It would be nice if the positive news outweighed the negative, but you know, we live on the planet Earth, so it'll be a while until that happens.
Roots of a False Confession. Stories like this are the reason that torture, and the threat of torture, do NOT work. It will be interesting to see what happens if this case actually ends up in front of a jury. Odd how there was absolutely no evidence against this guy (what the FBI had on him was discovered to be based on false testimony), yet an interrogator was still able to procure a confession. Why would he confess to something like this unless what he says is true, and he was made to think that himself and his family were in grave danger of being tortured by Egyptian security forces?
The Boss Has His New CD Banned By Clear Channel. Seems there's quite a bit of anti-war material on the disk. Could that have something to do with why the #1 CD in the country is being banned from major radio play?
Hillary Clinton Served on Wal-Mart Board from '86-'92. No matter what type of spin they try to put on this, it has to count as a strike against Hillary.
Cross dressing? Sex with male prostitutes? Just another day in the life of a homo-hating GOP state rep.
Harry Reid Admits he Could Block War Funding, but He Won't. Is this really what we voted the Democrats in to accomplish? Reid and Nancy Pelosi are doing a horrible job for us, and they're making the Democratic party look ridiculously weak.
Once Again, UN Asks USA to Stop Cuban Embargo. But guess who's not listening (just like the last 15 times)? It is absolutely ridiculous to see the US claim that Cuba has an "internal embargo on freedom." What a phrase...
Waxman Asks White House to Turn Over 600 Pages of Documents Relating to Abramoff. One guess as to what the answer will be.
Warren Buffet Says Himself and other Rich People Should Pay More Taxes. I don't see what the problem with that would be. All he seems to be asking for is that the percentages be equal among all Americans. Yes, he pays an astronomical amount more in actual money than his secretary, but the point is that he pays a 17% tax while those making literally millions of dollars less than himself are paying 30% or more, and the less you make, the more a higher tax percentage hurts. The commerce departments' rebuttal does not take this in to account; they look only at the actual revenue dollars, which has been the excuse of the rich for years now. Personally, I don't give two shits how much money you make, I think that we should all pay the same percentage in income taxes. Actually, I don't think we should have to pay an illegal and unconstitutional tax on our labor, but that's a story for another day.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
When Politicians Aren't Doing What We Want, Why Not Make a Change?
In recent political conversations that I've had with friends and members of my family, I've tried to bring up the notion of a "fringe" candidate (Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich) having a chance to win the next Presidential election, and the uniform response is "There's no chance." They're all enamored with the "front runners" (it's funny, because the difference between "fringe" and "front runner" really has nothing to do with views, leadership or credibility and everything to do with "electability" and mass media support, yet I digress), people like Clinton, Obama, Giuliani and all the other candidates who will keep us on the same basic course we've been on for the last 40+ years.
It's odd though. These same friends and family, along with countless other people around the country, express their hearty discontent with how the government is run, yet they will not open their eyes and see the fact that what is needed is a change in the core of our government's operations and values, not just another meaningless change in the figurehead leading the party of their choosing. If you're a Democrat, do you really think just getting a Democrat elected is going to change anything? Statements by Obama and Clinton, as well as every other Democratic "front runner" say otherwise. Yes, yes, they all say they're against the war in Iraq, but none of them will commit to an immediate pull-out (the old "Well, since we're already there..." justification) or condemn possible military action against Iran. On the Republican side, do you really think a guy like Giuliani or the laughable Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will do anything to restore the prestige of America or the GOP? If you do, you're lying to yourself or you're uninformed.
Just look at our recent past and ask yourself if you would like it to continue in this manner. Before Bush, who is the worst President in the history of America, we had Clinton. Republicans hated Clinton and Democrats loved him, but outside of presiding over a relatively docile and inordinately prosperous 8 years, he didn't do much, and he certainly didn't do anything revolutionary. Before Clinton we had Bush the 1st, who Democrats hated and many Republicans also hated, and who in a somewhat surreal action considering what happened with his son, lied us in to a war with Iraq while also lying about many, many other subjects and actions. Before that we had Reagan, who is somehow held up as the most recent beacon of Republican success (though the Democrats hated him), when in fact he did nothing to advance us as a society besides wasting billions of dollars and trying empire-style nation building in Central/South American and the Middle East. Jimmy Carter was before Reagan, and while he did OK (though most Republicans hated him), he happened to preside over the Energy Crisis, and frankly I'm more impressed with what he's done since he left office than with anything he did while holding the position. Before that we had Gerald Ford (nobody really liked him that much), who was the first person never actually elected to either office to hold both the office of Vice President and President. He took over the VP spot after Spiro Agnew resigned in shame in 1973, then moved up to President when Nixon resigned in shame in 1974. He then pardoned Nixon, one of the biggest bastards in American political history, and after that basically did nothing for the rest of his presidency. Obviously before that was the aforementioned Nixon, (Democrats hated him but many Republicans loved him, at least at first) who has the distinguished honor of being the only President (so far) to resign from office under a cloud of corruption and shame. Nixon took over for Lyndon Johnson, a "Democrat" who was one of the most hawkish men ever to claim that title, whose most prominent political action was to lie us in to escalating the Vietnam war.
And that brings us to John F. Kennedy, the last president who ever really seemed to be leading America in the right direction, but I'll digress for a moment to address the last paragraph. Did you see how we came full circle (even though it was a DAMNED small circle), from a President who lied us in to an illegal war in Vietnam to a President who lied us in to an illegal war in Iraq (aka Vietnam II)? 40 years and 8 Presidents ago, we sat on the cusp of monumental political and social change, but after JFK's assassination, we have slogged along with a laundry list of Presidents who, though they spew varied rhetoric and claim to be from different parties, have not done much to diverge us off the downward spiral we've been on, economically and socially, since the early 60's.
Do you see a pattern here? Neither side EVER likes the other side's candidate, and once whoever it is wins the election, they NEVER really follow their "campaign promises," and we've slowly seen our economy and American dollar falter and waste away, while our social policies and programs have made only marginal (if any) progress considering how long it's been. Is this the legacy handed down to us by our Founding Fathers and their greatest achievement, the Constitution of the United States of America? Did they envision a fiercely divided and partisan nation in which there was plutocratic rule and stagnant societal advancement? If you take a look at that document, it certainly doesn't appear to be so.
My question to the general public is the one that appears as the title to this post. Everyone on both sides of the table always bitches about how the President (whatever party he represents) doesn't get it done for the nation and doesn't follow up on his campaign promises, yet they are never willing to consider a "fringe" candidate who has always stuck to his guns on the issues, and who has been right about so many of them, such as Paul, Kucinich or even Mike Gravel. So, my question again, is why not bring in someone who doesn't just parrot on about the general issues of the day, always telling people what they want to hear but never actually doing anything about it; someone who can actually back up what they say with a consistent voting record and a consistent record of actually being RIGHT on the issues? I know change is scary, but consider that question, and if you have time, take a look at what Kucinich and Paul have to say on many of these issues:
Paul at the 1st GOP Presidential Debate
Paul at the most recent GOP Presidential Debate:
Kucinich at the Democratic Presidential Debate in South Carolina
(Look how Hilary just stares daggers at him):
Kucinich at the Democratic Presidential Debate on 8/7/07:
These guys know what they are talking about, they've been talking about it for a LONG time, and they don't stray from their ideas and convictions. Though they clash on some issues, they both have the right idea about what is right for America overall. PAY ATTENTION. The next 8 years will be paramount in American history, and we as a people need to make the right decision as to who will lead us. Ignore what the mass media spoon feeds to you and look at what the individual candidates have to say, how they say it, and why they say it. Please?
It's odd though. These same friends and family, along with countless other people around the country, express their hearty discontent with how the government is run, yet they will not open their eyes and see the fact that what is needed is a change in the core of our government's operations and values, not just another meaningless change in the figurehead leading the party of their choosing. If you're a Democrat, do you really think just getting a Democrat elected is going to change anything? Statements by Obama and Clinton, as well as every other Democratic "front runner" say otherwise. Yes, yes, they all say they're against the war in Iraq, but none of them will commit to an immediate pull-out (the old "Well, since we're already there..." justification) or condemn possible military action against Iran. On the Republican side, do you really think a guy like Giuliani or the laughable Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will do anything to restore the prestige of America or the GOP? If you do, you're lying to yourself or you're uninformed.
Just look at our recent past and ask yourself if you would like it to continue in this manner. Before Bush, who is the worst President in the history of America, we had Clinton. Republicans hated Clinton and Democrats loved him, but outside of presiding over a relatively docile and inordinately prosperous 8 years, he didn't do much, and he certainly didn't do anything revolutionary. Before Clinton we had Bush the 1st, who Democrats hated and many Republicans also hated, and who in a somewhat surreal action considering what happened with his son, lied us in to a war with Iraq while also lying about many, many other subjects and actions. Before that we had Reagan, who is somehow held up as the most recent beacon of Republican success (though the Democrats hated him), when in fact he did nothing to advance us as a society besides wasting billions of dollars and trying empire-style nation building in Central/South American and the Middle East. Jimmy Carter was before Reagan, and while he did OK (though most Republicans hated him), he happened to preside over the Energy Crisis, and frankly I'm more impressed with what he's done since he left office than with anything he did while holding the position. Before that we had Gerald Ford (nobody really liked him that much), who was the first person never actually elected to either office to hold both the office of Vice President and President. He took over the VP spot after Spiro Agnew resigned in shame in 1973, then moved up to President when Nixon resigned in shame in 1974. He then pardoned Nixon, one of the biggest bastards in American political history, and after that basically did nothing for the rest of his presidency. Obviously before that was the aforementioned Nixon, (Democrats hated him but many Republicans loved him, at least at first) who has the distinguished honor of being the only President (so far) to resign from office under a cloud of corruption and shame. Nixon took over for Lyndon Johnson, a "Democrat" who was one of the most hawkish men ever to claim that title, whose most prominent political action was to lie us in to escalating the Vietnam war.
And that brings us to John F. Kennedy, the last president who ever really seemed to be leading America in the right direction, but I'll digress for a moment to address the last paragraph. Did you see how we came full circle (even though it was a DAMNED small circle), from a President who lied us in to an illegal war in Vietnam to a President who lied us in to an illegal war in Iraq (aka Vietnam II)? 40 years and 8 Presidents ago, we sat on the cusp of monumental political and social change, but after JFK's assassination, we have slogged along with a laundry list of Presidents who, though they spew varied rhetoric and claim to be from different parties, have not done much to diverge us off the downward spiral we've been on, economically and socially, since the early 60's.
Do you see a pattern here? Neither side EVER likes the other side's candidate, and once whoever it is wins the election, they NEVER really follow their "campaign promises," and we've slowly seen our economy and American dollar falter and waste away, while our social policies and programs have made only marginal (if any) progress considering how long it's been. Is this the legacy handed down to us by our Founding Fathers and their greatest achievement, the Constitution of the United States of America? Did they envision a fiercely divided and partisan nation in which there was plutocratic rule and stagnant societal advancement? If you take a look at that document, it certainly doesn't appear to be so.
My question to the general public is the one that appears as the title to this post. Everyone on both sides of the table always bitches about how the President (whatever party he represents) doesn't get it done for the nation and doesn't follow up on his campaign promises, yet they are never willing to consider a "fringe" candidate who has always stuck to his guns on the issues, and who has been right about so many of them, such as Paul, Kucinich or even Mike Gravel. So, my question again, is why not bring in someone who doesn't just parrot on about the general issues of the day, always telling people what they want to hear but never actually doing anything about it; someone who can actually back up what they say with a consistent voting record and a consistent record of actually being RIGHT on the issues? I know change is scary, but consider that question, and if you have time, take a look at what Kucinich and Paul have to say on many of these issues:
Paul at the 1st GOP Presidential Debate
Paul at the most recent GOP Presidential Debate:
Kucinich at the Democratic Presidential Debate in South Carolina
(Look how Hilary just stares daggers at him):
Kucinich at the Democratic Presidential Debate on 8/7/07:
These guys know what they are talking about, they've been talking about it for a LONG time, and they don't stray from their ideas and convictions. Though they clash on some issues, they both have the right idea about what is right for America overall. PAY ATTENTION. The next 8 years will be paramount in American history, and we as a people need to make the right decision as to who will lead us. Ignore what the mass media spoon feeds to you and look at what the individual candidates have to say, how they say it, and why they say it. Please?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
George W. Bush Warns of World War III
Can this really have happened? Is it possible that the President of the United States of America, after recently comparing Iraq to Vietnam ("Uhhh...We shouldn't have left there either!), has now openly mentioned a possible World War III if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon? I mean, not that we have any proven evidence of what they're doing, but you know, if we've gotta' nuke their asses we've gotta' nuke their asses....Right?
Is that our mentality these days?
I mean, really now, let's ramp up for World War III while we've still got Vietnam II on the front burner! That certainly sounds like a great idea. And while we're at it, how about a Cold War II? We're about 3/4 of the way there already. By God, it's brilliant! Let's make it a threesome! Not only will it allow us to take an even more gigantic stake in the Middle Eastern Oil businness, but we can also eliminate troops complaints about always having to leave home to go back to Iraq by constantly shuttling them between Iran and Iraq every 12 months (change of scenery ALWAYS helps) and finally we can also bring back the specter of Russia, allowing us to spend even more astronomical amounts of money on the Military-Industrial Complex while simultaneously reducing our own civil liberties in the wake of a new Red Scare! Rush Limbaugh and his ilk must be absolutely hyperventilating at the possibilities.
Now, back to the news at hand. Can you believe that we take things like the fact that "Condoleeza Rice recently asserted that Iran was lying to United Nations inspectors," at face value? No backup for those "assertions," by the way. UN Inspectors don't seem to think they're being lied to (they actually think we're lying about it), Russia does not believe Iran is lying (don't forget, they still have a massive intelligence community that is nearly as advanced as our own (thank Cold War I for that) if not equal, and yet somehow our allegations are all we need to justify launching another war of aggression? Have we forgotten how well that worked the first time? (It turned in to Vietnam II, remember?)
And to finish with something sad-but-humorous (which obviously holds great appeal to the cynical mind), see Bush saying "In terms of whether or not it’s possible to reprogram the kind of basic Russian DNA, which is a centralized authority, that’s hard to do," and wonder if he, or whoever is pulling the strings, is silently laughing at the thought of: "Yeah, just like it's hard to reprogram the kind of basic American DNA, which is rule by a thinly-veiled plutocracy! Gotcha, suckers!" Hmmmm, I just made myself sad.
Is that our mentality these days?
I mean, really now, let's ramp up for World War III while we've still got Vietnam II on the front burner! That certainly sounds like a great idea. And while we're at it, how about a Cold War II? We're about 3/4 of the way there already. By God, it's brilliant! Let's make it a threesome! Not only will it allow us to take an even more gigantic stake in the Middle Eastern Oil businness, but we can also eliminate troops complaints about always having to leave home to go back to Iraq by constantly shuttling them between Iran and Iraq every 12 months (change of scenery ALWAYS helps) and finally we can also bring back the specter of Russia, allowing us to spend even more astronomical amounts of money on the Military-Industrial Complex while simultaneously reducing our own civil liberties in the wake of a new Red Scare! Rush Limbaugh and his ilk must be absolutely hyperventilating at the possibilities.
Now, back to the news at hand. Can you believe that we take things like the fact that "Condoleeza Rice recently asserted that Iran was lying to United Nations inspectors," at face value? No backup for those "assertions," by the way. UN Inspectors don't seem to think they're being lied to (they actually think we're lying about it), Russia does not believe Iran is lying (don't forget, they still have a massive intelligence community that is nearly as advanced as our own (thank Cold War I for that) if not equal, and yet somehow our allegations are all we need to justify launching another war of aggression? Have we forgotten how well that worked the first time? (It turned in to Vietnam II, remember?)
And to finish with something sad-but-humorous (which obviously holds great appeal to the cynical mind), see Bush saying "In terms of whether or not it’s possible to reprogram the kind of basic Russian DNA, which is a centralized authority, that’s hard to do," and wonder if he, or whoever is pulling the strings, is silently laughing at the thought of: "Yeah, just like it's hard to reprogram the kind of basic American DNA, which is rule by a thinly-veiled plutocracy! Gotcha, suckers!" Hmmmm, I just made myself sad.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
More Articles
While I wait for the inspiration to actually write something...
"Second Earth" found? From what I know about Astronomy, this certainly sounds like the planet most likely to support life that we've found so far. Now all we need to do is develop that warp speed propulsion drive.
The Democrats showed the tiniest amount of balls possible in this recent stare down with President Bush. Don't get excited though, this means nothing when we still have people like Nancy Pelosi saying that war protesting (when it brings any anti-democratic sentiment) is "a waste of time," and also "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment." Oh and lest we forget, she even pulled out one right from the George W. Bush playbook, responding to a question about what her greatest mistake so far was, with: "Why don't you tell me? 'Cause I think we're doing just great." Well done, ma'am. The Speaker of the House, everybody! (And we wonder why nothing has changed with "Democrats" in "control" of the house and senate.)
How can the Daily Show continue to be the most accurate TV news source we have for what is really going on around here? I love the show, but I mean, really. Come on now. It's a comedy show! This is the kind of segment that should be shown on every major news channel, and perhaps would be if every major news channel wasn't just a tool of ultra-rich conglomerates trying to push their personal agendas.
Ron Paul continues to gain support. Let's stop the Buchanan comparisons though. Like, right now. And the whole "tinfoil hats" thing. That is just an invention of the media. An extremely diverse array of people support Ron Paul, and you can too. Listen to what he has to say, whether you lean left or right. I bet you'll be surprised.
"Second Earth" found? From what I know about Astronomy, this certainly sounds like the planet most likely to support life that we've found so far. Now all we need to do is develop that warp speed propulsion drive.
The Democrats showed the tiniest amount of balls possible in this recent stare down with President Bush. Don't get excited though, this means nothing when we still have people like Nancy Pelosi saying that war protesting (when it brings any anti-democratic sentiment) is "a waste of time," and also "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment." Oh and lest we forget, she even pulled out one right from the George W. Bush playbook, responding to a question about what her greatest mistake so far was, with: "Why don't you tell me? 'Cause I think we're doing just great." Well done, ma'am. The Speaker of the House, everybody! (And we wonder why nothing has changed with "Democrats" in "control" of the house and senate.)
How can the Daily Show continue to be the most accurate TV news source we have for what is really going on around here? I love the show, but I mean, really. Come on now. It's a comedy show! This is the kind of segment that should be shown on every major news channel, and perhaps would be if every major news channel wasn't just a tool of ultra-rich conglomerates trying to push their personal agendas.
Ron Paul continues to gain support. Let's stop the Buchanan comparisons though. Like, right now. And the whole "tinfoil hats" thing. That is just an invention of the media. An extremely diverse array of people support Ron Paul, and you can too. Listen to what he has to say, whether you lean left or right. I bet you'll be surprised.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
What's Going on Out There?
I don't pretend to understand much about calculus, but a recent discovery shows that during his lifetime, Greek mathematician Archimedes was working on principles that Newton and Leibniz wouldn't fully flesh out until 1900 years later. Talk about being ahead of your time. The whole "anonymous buyer" thing is kind of cool too, but that's really just a side note.
Rudy Giuliani just wants to be clear: The answer is 9/11.
"Just looking for a knife to cut this here tension."
Is Jurassic Park closer than we think? I didn't even know it was possible for soft tissue to exist for so long.
Ed and Elaine Brown were finally arrested, and if you don't know who they are that's just a great example of the mass media basically ignoring what perhaps should have been quite a story. And, if you see them as just a couple of no-good tax dodgers, do some research in to the legality of the Federal Income Tax and realize that you're wrong, and we're all getting screwed.
Here is the result of the politicization of the Justice Department under the rule of our current regime. Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, et al want exactly what is described in the article, and that is why we had the US Attorney firing scandal. The scary thing is, their methods are working.
Around the world in 13 years. Just an amazing story. What an experience it must have been.
Rudy Giuliani just wants to be clear: The answer is 9/11.
"Just looking for a knife to cut this here tension."
Is Jurassic Park closer than we think? I didn't even know it was possible for soft tissue to exist for so long.
Ed and Elaine Brown were finally arrested, and if you don't know who they are that's just a great example of the mass media basically ignoring what perhaps should have been quite a story. And, if you see them as just a couple of no-good tax dodgers, do some research in to the legality of the Federal Income Tax and realize that you're wrong, and we're all getting screwed.
Here is the result of the politicization of the Justice Department under the rule of our current regime. Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, et al want exactly what is described in the article, and that is why we had the US Attorney firing scandal. The scary thing is, their methods are working.
Around the world in 13 years. Just an amazing story. What an experience it must have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
