I Support Ron Paul!

Latest Photoblogs
Latest Podcasts
Podcast 4

Podcast 3

Podcast 2

Podcast 1


Latest victims
10/25/2014 at 12:42 AM
10/25/2014 at 12:27 AM
10/24/2014 at 11:25 PM
10/24/2014 at 09:24 PM

Independent Celebrity News and Gossip
Z's Toys Of The 80s
Captain Mike
My Friend's anti-Pike Industries blog
Jon & Jen
Ryan Widrig
Some cool pictures

October 1999 -
January 2000

February 2000 -
May 2000

May 2000
June 2000
September 2000
October 2000
November 2000
December 2000
January 2001
February 2001
February 2003
March 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
August 2006
September 2006
January 2007
March 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
July 2008
April 2009

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

blogKomm ... comments without popups



Visitor Map



Saturday, July 31, 2004

3:04:00 AM FREE IPOD!? YES!

I can't belive it buttttt-





And I thought it would never happen :) :) :).

It can happen to you too.. IF you signup: Click here to start. Once you get in you must sign up for a free offer (30 days of AOL, 14 days of access, whatever). Then once THAT is confirmed (or while thats being confirmed), you must get 5 OTHER (unfortunately at different addreses) to signup AND THEY must ALSO sign up for a free offer. Now, those people don't have to refer anyone else for YOU to get an ipod, but thats what it takes so far. If you have more questions, this page is a great resource.

Anyways just wanted to share that with you guys.. also check out the new DOOM 3 trailer! Its coming out THIS TUESDAY. OMG can't wait!

Current Mood: Wut, I got a free ipod, I'm fucking blissful as hell yo :)

Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati -

Post Reply
Monday, July 26, 2004

I'm not going to say anything about it-- because my fellow bloggers are already over the Democratic Convention- so if you want to see.. hell, *live* coverage from the few lucky bloggers that got to have a press pass to go cover the convention then you should check it out!.

So I guess I'll start out with some cute stuff and then we'll get into the not so cute stuff.

Whats that you say? You're not content with a Nintendo Gamecube and all the Nintendo emulators that you can get your hands on? What? You want an all in one system? Tadaa!-- some crazy dood took apart a NES, SNES, N64 and a Gamecube and threw em all in one box, along with a gameboy player for the Gamecube- and now he can play every game on every Nintendo system ever released in the US all in one box! Except Virtual Boy. Heh. And what about the Nintendo DS?!?!

Today after Google announced its starting stock price for the IPO, we also see news reports of Google's website, or probably more accurately, regional Google data centers getting flooded with queries from the latest MyDoom variant and getting overwhelmed, effectively taking Google down for some users. So unless you were in an area uhm... network-graphically or whatever, where there were alot of MyDoom infections hitting Google you probably didn't experience this "outage" of sorts. I know I didn't :).

And finally the moment everyone's been waiting for, the OFFICIAL official title of the new and final Star Wars movie has been announced: Revenge of the Sith. And you know what? I really like it :). PS I hate all the prequel hating... this movie is gonna own, just recognize ok? Attack of the Clones was awesome, so this one'll be even better as Lucas uhm.. figures out how to make good movies again. Ok ok, I even like TPM, but Jar Jar was just too much. You all better start reading up on your Sith History!!

Scenes from what could be a third world country right here in America.

Patriot Act abuses-- seriously, the law should be such that it can only be used in terrorism cases, the RIAA and MPAA should NOT have access to these powers! sldakfjasdlkfjsadlkfjlsakdf. By the way, the link doesn't clearly explain it BUT, the site in question I think got busted for linking to sites that provided downloads of episodes... even still, seriously, what a waste of our nation's already overtaxed law enforcement system. Thanks MPAA. Thanks alot.

Seriously!??!. That is just disgusting. Personally I'm all for shaking things up-- I loved my OJ mugshot tshirt.. but this is uhm, this is asking for it. Wonder if Amy Richards has one of these shirts?

And SPEAKING of Costco-- remember my whole thing about how Costco was doing some pretty sweet stuff, like you know, providing awesome health care for all of their employees, quick qualification for coverage (6 months versus.. uhm... 2 YEARS FOR WAL-MART, etc.)

WELL. Now the whole Wal-Mart versus Costco (who is a major competitor of Wal-Mart) thing is laid out with regards to politics for you in an article I'm about to link for you.

But first, its always bothered me how for years, magazines have always done fun little quizzes about things they feature and yet *I* haven't done anything like that yet. So I'll go ahead and do a quiz for you right now :)--

In fact, I'll even give you some music to listen to while you take this quiz. Hah! I would like to see Cosmo try to do this! (click play to start, then scroll down and take the quiz):

Knowing what you know about Costco and Wal-Mart, please draw lines that connect the related terms below:

Wal-Mart                                  Supports Democrats

Costco                                    Supports Republicans

Ahh Wal-Mart...the answer in the form of a question Alex: What is a bottom feeding scum sucking algae eater? I seriously recommend reading that article I just linked, which is indeed on Costco versus Wal-Mart and how they not only butt heads in retail, but also butt heads politically. It is really very interesting!

And while we are on the subject of "evil"- I've also got an excellent article that traces the origins of some of today's "conservative African American" groups and organizations -- Thomas Sowell is probably frowning as we speak. I would love to hear what he thinks of these shams.

In closing, it is these people and groups that we've nailed to the wall here today that have earned, in my eyes, the title "Republicans of the Sith". So be sure to watch out for them because they could be coming to a theater near you!

Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati -

Post Reply
Wednesday, July 21, 2004

11:50:00 PM WHASABI
Yo yo yo yo yoooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Free Ipod in the HIZZIEEEE. I've completed my requirements and given them my shipping information- now my order is currently "pending". PLZPLZPLZPLZPLZPLZ

Oh yeah you want one too? click here.

Lessee. Toys toys, toys.. uhm.. oh here's something cool-- an EXCELLENT ARTICLE from one of my favorite websites, Fast Company profiles Whole Foods CEO John Mackey. The story of how he runs his company is amazing and the story of him the CEO is inspiring. Will make you smile and want to save the aminals. (spelling mine).

Thinking about making one of these, how could would that be to throw in the ol' camera case? I mean, the challenge is you still need a surface to shoot from. Now. Make a BEER BOTTLE CAP TRIPOD and you've got a winner.

Worst writing contest results doh!

BugMeNot in the news- woot. I love that website

Canadians AGAINST Bush. Their goal is 1,000,000 "virtual signatures" by election day. Be interesting to see just how high they get.

This terror in the skies thing made the rounds earlier this week and a writer at has issued a stinging rebuttal. Personally I'm appalled how noone is recognizing the REAL risks pointed out by this terror in the skies article:

  • Multiple terrorists on one flight with innocuous devices unite and assemble a deadly device [solution, restrict passengers from congregating, spending alot of time in aisles, inspect bathrooms periodically, etc]
  • Layover security is virtually nil- it would only take 1 person who after meeting with several people over many layovers, then brings an assembled device on board, or worse, just slips it into someones luggage. [solution, force layover passengers to go back through security]

    And the part that really pisses me off, everyones going gaga over the issue of racial profiling being brought up. Which the author of the whole thing is obviously trying to argue for. She does bring up something about a rule saying that if more then 2 "middle eastern men" have been detained for searches that they cannot detain any more on the same flight. Now I haven't seen anything attesting to the veracity of this claim but I think if such a rule does exist that it ought to be eliminated, and now.

    But thats where it ends, racial profiling is counterproductive and will only further overload an already overloaded security system. First off, if we do make it legal to "search someone just because they are middle eastern", then what defines who is middle eastern? Do we let people use their own judgement at the scene? I know plenty of hispanic people who could easily be mistaken for middle easteners and vice versa. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of middle easteners who don't look middle eastern at all! So what do we make a database of all middle eastern people so that way we don't leave it up to the judgement of the TSA people? Well, it doesn't matter because it all ends up with the same effect: Osama will simply use another person. We've already had American citizens and British citizens al Queda members show up so I fail to see how screening middle easterners simply because they are middle eastern is going to solve anything. If anything its going to make it EASIER for Osama to exploit the system. Since he already knows that Middle Eastern looking people or whatever are going to have a tougher time, he'll have a leg up when he uses someone who is not of middle easetern descent to slip through security-- especially if security is suddenly taxed with having to look more passengers simply because they were middle eastern in the first place!

    In fact if they are acting as a team with innocuous pieces they assemble and plant on a passenger boarding a plane during layovers or inflight then profiling would have done nothing here too! Unless somehow we are able to put the pieces of the puzzle together and realize that Guy A has a spring and Guy B has a piece of rope and Guy C has a pulley.. hmm... WHAT IF THEY WERE TO WORK TOGETHER AND PULL A MACGYVER ON US OHNOS.

    No there would be nothing like that. The only way to stop terrorism is to go and find their leaders and disrupt their networks. And now Bush hasn't found Osama yet and now we're dealing with him again, supposedly.

    Enough ranting. Time for bed :)


    Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati -

    Post Reply
  • Tuesday, July 20, 2004

    Wut?! First off, what is with these headlines? The commission isn't saying anything one way or the other. They are straight up refusing to draw a conclusion. But we all know the truth, and as I've brought up before, The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 said the following
    A number of U. S. Government officials complained to the Joint Inquiry about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11 attacks.**REDACTED**. A high-level U. S. Government officer cited greater Saudi cooperation when asked how the September 11 attacks might have been prevented. In May 2001, the U.S. Government became aware that an individual in Saudi Arabia was in contact with a senior al-Qa'ida operative and was most likely aware of an upcoming al- Qa'ida operation.
    and the kicker
    We repeat: If our own laws regarding the issuance of visas had been followed by the State Department, most of the hijackers would not have been able to obtain visas, and 9/11 would not have happened. Because the entire culture of the State Department is geared toward facilitating smooth relations with foreign governments, State Department personnel have tended to ignore the potential effect of their practices on national security.
    So don't forget about the truth.

    Here's a scary thought for the evening: The future of information? - Remember my report on this I did several years ago?

    On a happier note I'm close to getting a free iPod! -- I'll let you know if that works out!

    Finally- Sandy Berger ohnos. Wut is going on here?!

    Current Mood: IPOD!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati -
    Thursday, July 15, 2004

    10:08:00 PM McCain my hero
    This article puts it simply:
    Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice unnecessary -- and un-Republican.

    "The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

    McCain said Tuesday night he would side with opponents of the amendment on the procedural vote to make clear to his constituents that he is against the amendment itself.

    McCain also said the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today."

    "The founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that," he said.

    SERIOUSLY. Thank you John McCain! The man!!!!!!!!!!

    Ahhh... *high five*.

    McCain who is NOT in the pocket of the religious right put the much needed smackdown on this nonsense pandering they called an Amendment. Bush himself when he was running against McCain for the 2000 Republican Nomination did everything he could to make McCain look bad in the light of the religoius right:

    There’s no doubt that McCain’s 19 percent victory over Bush in New Hampshire caused a panic rethink strategy in the Bush team. Their response was to drop the “compassionate conservative” that had failed Bush in New Hampshire and wage a nonstop barrage of negative attacks to kill the messenger McCain. Nothing was too low to rule out. The nadir moment occurred February 3rd when a smiling Bush stood in front of television cameras as a fringe Vietnam veteran, Thomas Burch, denounced McCain as a POW who “came home and forgot us.” Governor Bush knows Burch well. The same Thomas Burch had accused President Bush of abandoning veterans during his administration, but alas, all old wounds must have been healed in time to neutralize McCain’s war hero factor. Push polling by Bush activists was standard fare and leaflets distributed by Bush allies described McCain as “pro-abortion” and “the fag candidate” (because McCain was the only Republican presidential candidate to meet with the gay Republican men’s group, Log Cabin Republicans). One particularly offensive missive distributed via the Internet and to the press was from the Christian Fundamentalist Bob Jones University, where Bush had staked his Christian conservative claim one day after the NH Primary. A professor named Richard Hand wrote that McCain “chose to sire children without marriage,” among other hallucinations.
    And more... The all out attack on McCain is something I will never forgive Bush for. McCain is a man who wouldn't answer to anyone but the constitution and the American people, who championed campaign finance reform and constantly shrugs off the religious right in the name of America, not *their* God.

    But McCain took a strong stand this week, and slapped Bush right in the face. You deserve it Bush.

    But I will give you this nugget to make you feel a little better about Bush- This is a sweet/sad story/picture. Read it, its good.

    Anyways. I love McCain and would have voted for him, still would have voted for him. He is the only Presidential Candidate that I've given money to. I still love him even though I'm disappointed that he stood in place against taking a potential vice presidential nomination with Kerry. Please McCain run in 2008? Please?

    Current Mood: ITSAME, MARIO!
    Current Music: Super Mario Kart - Cup Wins

    Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati -

    Post Reply
    Wednesday, July 14, 2004

    11:18:00 PM FUN TYME
    Ok enough seroius talk. Gotta mix it up with a little fun now. And short, keep it short, for real.
  • Strong Sad & The Cheat's They Might Be Giant's Video
  • Anchorman + Friendster = Genius
  • White House "balking" at releasing contents of briefings Bush used to decide on WMD.. come on, couldn't this clear his name if nothings wrong here guys?
  • Bush DID say that Iraq/Saddam were tied to the 9/11 attacks
  • Is Bush Gay?!
  • More FOX News Channel memos leaked giving an inside look at how they spin and twist the news. Scary stuff
  • Speaking of which here's a great article on the upcoming FOX News Channel Documentary. Scary Stuff

    Lastly, and I think some of you will like this one:

  • "Making me root for a sanctimonious statist blowhard like Kerry isn't the worst thing Bush has done to the country. But it's the offense that I take most personally." from "10 reasons to Fire Bush and 9 reasons why Kerry won't be much better"

    Now for some REALLY serious stuff. Damnit I always find something that intrigues me and one link ain't gonna cut it:

    Watch this incendiary video: Osama Bin Lotto- How Bush put the world in jeopardy just to capture Osama just before Election day

    Basically what it boils down to is did Bush put the us in MORE danger? I've been saying that he's put us in more danger by invading Iraq and not capturing Osama when he did because NOW we are getting word that Osama wants to attack again. This video adds more fuel to the fire by pointing out, something that I've completely failed to recognize- remember Aq Khan? Yeah the "architect of Pakistan's Nuclear Program" who *confessed* to "running [an illegal underground] global enterprise that supplied nuclear technology and parts to North Korea, Libya and Iran."?? Well, that guy is getting a conditional pardon (well, to be fair he is a national hero over there in pakistan for creating nukes to defend against India) but... what did we do about it? Here we have a Nation that is literally supplying NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY to IRAN!?!? Libya we took care of thank GOD, but Iran!?? Those guys are the worst! Because unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran is publicly DECLARED as our enemy. Here we go off to Iraq when all of our intelligence about their threat to us is bogus and its still unclear if the dissenting voices on that were ignored or squelched, and yet we have some SERIOUS SHIT going on over in Pakistan that we ADMIT TO HAVING KNOWN ABOUT THIS WHOLE TIME!!. Why didn't we attack Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was thought to have been hiding out? Because they have Nuclear Weapons, thats why. And thats why we will never attack North Korea either. Iran we're not so sure about, but I'm sure they are under the same "don't attack unless absolutely necessary" umbrella.

    So when it comes right down to it, Pakistan=helped arm our true enemies while harbouring, however unwittingly, Osama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia=helped arm our true enemies while almost single-handedly supporting the taliban who were wittingly harbouring Osama Bin Laden. So I got an idea, LETS ATTACK IRAQ!!

    If you believe the conspiracy theorists the whole thing goes something like this:

    They will say that Bush knew that something bad and uncontrollable was going to occur-- his families close ties to the bin Laden's and the Saudi royal family gives weight of this argument. It turns out that many of those people *knew* something was going to happen, its feasible that they tried to warn Bush.

    Bush formulates a plan in case this actually DOES happen, but since he can't do anything about it until then he can only sit and wait. He has no intention of actually capturing the man who orchestrated the attacks at this point-- in fact, the conspiracy theorists will say that Bush knew that waiting until the last possible moment of his first term to capture this man-- the publicity from capturing him will guarantee him a second term. They will say that he thinks its the only positive thing that can come from this.

    9/11 happens. According to Richard Clarke Bush is already wanting to strike Iraq. The conspiracy theorists will tell you that Iraq is a diversion to delay the capture of bin Laden.

    But Afghanistan goes down as it deserved. Moore and others have accused Bush of letting bin Laden get away. Well, bin Laden *did* get away. Conspiracy Theorists 1 Bush 0

    It seems like right after Afghanistan Bush begins working on getting the world to go after Iraq next, but he's not entirely successful. Doesn't matter, theres a million good reasons to go into Iraq but the conspiracy theorists will tell you that its to delay bin Laden's capture, to divert public attention away from him as much as possible.

    Bush himself even tries to downplay the importance of capturing bin Laden. (but you can bet if we do capture him that he'll reverse himself).

    Iraq goes down and is just starting to "finish up" in time for elections, and therefore, the conspiracy theorists will say, time to ramp up the national security alerts in order to remind everyone of bin Laden to sweeten the impact of his capture.

    They probably note that while we are making announcements about threats we have NOT raised the alert level. They would allege that its tail wagging the dog type stuff.

    Now the conspiracy theorists say, Bush will play his trump card. "I captured bin Laden"

    Now, most of that has to be total bullshit. But I feel there is some truth to some of that. I've been harping on Bush's failure to capture bin Laden (apparently others have been too), and if he DID capture bin Laden it would make me feel alot better. Assuming of course, that no commissions turn around later, as they are oft to do, and say "uhm, but it was at a cost" or "uhm, but we could have captured him much earlier."

    Current Mood: Time slips. Damnit.

    Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati -
  • Tuesday, July 13, 2004

    Keeping it short and sweet after my reign of long posts.

    Bad things: Motherfucking (and this is an understatement) redistricting. And Enron. Motherfucking Enron.

    In May 2001, Enron's top lobbyists in Washington advised the company chairman that then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was pressing for a $100,000 contribution to his political action committee, in addition to the $250,000 the company had already pledged to the Republican Party that year.

    DeLay requested that the new donation come from "a combination of corporate and personal money from Enron's executives," with the understanding that it would be partly spent on "the redistricting effort in Texas," said the e-mail to Kenneth L. Lay from lobbyists Rick Shapiro and Linda Robertson.

    The e-mail, which surfaced in a subsequent federal probe of Houston-based Enron, is one of at least a dozen documents obtained by The Washington Post that show DeLay and his associates directed money from corporations and Washington lobbyists to Republican campaign coffers in Texas in 2001 and 2002 as part of a plan to redraw the state's congressional districts.

    DeLay's fundraising efforts helped produce a stunning political success. Republicans took control of the Texas House for the first time in 130 years, Texas congressional districts were redrawn to send more Republican lawmakers to Washington, and DeLay -- now the House majority leader -- is more likely to retain his powerful post after the November election, according to political experts.

    Cristen Feldman, the Texas lawyer who filed the suit, said in response, "I guess DeLay and his team forgot they were from Texas . . . [where] the prohibition against clandestine corporate cash is 100 years old."

    I despise redistricting. Becuase 90% of the time when we are talking about redistricting we're talking about GERRYMANDERING. Read. Understand. Shake head. That particular process should be outlawed along with the language these politicians use to describe their blatant power grabs "This redistricting effort will better serve our state by making sure everyone is counted! Everyone must be represented and this will make sure that even the little guy gets his say!" Well, since redistricting for political gain is legal, it doesn't really matter what you say because we *know* the reason why you are doing it. Bastards. The only time it is *ILLEGAL* is when its done to undermine minority voters. "Many political analysts have argued that the United States House of Representatives has been gerrymandered to the point that there are now very few contested seats, and have also argued that this has a number of detrimental effects, among which is that the lack of contested seats makes it unnecessary for candidates to attract middle voters and compromise." Redistricting is one of the great evils of our time, along with those sickos at Enron, including Bush pal and scumbag CEO Kenneth Lay.

    Good things: Remember Libya?

    July 12 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said he made the right decision to invade Iraq last year, and offered Libya's agreement to stop building weapons of mass destruction as evidence of progress in the war on terrorism.
    High five man, High five. Seriously, gotta give credit where credit's due-- to be able to actually strike a country off the State Sponsored Terrorism List without going to war with them is a big thumbs up from me. We scratched Afghanistan and Iraq off of that list as well as Libya. Awesome, awesome awesome. Who remains? Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. I guess Saudi Arabia escapes the list simply because the "official" government of Saudi Arabia claims they do not support terrorists, despite them basically being held hostage by them. Personally though I always felt that after Pan Am 103 that Libya was neutralized for the most part, but then again they were in the middle of trying to start a nuclear program. Bad bad bad. Knowing that Kadafi is "on our side" gives me a strange feeling, becuase, although I am uneducated in this manner, isn't he a Saddam like figure? Where's the trial man?

    Bad things: But yeah, good, we stopped Libya. But uhm.. Bush did you remember, or were you too busy not caring, that you may have (and I repeat myself)- Allowed Osama to threaten us becuase we failed to catch him because we overtaxed our intelligence system with Iraq. The whole thing just keeps getting worse and worse, Including the whole "publicly stated reasoning/WMD fiasco." (Which it turns out most of our WMD intelligence was totally farked!) I know I mentioned the other day that I felt better about Bush not pressuring anyone for any particular intelligence which I had believed led to all of this farked intelligence in the first place, BUT it turns out that we really won't know the entire story behind that until after the election. (For the closest approximation as to what the whole story is as we know it now, I recommend this excellent Christian Science Monitor article.) So he's not off the hook yet.

    Of course, this delay of official findings until after the election isn't suprising-- Bush has made a habit of trying to delay or hide bad news-- Usually Bush tries to release any bad news on Friday afternoons in order to mitigate press coverage, and in this case they were able to delay bad news till after the election. Bush tried to do that with the 9/11 commission too:

    WASHINGTON - The chairman of an independent commission looking into US counterterrorism activities prior to the September 11 attacks said he could not guarantee that the panel's report will be released before the November presidential election because of a protracted White House vetting process.

    Former Republican New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean said he was "surprised" by the situation, but saw no way around it.

    Of course NOW we know WHY he delayed the "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States" 9/11 commission. It seems to me that if they are delaying this "second report", that they are doing it for a reason. I'm hoping that real reason is simply because they want to take their time and be accurate. But unfortunately all I really can hope for is:
    1. There will be no "election terror attacks" against the us and that
    2. If there IS "election terror attacks" that IT'S commission better not say "Because we attacked Iraq, our intelligence community was overtaxed and therefore unable to protect us from Osama's election attack."
    3. ESPECIALLY if this OTHER report that is supposed to come out after the elections says that, yes, pressure by Bush warped our intelligence gathering and delivery system into telling him what he wanted to hear (that we need to go after Iraq), regardless of the evidence. Which brings us to:
    4. If, GOD FORBID #2 and #3 occur then It better REALLY NOT turn out that Bush is basically to blame for the attack! Since he would then have been found to have caused us to go to war with Iraq on false pretenses and therefore have compromised our war against Osama which would end up allowing Osama to attack.
    Of course there is the chance that this second report on The Whitehouse's involvement could come out BEFORE the "election" as now they are talking about postponing the election in the face of a terrorist attack the day before or day of the election itself.
    July 19 issue - American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.
    But, according to the article, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."- so barring any acts of congress, there is nothing to fear yet. Remember I covered this almost ONE YEAR AGO today! Hard to believe back then it was pure speculation and now we're getting close to that speculation becoming a reality.

    So, if you believe the new-non-alert-level-raising terror warnings then this November will be a huge test of Bush. And I'm not talking about election day here. If we get attacked again then he is a complete and utter failure. Because #1) Despite all of his efforts we are clearly not ANY safer, and #2) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But if it turns out we prevented the attack then thats a huge victory for Bush! Or if there was really no attack threat at all then we can continue to bang our heads on the table and just hope that it wasn't a case of the tail wagging the dog.

    In any case, I'm going to bed. That was too, damn long.

    Current Mood: T I R E D.
    Current Music: voder - voder -

    Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati -
    Saturday, July 10, 2004

    Yep. So I said I was going to talk about that wonderful documentary I've been telling you about, so here goes:

    While the documentary was indeed about "spin" and indeed, democrats, republicans, independants and the media got a big slap in the face as Brian Springer revealed their secrets to manipulating the masses, including investigating the censoring of 1992 Democratic Candidate Larry Agran by the press and subsequent failure to make headway in the Democratic Primary. However despite all of this, the film struck a chord in me on a differently subject alltogether-- the religious right.

    After 9/11 I forgot about them. I'm not talking about a religious person who votes. I'm talking about the self-proclaimed Religious Right (that last page you should read, atleast the very first page, in its entirety), heck I'll even give them a pass on that and focus SPECIFICALLY on Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition.

    Pat Robertson is an evil man. Let me give you some examples-- now many of these quotes are old, and that is because Robertson hired Ralph Reed (who is now chairman of the Bush Cheney 2004 South East campaign) to do the talking after taking alot of heat for what he's already said, good cop, bad cop:

    "When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

    "It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

    "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991-- I'm sure by "the other thing" he meant Catholics.

    "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

    "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/8/92

    "Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/21/93

    "We soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996." --Pat Robertson, Denver Post, 10/26/92

    What kind of pro-family Christians? These kind?
    "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."--Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
    Or wait Pat did you mean THESE kind:
    1987 Press Briefing Question: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

    George H.W. Bush: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

    After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:

    "As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."

    Finally, a closing quote from the Chairman of Bush's campaign in the southeast:
    "It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. You've got two choices: You can wear cammies and shimmy along on your belly, or you can put on a red coat and stand up for everyone to see. It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic was more effective."--Ralph Reed Los Angeles Times, 3/22/92
    Ralph Reed is still as influential as ever over Bush. And don't be fooled, Bush is a very religious man, (watch the video in that last link).

    The problem here, THE PROBLEM HERE. Is not that Bush is a religious man. Thats fine. John Kerry is too. The question is whom do they answer to? Kerry has, as the JFK before him, publicly declared "I will be a president who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic president." What about Bush? A product of the Pat Robertson controlled Republican Party, whom will he be answering to? The bloc of voters that Pat Robertson controls and by extension, *their* God?

    If Bush represents Robertson's religious right, then does Kerry represent Catholics? Or are they a part of Robertson's bloc too? Well, it used to be that Catholics as a whole generally voted Democrat.

    From 1948 at least through 1968, Catholics were reliable Democrats as a group, supporting Democratic presidential candidates in numbers greater than the public at large, and only supporting a Republican candidate once - giving Eisenhower 54 percent of their vote in 1956 - according to the American National Election Studies conducted by the University of Michigan.

    Their most staunchly Democratic vote came, not surprisingly, in 1960. That year an overwhelming 83 percent of Catholic voters chose the Catholic Democrat John Kennedy over Republican Richard Nixon, helping give Kennedy an edge in his famously narrow victory.

    Clearly these days they no longer consistently support democrats. These days Catholics generally vote the same way the rest of the country does(same article as before). Before, the Catholic vote was a force to be reckoned with, now it has been marginalized. But by what, by whom? First answer:
    According to CBS News exit polls, in the 2000 presidential election 55 percent of Catholic voters voiced support for abortion remaining either mostly or entirely legal - a number virtually identical to that of voters at large.
    Yes, Abortion is the what-- Catholics are split on abortion and therefore no longer vote in a bloc. But what about the whom? Lets start at the beginning shall we?

    Here's a small history lesson pulled from an article discussing recent statistics showing that "If people attend religious services regularly, they'll probably vote Republican by a 2-1 margin. If they never go, they'll likely vote Democratic by the same margin.":

    Most Democratic candidates through the 20th Century were openly religious. Sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter ran in 1976 as a moral messenger ("I will never lie to you") as well as a champion of the Democratic policy agenda. Bill Clinton could quote the Bible as readily as the party platform. The one exception was John F. Kennedy, who played down his Catholic faith in 1960, when anti-Catholic bias was common.

    Voters weren't split by the frequency of their visits to church, synagogue or mosque until recently. The gap started growing in the 1990s and became clear in the 2000 election between Bush and Democrat Al Gore. Voters who attended religious services more than once a week voted for Bush by a margin of nearly 2-1. Those who never went to services voted for Gore by the same margin.

    The schism began as a countermovement to the culture wars of the 1960s. By the late 1970s, conservative Democrats -- notably evangelical Christians in the South and ethnic Catholics in the North -- found many of their values under assault, particularly in regard to abortion and gay rights, according to Dennis Goldford, a political scientist who teaches a course in religion and politics at Drake University in Iowa.

    Many disaffected voters joined with Republicans, who cast their party as the champion of conservative religious values with the help of the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and the Rev. Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition.

    Democrats reacted by pulling farther away from public discussion of religion.

    "Liberals thought the ayatollahs were taking over the country," Goldford said. "The Democrats haven't figured out how to talk about it. Many just aren't comfortable with the talk of God."

    The biggest exception is African Americans. They tend to be regular churchgoers. Democratic candidates frequently attend African-American churches to appeal for support.

    Ah hah! The WHOM! "Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and the Rev. Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition."

    But Why? Lets analyze that "late 1970s" quote by taking another look at this article I keep linking to:

    By 1972, however, Catholic voting had changed. In that election, and in every one since, Catholics have cast their votes for the popular vote winner, in numbers not too dissimilar from the public at large.
    Hmm. Something HAPPENED in 1972. WHAT WAS IT?!

    I'll TELL you what HAPPENED. ROE VS WADE HAPPENED!!!! And now I quote from an excellent article on all of this:

    The real changeover for Catholics came with the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion. Lay Catholics - and Catholic politicians - increasingly began to support abortion rights, while the bishops, especially under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II (elected in 1978), became increasingly active in opposing them. Although Catholic politicians once worried about a Protestant backlash, they now worry about internal opposition.
    And now we have the third Catholic presidential candidate coming to the plate in November. The first Catholic candidate for president, according to the first article, "was the Democratic governor of New York, Alfred E. Smith, who ran in 1928 and was soundly beaten by Herbert Hoover after a campaign that prompted harsh attacks against Smith for his Catholic faith." Will Kerry be like Smith or will he be like Kennedy? This race is liable to be as close as 2000 was, as close as Kennedy's race was. It doesn't look like 80% of Catholics will be voting for Kerry like they did for Kennedy. And no, for the record, Catholics are not in Robertson's pocket.

    But where was I headed on all of this before I got research happy about Catholic voting practices-- oh yes, the religious right. Their control of the Republican Party alone makes me not want to vote for Bush. But who else is a big voter in the Republican Party? "The South"-- and when I say "the south" I'm saying it the same way "southeners" say it: to the exclusion of blacks and minorities. Well, like Catholics, this group as a whole USED to vote Democrat! And yes, I'll be telling y'a'll why now, but I'll make this one quick and painless. Just allow me to quote from yet another excellent article on Catholic voting (believe it or not)-

    For generations white Southerners had hated the party of Lincoln, the Civil War, and Reconstruction, but as Blacks, empowered by the civil rights movement, joined the Democratic Party, the allegiance of white Southerners weakened. The wooing of white Southerners, begun by Nixon and Reagan, bore fruit in the 1994 Congressional elections when more Republicans were elected from the South than any time since Reconstruction.
    So now we have a party, AND NOTE: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE *PARTY LEADERSHIP* AND POLITICIANS HERE, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REGISTERED WITH THAT PARTY NECCESARILY-- now we have a PARTY controlled by the dispickable religious right who "woos" white southerners "alienated" by blacks and the civil rights movement. What kind of party is this?

    The Republican Party.

    Current Mood: Why is it that even though they call it "googling", my eyes still hurt from doing too much of it? I thought googles were supposed to PROTECT your eyes! ;)
    Current Music: Underworld - Confusion The Waitress

    Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati -
    Friday, July 09, 2004

    From this article:
    "We in Congress would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now" "Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president as well as the Congress and the public that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade, Today we know these assessments were wrong." Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, told reporters today.

    The leading democrat on the same committee said "We in Congress would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now," "Leading up to September 11, our government didn't connect the dots. In Iraq, we are even more culpable because the dots themselves never existed," "Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower," he said. "We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."

    This is going to be huge. But they also found something else out thats been really bothering me this whole time:
    "The committee found no evidence that the intelligence community's mischaracterization or exaggeration of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of politics or pressure," Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said

    But although he approved the report, leading democratic committee member Senator Rockefeller said it fails to explain fully the pressures on the intelligence community "when the most senior officials in the Bush administration had already forcefully and repeatedly stated their conclusions publicly."

    "It was clear to all of us in this room who were watching that -- and to many others -- that they had made up their mind that they were going to go to war," he said.

    In the past I've said that the Bush administration's pressure on the intelligence community is what lead to the intelligence they used to justify the war. Of course you and I know the real reason for the war, Saudi Arabia's become the enemy so we need a new base in the middle east and also bringing Saddam Hussein to justice. I was wrong about the pressures apparently. I will give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on this one. But I have a feeling that it will come up again:
    Some GOP lawmakers on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the Bush administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.
    I'm certain that this is why head of CIA George Tenet resigned.

    So what does this mean? It sounds to me like we were screwed once again-- we SHOULDN'T have gone to war with Iraq, at least under the reasoning that the Bush administration was pushing, and because we DID go to war with Iraq we moved the war away from bin Laden, moved funds away from Afghanistan and publicly declared that we didn't care about bin Laden (again I invite you to read this transcript of a press conference held by the President posted on the Whitehouse's website at People have been saying that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq before he was even in the Whitehouse or at least immediately after 9/11. If it wasn't for Bush's urgency we may not have attacked Iraq when we did, he may have waited a little longer to see if the CIA's intelligence panned out-- Experts were saying as far back as November 2003 that the Iraq war diverted our resources from the war on Terror to a fault. I'm praying that that fault does not come in the shape of another building crashing down to the ground.

    Now don't get me wrong, we needed to take down Saddam. Saudi Arabia is our enemy and they don't even provide bases for us anymore. Clearly we needed a new base in the middle east, one with OIL (which Afghanistan lacks). We had to attack Afghanistan because well, bin Laden was there and we couldn't just sit idly by while he planned another attack on us-- we went after bin Laden and didn't stop until we found him.. or... well... "marginalized him" or at least, thought we did. Then it was on to Iraq, as soon as we got the green light from the CIA it was time to get Saddam-- forget about bin Laden, "don't give him much thought"-- Saddam has missiles that could kill us RIGHT NOW!! Or so we thought.

    You have to wonder if we would have stopped bin Laden if we had not gone to war with Iraq when we did. Of course we already know that if we hadn't been giving preferential treatment to the Saudis, that 9/11 wouldn't have happened, according to the, often linked by me, Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. You have to wonder if bin Laden attacks us again, as the Bush Administration is now saying, if bin Laden attacks again, will a similar inquiry cite not preferential treatment to Saudis as before, but instead say that if we had not gone to war on Iraq, and taxed our intelligence operations, that the new attacks would not have occurred.

    Bush remember its, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Do not let bin Laden get away with another attack! If you do, and it turns out that your insistence on going to war with Iraq at the expense of finding bin Laden cost us the chance to stop him, then you will have blood on your hands.

    In an upcoming entry I'll talk about the Spin movie that I've been chattering about again lately. Watch it if you haven't already and then meet back here next time for discussion on it.

    Current Mood: ...

    Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati -

    Post Reply
    Thursday, July 08, 2004

    Well, I lied :).

    I edited it slightly, but I'm not gonna spellcheck the sucker or anything.. it was so huge and so technical that to go back through it when all these other new developments have happened just seems kinda backwards. I'll just do my best to correct whatever needs corrected since my post now and go on from there

    One of the major things from Fahrenheit 9/11 that has been disproven is $1.4 billion dollar figure connected to the Bush family and Saudi arabian interests. Turns out that figure is actually more like, only.. a QUARTER of a Billion. Oops. ($1.18 billion, turns out, came from contracts awarded by the Saudi government to a US defense contract that the Bushs LATER were directly connected with.) Even still, a QUARTER of a billion is dubious. Clearly there was major connections between Bush and the enemy.

    Moore himself has said he isn't alleging that Bush had anything to do with causing 9/11-- only that the enemy did their best to blind us and twist us to take advantage of us. Just like Enron, contributing large campaign dollars hoping that the administration will turn a blind eye to suspcious activity and give them the benefit of the doubt enough times to get away with murder. The enemy did it, we gave preferential treatment to Saudis without which 9/11 wouldn't have happened. The enemy continues to try to do it to this day with millions of dollars in television, radio and newspaper ads. The diplomatic branch of Saudi Arabia prays every day that they don't become the next Iraq, all the while being held hostage by Saudi religious fundamentalists who are trying to create the next Saudi born Osama.

    The enemy continues. Even today, Osama Bin Laden targets the United States, prompting the latest rash of security warnings. Osama Bin Laden, who Bush says "I just don't spend that much time on him", is the number one enemy again. We actually diverted funds away from finding this man and now its biting us in the ass. Bush you should never have said you don't care about him, Osama is, according to your own people, attempting to do the same to us that he did to Spain. Find Osama, bring him, or his dead body, to justice. Come out and admit you were wrong for considering him marginalized, as apparently he is not.

    And with all the bruhaha around Fahrenheit 9/11, I think this quote pretty much explains why I am pissed off:

    There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?
    I mean SERIOUSLY. Have some sense of perspective people. I mean, stop listening to hypocritical television networks and start listening to reality. If we hadn't diverted funds from Afghanistan and the bin Laden hunt, publicly declaring that he wasn't someone we cared much about and actually FOUND HIM, then we wouldn't BE in this mess. Bush, you've been blinded by the enemy before, even pandering to them this year, don't let Iraq blind you again.

    And what about Bush? In the past I've kindof given him the benefit of the doubt about him sitting still for 11 minutes after literally being told that America was under attack, this after continuing photo ops and such after being told of the FIRST crash, and after receiving the news that America is under attack, Bush says:

    "I am very aware of the cameras. I'm trying to absorb that knowledge. I have nobody to talk to. I'm sitting in the midst of a classroom with little kids, listening to a children's story and I realize I'm the Commander in Chief and the country has just come under attack."
    Fuck that! Get out of your damn seat, tell the children that you must attend to presidential business for the moment, hand the book to the teacher and ask her to please finish the story and walk out of the room and start taking action. You are the commander in chief of the United States of America son, and you better not wait 11 precious minutes while terrorist are slitting the throats of passengers of the two remaining planes, and crashing into the epicenter of American Defense, the Pentagon. Walk out calmy, and then, and THEN, kick ass. You failed Bush. You failed. I'm sorry, but if this happens again, will he repeat what he's done? What if there was a plane flying towards the elementary school he was scheduled to be at? By sitting there for 11 minutes he put himself and the integrity of our country at risk. If you ignore everything else that people are yelling and screaming about from the streets, then this alone tarnishes his reputation very badly. Watch the video again for yourself. When I watch it I scream BUSH GET OUT OF THERE GET TO AIR FORCE ONE, PLEASE DON'T LET THEM DECAPITATE OUR COUNTRIES LEADERSHIP. But instead he sits there. If you read the first link it basically says that he had plenty of chances to leave, he just, didn't. He did not leave. I believe the man was afraid, and scared, and didn't know what to do. We know about men who have been in similar situations, John Kerry earned medals for his actions when facing death straight in the face, would Bush have been as brave as Kerry in the situation Kerry faced and vice versa? I think you can figure it out for yourself.

    Current Mood: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 beers and now. Water.
    Current Music: carwreck - carwreck -

    Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati -

    Post Reply