd countries, one at a time so even the retarded rodeo clowns can follow.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
We have many opinions in this country on every subject. We also, a few, watch Jerry Springer, and maybe a few still believe Elvis is alive, UFOs fly our friendly skies, bigfoot, creatures from middle earth transforming into what appears to be earthlings, all the way over the ledge with the 9/11 conspiracies. We do have our share of fruitcakes, nuts, fools, idiots, and retarded rodeo clowns, BUT that number, of the whole, is insignificant statistically. 1% or 2% of a population at any given time is irrelevant as to what their opinions are and we tend, generally, as Americans, to be middle-of-the-roaders (not to be mistaken for middle -earthers although the US is or could be in the middle of the earth depending on ones perspective. The number of fools and idiots, nuts, and fruitcakes who believe the nonsense listed above are deserving of a strong suggestion that they not reproduce, for all our sakes.
That is generally how Americans regard idiocy.
Then we have the flavorful retarded rodeo clowns who run around screaming and hissing about repairing American relations around the world. One presidential candidate said they would immediately send two former presidents on a round-the-world tour to tell the world we are back (and open for business I presume) and work very hard to repair relations with all the nations of the world that have, for seven or eight years been trampled upon. One of those candidates suggested that we "U.S divert aid away from its military to social welfare programs."
Hmmm. The fool who should never be permitted near senate hearings and especially not near the WH again knows full well what I will explicate in the following sentences in an especially humorous fictional dialogue: Her: Yes, Mushie, we are a bit concerned about your stance on human rights and murder so the money we normally send to you we want spent on social programs only or we won't send it to you. Do you accept this condition? Mushie: We of course will do whatever your majesty thinks we should because we wish to rebuild relations and telling us, placing conditions on things is the most naturally friendly thing one friend can do to another.
Mushie then calls his aide in to the office. Mushie: Aide, How much do we get from the US now? Aide: Give or take, nearly three quarters of a billion. How much is military? Aide: About 1/2. Mushie: Ok, divert 400 million from social programs to our military programs effective the day we get the funding from the US.
Mushie to HRH: Madam, of course we accept the condition, we will only use money to help and we understand the seriousness.
A wise owl would ask - who are these nations we must repair relations with. Anyone who does not ask that question is neither wise nor very useful, instead they play to rhetoric and the retarded rodeo clown mentality (aka Jerry Springer guests).
So who are they, these esteemed nations we must work so hard to rebuild relations with???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Today we work on Pakistan, tomorrow the world:
It goes without question as to the facts. On December 27, 2007, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto died in the city Rawalpindi after a campaign speech. A man then blew himself up and in the process, up to twenty individuals may have been killed.
End of facts.
Instinct - Al Qaida.
Truth - unlikely but always remains a possibility.
The problem is the government, doctors, army, investigators ... pretty much, the problem is everyone.
My simple chronology - Someone wanted Bhutto dead. While Al Qaida would be the first suspect, they have denied involvement. Why does that matter - because Al Qaida NEVER denies when it does something. In over six years, Al Qaida never once denied its involvement in the attacks of Sepetember 11. It never denied the attacks in Spain or London. They take credit when they commit an act - it is honorable and respectable. To deny what one has done is to deny ones faith for one acted on ones belief, to then deny it, would be to deny ones faith. It is not that I do not think every al qaida member should die a most painful death and spend eternity in hell with Jeffrey Dahlmer, but I do not disbelieve them when they say something. Much different than when the pakistani government says anything.
So Al Qaida did not kill her, they may be happy a pro-US very likely next Prime Minister of Pakistan is dead, but they didn't do it. The most likely suspects, those who benefit, those most afraid - the government/military.
So - the government / military recruit someone, maybe a retarded rodeo clown who believes he is saving Pakistan, shoots Bhutto twice, misses once, then detonates a bomb on his body. The bomb has the effect of leaving no evidence, given the twenty or so people whose DNA is spread all over the area mixed with the killers DNA. Given who it is looking into this murder, they will never figure out what DNA even is let alone who belongs to what DNA.
Immediately we were told she had been shot once in the abdomen and once in the neck.
Bhutto was immediately taken to a hospital where the best and brightest of Pakistani medicine attempted to save her life conducting several procedures to save her life. The chief medical doctor stated categorically that Bhutto had not been shot, but rather she had been killed by shrapnel from the suicide bomber.
So follow the path: a guy starts shooting, none hit Bhutto, after shot 1 and 2, she ducks. Shot three, then detonation. While she is ducking into car, the third shot, then detonation and she is hit with sharpnel BUT NO ONE ELSE in the car is injured. yep. Makes sense to me !!
(Image from REUTERS/Dawn TV via Reuters TV (PAKISTAN) PAKISTAN OUT. EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS.)
The next day, we are told she died from bumping her head on a sun roof lever.
Brigadier Cheema said: "We gave you absolute facts... corroborated by the doctors' report."
We wait around long enough and the video appears with the bullet shots. Wait longer and the people in the car will tell us as they did the same day that their car was covered in blood as was the vehicle behind them and all the people in the car .... from a bump on her head!
We then heard from the government that they intercepted a secret message from al qaida, admitting to the crime, then al qaida denied it publicly ... then we hear from the person/s who cleaned Bhutto's body for burial ... bullet wounds, hole in her head, entrance and exit wounds, huge holes.
But the government - "We gave you absolute facts... corroborated by the doctors' report."
The government says a gunman fired three shots that missed the opposition leader, before blowing himself up. It says Ms. Bhutto died after the force of the blast caused her to hit her head against the lever on the sunroof of her car.
Pakistan's Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Cheema says Benazir Bhutto was killed after smashing her head on her car's sunroof while trying to duck, and that no bullet or shrapnel was found inside her during a press conference in Islamabad, 28 Dec 2007
A surgeon who treated her, Dr Mussadiq Khan, said earlier she may have died from a shrapnel wound.
On Friday, Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Cheema told journalists the assailant was from al-Qaida, and the terrorist group was bent on destroying the nation.
"We have irrefutable evidence that al-Qaida, its networks, and cohorts are trying to destabilize Pakistan which is in the forefront of the war against terrorism," said Cheema.
Al qaida denied any involvement.
Not that irrefutable evidence is given by spectators, but
One of the most direct reports has come from Getty picture agency photographer John Moore, who had been covering the rally all day.
As he was preparing to leave, he told the London newspaper The Guardian, he was "shocked" to notice that Ms Bhutto was standing out of her car's sunroof waving to supporters as her vehicle slowly pushed its way through the crowds.
He continued: "As this happened, I was aware of Bhutto ducking back into the car and heard at least two gunshots. I picked up my camera unaware of exactly what was happening.
Another eyewitness - also unnamed - was even closer: "We were standing right in front of her. In that instant a young man, fair, about 20 to 21 years of age, he fired a Kalashnikov aiming at BB [Bhutto].
"This was the best we could do," he added. "There were four other people travelling with her in the same vehicle... if she had stayed down she would be safe, as all four of them are absolutely scratch-free.
This did not convince some of her aides at the scene, who said she died from two bullet wounds. Meanwhile, a surgeon who treated her believed she had died from the impact of shrapnel to her head.
"There was a clear bullet wound at the back of the neck. It went in one direction and came out another... My entire car is coated with her blood, my clothes, everybody - so she did not concuss her head against the sun roof."
Citing what it said was an intercepted phone call, the interior ministry said Benazir Bhutto's killing had been ordered by an "al-Qaeda leader", Baitullah Mehsud.
Brigadier Cheema said: "We gave you absolute facts... corroborated by the doctors' report."
On 12/31 on CNN, Athar Minallah, who serves on the board that manages Rawalpindi General Hospital made an interesting statement / observation: There is a state within the state, and that state within the state does not want itself to be held accountable.
Who and what this state is, is quite interesting and well worth outsiders reading up on - including the daft Michael Moore and other useless idiots on the left.
Liars, thieves, murderers.
My question, so oft asked - why do some fools in this country care what the rest of the world thinks of US on any subject? The rest of the world should be concerned with what we think of them, not the other way around.
(This was updated 12/31)
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The website to see the video - if you have not already seen it on over 3000 movie screens, go and check it out.
3 Doors Down.
Monday, December 17, 2007
According to an article from Mon Dec 17, 10:06 AM ET:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The size of China's economy is overestimated by some 40 percent based on most current measures, but is the world's second largest, the World Bank said Monday.
Poisoned dumplings, made in China, sent to Japan (March 2008)
They send us toys (NY Times article 11/11/07) with lead / posion, toothpaste that kills, pet food that killed pets, siding with the genocidaires in Sudan to prevent action against the murderers, blaming the US for global warming while they consume 1/3 of the steel, 1/2 the worlds concrete, every minute they burn up 2.5 thousand tons of coal (67% of China's energy comes from coal), 24 million watts, 210 thousand gallons of crude oil, and possess only 10% arable land. On top of this they are adding new hydro electric plants monthly. When people demonstrate against this government as they did azt the Pubugou dam, 100,000 people were dispersed by riot police with thousands arrested. No one in the West heard of such a demonstration and yet, if 100,000 people marched in London or DC, the world would be watching with bated breath for the other shoe to fall. Yet, the Xiluodu dam will displace at least 100,000 people ... and the West looks on as if this is an ideal state developing its industry without catastrophic failures in social, economic, cultural, political arenas.
We enable this tyranical government to continue its oppression and we do so pretending that democracy and capitalism will make them our friends.
They are not our friend. They are not an ally. They are a threat and if it is clear enough to many people without the resources available the governments of the world, who will they blame when it comes crashing down.
International Herald Tribune, November 18, 2007. Chinese dam projects critcized for their human cost.
International Herald Tribune, November 18, 2007. New Book on China Raises a storm.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
From plane flights to light bulbs - taxes to fight global warming. And who will be most impacted - the poor and middle classes. Al Bore will be able to continue his globe trotting, as will Google Billionaire, Microsoft Billionaire, John Kerry billionaire ... they will even have the cash left over for some light bulbs.
Based on what evidence should we enact a tax?
The evidence that exists all falls within a reasonable and statistical standard or norm for weather changes. No evidence exists to counter this. So based upon feeling, emotions, we should enact a world wide tax - impacting industrialized countries the most, and the US specifically - all because someone feels that a tax is warranted based on highly emotive language.
Listening to the world wide spokesman for global warming - El Nino weather is the evidence.
It has always appealed to me - direct world attention at an issue that is non-existent, or if it exists is within the norms of change - rather than toward issues of international importance and moral relevance - the genocides of Africa. If the UN got off its collective ass and acted with as much emotion (crying and banging on tables and podiums, held conventions and conferences around the globe) they might actually save one life rather than failing in Darfur and ignoring genocide when it occurs.
No moron, its one year from January 20 at noon. At January 20, 2009, 9 am PDT, George W. Bush turns over the keys to the office of the president to the next person.
Get it right. I suppose all they need is the election to make them feel better, but what happens dear whack jobs if in your wildest nightmares, a Republican wins and given one may drop out for a lovechild problem, another may lose all four primaries, and the third has as his biggest platform a TV talk show host, George W may well leave office, but it isn't until the 20th and not one second before.
While the Constitution places no restraints upon a president in the last months, it is unlikely during that time that a president would create foreign policy that would place his predecessor under any restrictions.
January 20, 2009, 9 am PDT and not one second earlier. THATS OFFICIAL.
The columnist goes on and on but he does point out that the 'glorius collapse of the evangelical Christina right marches on apace, as Pat Robertson, now a dejected, lonely widower after the death of secret boy-toy husband Jerry Falwell ..."
What I loathe about the left is they conduct themselves with a holier than thou attitude in their condemnation, condescension, and criticism of the evangelical right - and the main attack since the 70s, on the right has been their holier than though attitude on religious issues, of which the left cannot take the mantle given they have no moral platform.
It is lost on me - I hate you because you are a holier than thou son of a gun and I am better than you because I am more open and accomodating and more tolerant ... I simply make libelous statements about people and think it is witty.
You are actually worse than the evangelicals - much worse, because you hate, they do it for other reasons.
The columnist adds the eloquent statement of excising Bush and his policies like a malignant turmor ... widely spread tumors ... he must mean like Bill Clinton and his lies ... in the weeks during and after Bill's crimes and misdemeanors, many a score of people in ordinary life around America began using his lies and excuses in Court. Whether students, fathers, husbands, neighbors, or defendants - all began the long malignancy. That is after all what a malignancy is - it infects the culture and alters otherwise good or sane behavior and causes bad or painful behavior.
I wish people would put their rhetoric on the shelf and stop with the non-sequitors.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Sesame Street used to have, as part of its regular program, One of These Things is Not The Same as the others. They still have it, but not very often.
So, let's do the same with the following.
House Passes $50B Iraq Withdrawal Bill
Nov 15 03:12 PM US/EasternBy ANNE FLAHERTYAssociated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.
The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate—let alone overcome a presidential veto—Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren't giving up.
"The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option."
The White House pledged to veto the bill, and Republicans said they would back the president.
"These votes, like the dozens of previous failed votes, put the interests of radical interest groups ahead of the needs of our military and their mission," an administration statement said.
The bill represents about a quarter of the $196 billion Bush requested for combat operations in the 2008 budget year, which began Oct 1.
It would compel an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins in coming weeks to reverse the 30,000 troop buildup he ordered earlier this year. It also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and states that money included in the bill should be used to redeploy troops and "not to extend or prolong the war."
The measure also would set government-wide standards on interrogation, effectively barring the CIA from using such harsh techniques as waterboarding, which simulates drowning.
The bill was on shaky ground this week, after some liberal Democrats said they were concerned it was too soft and would not force Bush to end the war. Conservative Democrats said they thought it went too far and would tie the hands of military commanders.
The bill's prospects brightened somewhat after three leading anti-war Democrats announced they would support it. California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they had agreed to swing behind it because the bill explicitly states the money should be used to bring troops home.
But still uncertain the bill would pass, Pelosi on Wednesday delayed a vote by several hours while she met with supporters and asked them to help her round up votes.
Fifteen Democrats broke ranks and joined 188 Republicans in opposing the measure. Four Republicans joined 214 Democrats in supporting it.
Republicans fought bitterly against the timetable in the bill, as well as the restrictions on interrogations. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, his party's leader, said the bill would lead to "nothing other than failure."
Hours before the scheduled vote, the White House dispatched Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers on Iraq.
In one closed-door meeting, Gates urged a group of senators not to support the bill. He said the same lawmakers who criticized Pentagon civilians for previously ignoring the advice of its uniformed generals were asking him to ignore them now, according to an official who attended the meeting. The official requested anonymity because the meeting was private.
Similar legislation has passed repeatedly along party lines in the House only to sink in the Senate, where Democrats hold a razor-thin majority and 60 votes are needed to overcome procedural hurdles.
It is expected that if the measure fails in the Senate, Democrats will not consider Bush's war spending request until next year. Democrats say the military won't need the money until then and the Pentagon can transfer money from less urgent accounts or from spending set aside for the last three months of this year.
The Pentagon says moving money around is a bureaucratic nightmare that costs more in the long run. And if taken to the extreme, the military would eventually have to freeze contracts or lay off civilian workers to ensure troops in combat have what they need.
In another provision that drew White House opposition, the House bill would require that all government interrogators rely on the Army Field Manual. The manual is based on Geneva Convention standards and was updated in 2006 to specifically prohibit the military from using aggressive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.
The White House said in its statement that the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply to "captured terrorists who openly flout that law."
The bill also would require the president to certify to Congress 15 days in advance that a unit being sent into combat is "fully mission capable," although Bush could waive that requirement if necessary.
US Democrats slam Iraqi government
Nov 15 03:28 PM US/Eastern
Democratic leaders on Thursday warned the Iraqi government was locked in a stalemate, as they jockeyed for position ahead of another Senate showdown over Iraq war funding.
They also threatened Republicans with a rare weekend vote, after the start of the scheduled break for the Thanksgiving holiday, on a bill including troop withdrawal dates which cleared the House of Representatives Wednesday.
"Every place you go you hear about no progress being made in Iraq," said Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid.
"The government is stalemated today, as it was six months ago, as it was two years ago," Reid told reporters, warning US soldiers were caught in the middle of a civil war.
"It is not getting better, it is getting worse," he said.
Democrats are using perceived lack of reconciliation and political development by the Iraqi government to refute claims by Republicans that President George W. Bush's troop surge strategy has yielded concrete results.
The Senate was expected to start work on the 50 billion dollar emergency war funding bill by Friday, though the measure is considered dead on arrival due to Republican opposition.
President George W. Bush, who has repeatedly outmuscled Democrats attempting to tie his hands on the war, has threatened to veto the measure in the unlikely event it reaches his desk.
The emergency budget provides only four months of funding for the war, and only a 50 billion dollar chunk of the 196 billion dollars requested by Bush.
It calls for troop withdrawals to begin within 30 days and sets a goal of December 15, 2008, for the pullback of most combat troops to be completed, and outlaws the use of torture by US government agencies.
Should the bill, as expected, fail to pass, Democrats say they will not give Bush any more money this year for the war. That would force the Pentagon to dip into its regular budget to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The days are over when the money is sent no questions asked,, when the money is sent without a price," Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said.
And then this
November 15, 2007
Budget bills contain $20 billion in pork
It looks like Congress won’t even come close to giving up those irresistible earmarks. Citizens Against Government Waste, which closely monitors federal spending, is putting the finishing touches on its tally of pork projects in the pending spending bills — and the picture isn’t pretty.
The group estimates that there will be at least 8,000 earmarks this year, costing U.S. taxpayers, $18 billion to $20 billion. Democrats and Republicans alike had promised to curtail the practice of directing money to specific projects.
They have, but not nearly as dramatically as their campaign rhetoric had suggested. In the last fiscal year, when Republicans controlled Congress, there were $29 billion in total earmarks.
So Democrats can rightly claim they are reducing the practice, perhaps by as much as 33 percent, as Congress Daily’s Keith Koffler reported this afternoon.
Republicans will rightly claim they have put intense pressure on the Democratic Congress to eliminate many earmarks. Of course, the GOP argument is undercut by the explosion of earmarking when they ruled Congress. Koffler, who got an early look at the figures, reported that Defense bill was a huge magnet for earmarks. It included 2,074 projects, totally $6.6 billion.
Citizens Against Government Waste is basing its overall projections on a detailed examination of three spending bills, and applying the trend to the remaining appropriations bills.
and finally, this gem ...
Democrats Plan a Shorter Workweek
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — Shortly after winning a majority last year, Democrats triumphantly declared that they would put Congress back to work, promising an “end to the two-day workweek.” And indeed, the House has clocked more time in Washington this year than in any other session since 1995, when Republicans, newly in control, sought to make a similar point.
But 10 months into the session, with their legislative agenda often in gridlock with the Bush administration and a big election year looming, the Democrats are now planning a lighter schedule when the 110th Congress begins its second year in mid-January.
The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats this week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills.
Explaining that decision to reporters, Mr. Hoyer said, “I do intend to have more time for members to work in their districts and to be close to their families.”
His comments drew snickers from Republicans, who are quite happy to share their view that the American people did not get much value for all the extra time lawmakers spent in Washington.
“Is this a reward for our accomplishments in 2007?” asked Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip.
And on Friday, President Bush once again hammered Congressional Democrats, accusing them of failing to meet basic responsibilities like approving annual budget bills and confirming his nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey.
“This is not what Congressional leaders promised when they took control of Congress earlier this year,” Mr. Bush said. “Congress needs to keep their promise, to stop wasting time, and get essential work done on behalf of the American people.”
The Democrats, by contrast, say that after 10 months of putting in longer days and weeks, they have made significant gains. They cited legislation, including an increase in the minimum wage and new ethics and lobbying rules, as well as in the nitty-gritty work of House committees, which they say has provided much-needed oversight of the Bush administration and will also set the stage for an ambitious agenda next year.
And they blame Mr. Bush and Republicans for Congress’s low approval ratings, which they say will only help the Democrats expand their majority in 2008.
“Certainly, it has been a sprint and a marathon at the same time this year,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “We have accomplished a lot, especially on the domestic front.”
Mr. Van Hollen said he was not worried about Congress’s low approval ratings. “Every one of those polls also shows much stronger support for Democratic leadership than Republican leadership,” he said. “The president is lashing out because he recognizes that people see the White House as an obstacle to change.”
Still, Democrats conceded that the hectic pace had taken a toll, especially on lawmakers who must travel long distances home and who have small children. And members of Congress have not gotten a raise or cost-of-living increase this year.
On Wednesday, the House cast its one-thousandth roll-call vote of the year, the first time that it reached that mark since the Constitution was ratified. Democrats hailed the occasion, while Republicans sniped that only 106 of the votes were on bills ultimately signed into law, and that 45 of those bestowed names on post offices or other property.
“Unlike Congress, the American people do not mistake motion for progress,” said Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter, Republican of Michigan. “They want results. And given the approval ratings, they are certainly convinced they aren’t getting them.”
Mr. McCotter said changing the schedule was an example of Democrats’ breaking promises. “They said ‘five-day weeks,’ ” he said. And he scoffed at the notion that Mr. Hoyer was also responding to Republicans who wanted more time in their home districts.
“I wish he had that much concern and was as responsive to Republicans’ calls for input on major legislation,” Mr. McCotter said.
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, said the Democrats had to put in the hours to make up for Republican failings last year. “There was so much left undone by the 12 years of Republican control of the Congress, it was absolutely essential that we put our nose to the grindstone,” she said.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz has three children, 8-year-old twins and a 4-year-old. “It’s tough,” she said in a telephone interview from Orlando, where she had taken the children while she attended the Florida Democratic Convention there this weekend.
Mr. Blunt said he thought Democrats would regret this year’s schedule, which he said had distanced lawmakers from constituents.
Still, he said he and his colleagues would appreciate the Fridays out of session next year. “I would welcome, as I am sure all of our members would, a schedule that is more reflective of how the Congress should work,” Mr. Blunt said. “Rather than how it has worked in the last year.”
One of these things ... well, they are all like the other and proof we need grown ups, even if they are not the brightest bunch, in charge.
No sentient being living in the United States, Canada, or Europe missed an opportunity to know or be told, be made aware or knowledgeable about STDs and or pregnancy. No one who wanted to know or was able to learn or understand and comprehend, was unable to know/learn or comprehend the facts.
Yet, according to the AP, November 13, 2007 - US Sets Record in Sexual Disease Cases.
And do not say we need more education or more money.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
[MS GREENBERG - THE WOMAN AT THE CENTER OF THE CONTROVERSY]
Part of that article reads:
Ms. Greenberg said she decided to put up the sign in response to questions from players from other countries about American interrogation techniques, the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues.
“There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture,” Ms. Greenberg said. “I can’t tell you it was an overwhelming amount, but there were several specific comments, and there wasn’t the same warmth you usually feel at these events.”
Ms. Rosenberg said the team members intended the sign as a personal statement that demonstrated American values and noted that it was held up at the same time some team members were singing along to “The Star-Spangled Banner” and waving small American flags.
“Freedom to express dissent against our leaders has traditionally been a core American value,” she wrote by e-mail. “Unfortunately, the Bush brand of patriotism, where criticizing Bush means you are a traitor, seems to have penetrated a significant minority of U.S. bridge players.”
Not once in seven years has it been suggested that criticizing Bush meant you were a traitor - no sentient being has ever suggested anything like your statement Ms Greenberg. Not one. You are grabbing at straws and the easiest one is - the one every Democrat grabs - the questioning of patriotism.
It is similar to an argument between two siblings. One says: You did it. Automatically, the other child will say: Did not, you did. That is this knee-jerk response from losercrats. Blame it all on Bush.
Ms Greenberg, no one has questioned your patriotism, but it is clear you are a fool and more.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
AP: Saudi Prince Buying 'Flying palace' Jet
More than $300 million, 6000 sq ft, 13th richest person in the world.
Another reason we need to get off oil, quickly. They need all their oil to fly these monstrous greenhouse gas emitting machines!
Monday, November 12, 2007
Al-Qaeda Leader Abu Yahya Al-Liby: We Will Continue the Jihad until All the People in the World Submit to the Rule of Islam
Following are excerpts from a statement by Al-Queda Leader Abu Yahya Al-Liby, which aired on www.aekhlass.net in August 2007.
Al-Liby: Only a few years ago, America, which is one of the major evil-doers of this era, used to brag about its power and boast about its army and military equipment. Everyone was subjugated to it and surrendered to its decisions. Nobody criticized America or objected to it. They were all just begging and pleading, kissing the threshold of the White House and the shoes of its politicians. But today – where is America? Where are its power and hollow pomp? Whatever happened to the slogan: "You are either with us or against us"? Where are all the threats and warnings? Whatever happened to the vanity and arrogance of the American army and politicians? Whatever happened to the worth of the American soldier, to the killing of whom used to make headlines in all the media? Today, these soldiers are dragged through the streets of Baghdad, hung on the bridges of Fallujah, rolled on the rocks of Afghanistan, and burned to charcoal in the hear of its capital, Kabul. Nonetheless, reports of these matters go by unnoticed – if they receive any mention at all in the media, and are not considered marginal reports, unworthy of air time on news bulletins.
Al-Liby: We are not like those people who draw a distinction between types of Jihad – permitting and supporting it against the Jews in Palestine, and forbidding and preventing it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Algeria, and elsewhere. Jihad, which is the highest form of dissociation from non-Muslims, should be waged against the Jews, like it should be waged against the Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Hindus, and the apostates.
Al-Liby: We fight all the polytheists, just like they fight us all. We do not limit ourselves in this. We do not restrict ourselves to one type [of infidels] or to one region. This [Jihad] will continue until they all submit to the religion of Allah, yield to its laws, and surrender to its rule.
Al-Liby: Yes, we believe that the entire world must be ruled by Islam, and no grain of soil should be made an exception, because the Prophet Muhammad was sent to all people without exception. This does not mean, however, that we must fight all peoples of the world at once, in order to subject them to Islamic law. Islam did not command us to do so. Islam commanded us to fight the closest and then the next, from among the people who refuse to submit to the rule of Islam. We should move from the closest to the next, and widen the circle, until all people submit to the rule of Allah. We are now at the beginning of the road, when we try to regain the lands taken over by the infidels, from among the Jews, the Christians, their apostate supporters, and treacherous rulers.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Nov 11, 2007 11:39 AM (ET)
By PAMELA HESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.
Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.
Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.
The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering.
The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a court order between 2001 and 2007.
Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court permission.
The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of the bill will protect telecommunications companies.
The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.
Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.
I survive silly students, with a few days off. I can even manage poor driving skills demonstrated daily on the roadways and freeways in Los Angeles. What I find distressing is the above.
How much distress I have - a lot. Anger toward politicians, democrats, republicans, leaders, followers, intelligence, courts, the far left, left, moderates, academics, and not so academic. It didn't need to happen, but it has. It wasn't Bush alone, that drivel is for the left-wing nut bags who have the brains of a turtle, it was much more and it never needed to happen. For that I am most especially distressed with the ACLU and courts - heaven forbid we pick on someone, lest we pick on everyone equally. Well, that's where we are and we won't be moving back to a privacy based society. I am distressed at Republicans for allowing it, at conservatives for foolishly and wrongly telling their audiences that there has never really been any change and we haven't lost any freedoms.
I am very distressed by the willingness of the masses - Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Boxer, and the entire left wing, Soros, Move-On.org who feign passion for privacy and have put us smack dab in the middle of this bloody mess with foolish commentators telling us nothing has changed and not to be paranoid.
Imagine your little brother or sister, literally little as well as figuratively, comes running in to your room and says 'my little friend is bothering me, he's coming to beat me up' and you tell him that his little friend is small enough he can take care of by himself. he begs you to help and finally you relent and pull yourself up and walk outside while talking to your sibling (looking down) and asking him where his little friend is. He opens the door and replies 'in front of you' as you look up and see a 7 ft 425 lb giant in front of you with a fist coming at your chest.
In that one moment you realize you are screwed, out of luck, way over your head, and in deep trouble - then it hits you and you're unconscious. By the time you opened the door it was too late. Your realization was much too late.
The door is opened and only fools still tell us nothing has changed and not to worry.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
American Gangster has 3-4 times that many people.
The BEE MOVIE has 3 or so many times as many people.
FRED CLAUS beat Lions for Lambs (2x as much) and no one knows who is in Fred Claus. It has a budget of pennies compared to Lions. Whereas we all know the three stars of Lions - Tom (Alien) Cruise, Robert (I am always right) Redford, and Meryl (Alar) Streep.
An expensive film ($35 million with Cruise taking next to nothing for his role), in part filmed in two places of some note to me - about a mile from where I am and the auditorium at the university I attended. The surrounding areas where I live have nearly that many people (650,000) - it is a nothing number. In the end, it will do a little better, but the mold has been cast - it is a failure. In any case, this film is about to flame out and no film better deserved the crash and burn as Lions for Lambs. It could not have happened to three better actors and people.
To the three of them - stop pontificating, stop shoveling your views down our throats in our movies, just stop doing everything you are currently doing and instead - ACT. No acting is not a difficult endeavor after the first or second time. It is not a reflection on society, it does not require you to educate us. It requires you to do as you are told, make a film, entertain us, and go home and be quiet. When and if we want more, we will seek out those who know and it will not be you. Your job is to act - not to make moral / political statements and rarely do the moral statements succeed. The political films are even less likely when they are as flamboyant as your silly lions and lambs. It doesn't take much to catch the meaning of the title and less to figure out who is who and what your message is. Unfortunately for you the NYT, LAT, Chicago tribune, the entire Democratic party, George Soros, John Kerry, Hillary, Jimmy, and every other loser wanna be/has been has already made the point you now try to make to an audience that is fast asleep after so many efforts.
Dislike and disagreement for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are not signs the American people accept your premise nor should you believe it does. Opposing the failure does not equate with success in the theater, in our films. They are after all, our films - we pay a great deal to watch the crap - we pay for the film and everything to do with the film, they become our films. And we expect more than politically driven drivel.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Robinson informs his readers who have not been alive for the last seven years, that the polls all stand against Bush and his policies, and history will be very unkind to Bush.
Start Sidebar: I want a job at a major newspaper spouting off rhetoric and getting paid for my insight that is neither insightful nor useful and is as political and left leaning s Karl Rove is right leaning. End Sidebar.
What brilliance in his column, what insight from a scholar and historian. He defines the best in what we hope for in a reporter, columnist, editorial writer, and an American. I hope his pay check from Soros is large enough to cover his modest lifestyle.
While it may appear that Robinson is a hack for Soros or worse, while his writing is clearly picked up verbatim from a Soros memo, Robinson is not that ignorant - he is a purveyor of his political ideology at the expense of truth.
Here is my poll:
1. Do you believe the direction this country is heading in is positive?
2. Do you agree with the direction we are heading in (country)?
3. Do you think Congress is doing a good job?
4. Do you feel that Congress is doing the best it can?
5. Are Republicans acting like Republicans?
6. Do you support the Republicans in Congress?
7. Do you agree with Bush's position on immigration?
8. Do you agree with Bush's position on trade with Canada?
9. Do you agree with Bush's policy on trade with Mexico?
10. Do you believe the trade agreement with Central American countries will help us?
11. Do you accept Bush's argument in favor of our expanding debt as necessary for war spending?
12. Should we be spending $10-12 billion per month on the war?
13. Do you feel Bush had handled the Iraq war well?
14. Do you agree with bush's Iraq policy in supporting the Iraqi government when they go on vacation, cannot reconcile, troops are abandoning their posts, Americans are being killed, al qaida is still around, bin Laden has never been caught?
15. Do you think Republicans have handled their time in control of Congress well (until 2006)?
Now, a surprise - the answer to all those questions is NO. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.
That is it: 100% of those polled oppose Bush. He will go down in ignominy. He is hated. He is loathed. He has failed. Republicans will be wiped out in 2008.
That is Robinson's understanding of the polls.
The truth is more complicated and grown-up than that simple approach.
Bush will not go down in ignominy like Nixon. He will be remembered much better than Clinton by more people around the world. He will be considered a good president if not slightly more. It will take time. And Robinson will never realize how foolish his column was for he will be long gone.
A person who fully supports the basics of the Bush message, and the war, and a strong stand against people who wish to annihilate everything you believe in would also answer each of those questions with a NO.
Stupid questions that lead you to an answer. Grow up Eugene et al.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Someone mentioned to me that I interrogate with my questions in class, much like a lawyer. I felt bad, for the person and for others who feel similarly.
My response is, quite simply - I don't.
What I do is direct the question to get the answer or phrase I want or need.
We have 20 seconds to get an answer out and move on. If I asked a question that was, preferable, it would be open-ended and discussion would be free-flowing with an answer located somewhere in a long-winded monologue consuming ten minutes and never fully accomplishing anything I want to accomplish.
I need to direct the question and the answer - not because you do not have something useful to say, rather I do not have the time to figure out what it is you are trying to say and make any sense of it and accomplish that task in my lifetime.
I want 1-10 word answers and I would prefer the answer to be given promptly and not the time schedule for a long lost tribe that sleeps all day.
It has nothing to do with interrogation, it has to do with making a point. I can tell you the point and you can ignore it, or I can pose it in a question form and have you answer it, thereby making my point.
Monday, November 5, 2007
I was explaining, not an opinion, but an understood fact as to whole language and phonics, when a student begins making a hand gesture - the squawking hands, the hand gesture one makes for a puppet. It is true the nexus between the subject and the example was a struggle, it was none the less, my example and my class. That was not the issue, and instead, should have been a learning exercise for all.
Unfortunately, one student decided they did not learn to read using phonics and strongly disagreed with my assertion that all students can learn to read with phonics. I am sure some students can learn to read through osmosis while others learn to read through smoke rings, and others still learn to read by drawing pictures - all of which say nothing and is irrelevant to my point.
At a ripe age of maybe 18 or 19, the student knows more than I about the issue and has decided that their opinion invalidates my opinion (the hand gestures were the give away that they regarded what I had to say as an opinion). In fact, their opinion somehow supersedes mine in terms of authority - although I am always at a loss to understand this condition. The fact that the student would so boldly say aloud that it was just my opinion is another not so indirect way to make that point equally as clear.
First, can a student learn to read using whole language - yes. They are exceptional and the outlier - not the norm, usual, average. They are statistically, irrelevant. I also question whether they did indeed learn to read without phonics as that language tool was resurrected by the time the student was old enough to benefit from it. LAUSD reintegrated it in their education program by the early / mid 90s which would be just in time for our winning student to reap the benefit.
Second, to state as clearly as the student might utter their name, that it was my opinion as to the deficiencies of whole language is stupefying and it is on this point, I stop. The end of civilization.
The fact every study, every policy, every position, and the outcome of the failed system all prove me correct is a bit overwhelming. The fact the state of California along with every other state has reverted to another system and away from whole language as the functionary tool for a classroom to learn, is also, I suppose my opinion.
Had it been my opinion, every state and the federal government, and the educational system in Australia would not have reverted back and or away from whole language, if it was anything but an abysmal failure. Stupefying what substitutes for opinion now.
NEWS FLASH - A meteor 14 miles wide is hurtling toward earth and will impact in five minutes, killing hundreds of millions and sending the earth hurtling off into the sun, ending earths existence.
The mind-numbingly impertinent student would naturally respond with the wit and wisdom of their age - that is just your opinion.
In either case - the end of civilization.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
A l'Universite de Delaware, les 'Resident Assistants' subissent un programme d'entrainement dans lequel tous brins sont definis dans un de deux groupes : les racistes ou les racistes dans le dementi.
Les idiots sur le cote gauche de l'equation n'ont jamais compris le racisme jusqu'a ce qu'ils commencent a detruire leur propre philosophie et ils doivent commencer avec le francais.
It is so deeply held that it is not racism as much as a way of life. In considering the southern states through the 1860s, racism was palpable and one could sense it in words and expressions. Racism was very nearly a tangible thing throughout the early and mid 19th century in the US. It was never so tangible nor palpable in Europe yet it was more pervasive - then and now.
One may argue the US is racist and the US invades poor little countries whose inhabitants are merely peace loving families, while Europe stands ready to protect the down-trodden. While this is an exageration of the condition many believe and accept, it is a foolish pipe dream believed by those who are in the later stages of dementia.
We need to fix and repair and help - may seem inoculous enough, but is no more inoculous than the US position of invading and installing. In fact, it is intellectually more dishonest and as immoral or more, for it hides its true intentions and motivations in a cloak of goodwill.
The French may not even know how deeply racist they and their actions really are, but that is why we have the University of Delaware and other stellar instiututions - to let us know that there are les racistes ou les racistes dans le dementi.
Zoe's Ark does exactly what and for what reason? Why do they need to and who says they should, based upon what international law are they entitled.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
He is an idiot. He is also a dangerous idiot. He knows full well what he is suggesting and he knows the consequences of his action and he is ploughing ahead.
When I read about people like Ellison, or Harry " 'We have lost in Iraq' before the surge is complete and in place" Reid, or Hillary 'Doublespeak' Clinton, I am amazed at the temerity of anti-Bush people. We really must be on different planets, which does not bode well for the Republic (despite this concern being raised since the inception of the Republic).
The Examiner has an article from October 31, 2007, with Ellison's mind-numbingly stupid proposal.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
After all, such behavior would never occur among people who have any class, among people who speak well for Bush is the poster child for the antithesis of all that spoken language should not be. We expect our politicians and leaders to speak and make sense and Bush seems to mess it all up.
We all accept that, but why then does Hillary sound like a bat with a mouth full of cotton when she explained her position on an Iran vote as:
"In my view, rushing to war we should not be doing that but we shouldn't be doing nothing. And that means we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons, and the best way to prevent that is a full court press on the diplomatic front."
And that means exactly what? Distinguish that mumble jumble from Bush and his stumble mumble.
She had not had enough and spoke to the Boston Globe saying that she didn't "know what, if anything, would come from such negotiations, but I am confident that our failure to engage in them is a terrible miscalculation."
So for the sake of negotiation we should negotiate whether or not it is useful or accomplishes anything. We should just talk because talk is good regardless of outcome.
That is something to chew on. It is also not diplomatic nor is it smart nor is it useful and it is certainly not rational.
Unfortunately, the other dwarfs have let her get too far ahead and she is near unstoppable. Sad for the Democrats when 50% of the American people say they will never vote for her and she does not have all Democrats on board. Watch for her to win the nomination and take Obama on as VP. Gore will get an Ambassadorial position - UN or something equally as useful. Edwards could be offered a cabinet role and the whole dwarf factory is taken on board ship. Well, except Richardson who would not accept nor would he be offered. Possible Gore wouldn't accept - he walked behind one Clinton for eight years - unlikely to do it again EXCEPT the opportunity to get in the UN may be too great a whale to lose. Edwards - he may piss her off and find himself out in the cold. Obama has the VP slot and its all race all the time. She would never offer it otherwise - pandering before it even begins, that's Hillary.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Three characters: Bob, Sam, and John.
John parked his car and began walking toward the orchard.
In the orchard, Sam and Bob ran in to each other after many months of not speaking and Sam began ranting and raving about insane ideas - Sam was a follower of conspiracy theories and was explaining why September 11, 2001 was an inside job. he explained the roll Bush played, bin laden was really a puppet for Bush, that it was all fabricated to allow the US to invade a middle eastern country to seize its oil and ... and Sam kept going, explaining all the holes in the official story until finally, after twenty minutes, Bob interrupted him. At that moment John was making his way through the orchard and was in time to hear Bob exclaim: '...believe that Bush did it all, he caused it all to happen, he was the mastermind and it is all a fabrication, a lie, and Bush killed 3000 people to get gold and oil ..."
John stopped then continued forward into the opening and Bob stopped in mid sentence, John believed it was because he was trying to hide or prevent anyone from hearing what he had previously been saying aloud. Bob dropped the conversation and began talking to John, telling him that he though Sam was a bit nutty.
When john got home he called Bob's wife and expressed his concern to her over Bob's erratic behavior. He told her that Bob was trying to cover things up and if he was covering up wacko beliefs, who knows what else he was trying to hide.
I thought that was a reasonably interesting story. My thoughts on it are - John should immediately apologize for being an idiot, for wasting another persons precious time, for being so childish and foolish and for appearing so to everyone. Then John should cease being annoying and make every effort to not annoy anyone ever again.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
After watching several social-dramas / love stories on HBO or On-Demand, a few points become clear.
For whatever it is worth, the following gets added because, believe it or not, in some form or another, it is relevant.
Sexy is honesty. Sexy is truth. Sexy is direct and straight forward answers. Sexy is being considerate and treating others with respect.
It is not very passionate - granted. It is not exciting - granted. It is healthy. It is better for you and will bring you more happiness than all the rest of that crap combined.
Playing games, lies, obfuscation, half truths, refusing to answer questions, indirect and vague answers - NOT sexy. In fact, people who make it a habit to do more than one of the above listed deserve ignominy. I understand public ridicule may be a little extreme for someone who tells half truths, but (generalizing here) they are most likely to do more than just one hence the satisfaction of my requirement for ignominy.
It has nothing to do with the physical age of the person - that behavior is learned and it is unhealthy to get involved with those people. My suggestion - listen to them, talk to them, and put off ever being alone with them for fear they could turn mad as a hatter. Never let them know you will never meet them anywhere except at church and in public with hundreds of people around. Never let on because they will become easily offended and call you a hypocrite or worse.
Do not waste time on such people. Walk on the other side of the street when you see them. If Catholic, make the sign of the cross to ward off evil tendencies that may creep your way. Do not try to fix them or accept them - simply let them go off and drown in their miserable lives.
It may not seem that they are miserable BUT in most cases they are even if by all appearances the facade they show everyone is anything but unhappy.
Only they can help themselves and until they realize that games and lies will never make them happy nor will it attract the right people to them, until then - let them drown. The day will come when most of them will wake up - they may be too old, or used up, or thrown away, but many do wake up. You are permitted to pray they wake up sooner than later.
When they grow up (and I do not mean their physical age) be willing to give them the chance to prove it.
Some indications they have grown up:
1) they will not raise the names of people from their past.
2) they will not place demands on you, if they do not meet the smallest requirements you have asked of them (call on the phone or be willing to acknowledge feelings or mistakes)
3) when plans are mentioned, they keep their word or contact you when they cannot.
Those 3 points would be a start. Even if they get offended and claim you are at fault consider the following: if you have analyzed your comments and actions, perhaps consulted with 1-2 people, and provided them with the comments and consulted them for opinions, and if after all of that you seem to be the one who is less of a problem - stick to your requirements and do not give in. They may huff and puff and hiss - let them and say goodbye. One day if they are honest with themselves, they will understand what happened and will return and apologize. Until then you really do not need them near you. All of the above suggestions DO NOT MEAN, INTIMATE, SUGGEST, IMPLY, CONNOTE that you are not madly head over heels for them and may always be - rather - you do what you do because you must, for your own sanity.
Let them be angry, calm down, and get back to you when they feel better - or switch channels.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
This is one of those cases.
In 2004, 2005, 2006, we, the people, heard from many Democrats, talk of impeaching Bush. These Democrats ranged from the far left (Moveon / Soros) to the left (Feingold), and more moderates who refused to comment but left the idea blowing in the wind.
Liars, scaliwags, and scoundrels.
No rational, thinking person believes Bush can be impeached. No member of Congress believes he could be. No member of congress believes he committed any crime, at any time - other than to have humiliated the democratic party since 2000.
EVERY word from the mouths of any congressman is rhetoric at best and slander/libel ... but for a few perks Congress has that you do not. No right-minded member of conrgess believes impeachment is deserved, would or could be done or should be done - anyone who has said anything to the contrary is a liar or an idiot.
An idiot - they do not understand, never paid any attention, and are undeserving of the position they were elected to.
A liar - if they say anything inciting the idiotic notion of impeachment and know the truth.
I believe they are liars. Pathetic pathological liars who do greater damage to our social and political system than any good they have done or will ever do.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
They may as well surrender now. What was it the French were called - Cheese Eating, Wine Swilling Surrender Monkeys.
The WP should change its name.