We, as a nation, need to stop digging ourselves into deep shit and hire a bulldozer to get it done faster. It took a lot longer for Viet Nam to have "it's" My Lai.
May 31, 2006
U.S. Troops Killed 4 in Kabul Riot, Witness Says
By CARLOTTA GALL and ABDUL WAHEED WAFA
KABUL, Afghanistan, May 31 — American soldiers involved in a car crash in the capital Monday fired into the crowd of protesters and killed four people, according to the chief of highway police in Kabul, Gen. Amanullah Gozar, who was at the scene.
Three people died in the multiple car crash caused by a runaway United States army truck, he said, and four people died from gunfire from the last vehicle in the convoy, as the American troops extricated themselves from an increasingly hostile crowd, he said.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Sunday, May 28, 2006
David "Signing Statements" Addington
According to the Boston Globe's article :
"The office of Vice President Dick Cheney routinely reviews pieces of legislation before they reach the president's desk, searching for provisions that Cheney believes would infringe on presidential power,according to former White House and Justice Department officials.
"The officials said Cheney's legal adviser and chief of staff, David Addington , is the Bush administration's leading architect of the "signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws.The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.
U.S. News and World Reports describes Addington as "the most powerful man you've never heard of" in an article explaining who Addington is and what his significance is in our lives.
You can read up on the fellow in the Wikipedia entry under his name. It behooves us all to know who the invisible power brokers are and what they're up to.
"The office of Vice President Dick Cheney routinely reviews pieces of legislation before they reach the president's desk, searching for provisions that Cheney believes would infringe on presidential power,according to former White House and Justice Department officials.
"The officials said Cheney's legal adviser and chief of staff, David Addington , is the Bush administration's leading architect of the "signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws.The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.
U.S. News and World Reports describes Addington as "the most powerful man you've never heard of" in an article explaining who Addington is and what his significance is in our lives.
You can read up on the fellow in the Wikipedia entry under his name. It behooves us all to know who the invisible power brokers are and what they're up to.
And, now, ladies and gentlemen, the Academy is proud to introduce your host for this evening...AL GORE!
I'm afraid Al Gore may not be doing himself any favors by turning into a movie mogul. It makes him sound less serious. Read this, from Arianna Huffington's blog, to see what I mean. (I edited out a comment about his pitch-perfect French and his high school trip to Cannes because it only made things worse...)
May 22 -- Over the weekend, I flew from Washington to Cannes. In Washington,
the talk was all about 2006. In Cannes, the talk is all about 2008.
That's because even with Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, Penelope Cruz, Jamie Foxx,
and Halle Berry here for the film festival, the hottest star in town is Al
Gore.
In Cannes for the European premiere of his powerful global warming
documentary, An Inconvenient
Truth, Gore has been surrounded by adoring crowds and deluged with
interview requests. He told me that he gave 23 back-to-back-to-back interviews
on Sunday, Hollywood junket-style (all on only one hour's sleep), and had
another 23 scheduled for Monday.
See what I mean? He comes off sounding like Stephen Spielberg and not like a scholar or a serious activist or even a politician.
Gore says he's not running for office in the forseeable future, and I take him at his word. However, even if he only wants to be taken seriously as a scholar or as an activist, he needs to avoid looking like he's gone all Hollywood. I'm not saying he did this to himself. Huffington is the one whose words I'm quoting. I just don't think she's the only one seeing him this way.
The trouble is, I can't think of any way he can do it differently.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Advice for those who get to stay home.
My good friend Ian is about to be sent to Afghanistan as part of the Oregon National Guard. He posted this in his Live Journal and I want to share it with anyone who reads this blog, too. If you know anyone in the military, please read it.
However, I do have a bit of a complaint. If there is one constant with
civilian to military relations is that you all are really supportive
and say you want to be there for us, but when we start to talk about
what we're doing, you all (the generic "you" here) tend to draw back.
Hey,
let's not kid ourselves here, I'm going somewhere very dangerous and I
do run the risk of coming home a bit banged up or not at all. While I
understand the tendency to want to draw away from that, the way people
tend to draw away with people with terminal illnesses, it helps me and
my compadres not at all.
A lot of us have already noticed when
we were describing our Convoy ops on our seperate blogs that almost no
one responded. For my part, I got one response from my wife. I'm not
asking for therapy here folks, but after I get some huaw training or
what ever, I like to share what's going on in my life, as do my fellow
soldiers. Writing up these long posts and then getting nothing back
makes us feel disconnected from you folks back home. We start to worry
if folks are going quiet about us training, what's it going to be like
when we get home in a year.
Danger isn't contagious folks. I
can't believe that no one out there reading my stuff didn't have some
sarcastic comment about me swearing over the radio while training. That
no one did makes me feel like either you're all not reading my stuff
(which I guess is okay) or that there is some other reason.
I'm
just asking that we all are hungry to keep our ties with our family and
friends back home. Traditionally this doesn't happened and the only
people we can turn to is our buddies and fellow soldiers. Then when we
get home, soldiers tend to be distrustful and scornful of the civies
for awhile. A lot of us where talking about it, especially with those
who've been to Iraq before and they say it happens all the time.
I would hope that me and my buddies won't have to it happen to us.
However, I do have a bit of a complaint. If there is one constant with
civilian to military relations is that you all are really supportive
and say you want to be there for us, but when we start to talk about
what we're doing, you all (the generic "you" here) tend to draw back.
Hey,
let's not kid ourselves here, I'm going somewhere very dangerous and I
do run the risk of coming home a bit banged up or not at all. While I
understand the tendency to want to draw away from that, the way people
tend to draw away with people with terminal illnesses, it helps me and
my compadres not at all.
A lot of us have already noticed when
we were describing our Convoy ops on our seperate blogs that almost no
one responded. For my part, I got one response from my wife. I'm not
asking for therapy here folks, but after I get some huaw training or
what ever, I like to share what's going on in my life, as do my fellow
soldiers. Writing up these long posts and then getting nothing back
makes us feel disconnected from you folks back home. We start to worry
if folks are going quiet about us training, what's it going to be like
when we get home in a year.
Danger isn't contagious folks. I
can't believe that no one out there reading my stuff didn't have some
sarcastic comment about me swearing over the radio while training. That
no one did makes me feel like either you're all not reading my stuff
(which I guess is okay) or that there is some other reason.
I'm
just asking that we all are hungry to keep our ties with our family and
friends back home. Traditionally this doesn't happened and the only
people we can turn to is our buddies and fellow soldiers. Then when we
get home, soldiers tend to be distrustful and scornful of the civies
for awhile. A lot of us where talking about it, especially with those
who've been to Iraq before and they say it happens all the time.
I would hope that me and my buddies won't have to it happen to us.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
I didn't realize Al Gore had a personality.
The following is from a comment found via link from Crooks & Liars. I saw it on Olberman last night and swore that man was not the candidate I supported and wept for in 2000. Oh, Al, Al, why did you have to be set up by the Evil Empire? Why aren't you our President today?
Not that this is the speech you'd be making, but the fact that you could deliver this so well blows me away.
Last night I dreamed of...well, I'll wait til you've read the script to tell you about it.
**********************************************************
Announcer:
And now, a message from the President of the United States.
President Al Gore:
Good evening, my fellow Americans.
In 2000 when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd president, I knew the road ahead would be difficult. We have accomplished so much yet challenges lie ahead.
In the last 6 years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack.
As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.
Right now, in the 2nd week of May 2006, we are facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history.
We have way too much gasoline. Gas is down to $0.19 a gallon and the oil companies are hurting.
I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.
I am therefore proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because - hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us.
On a positive note, we worked hard to save Welfare, fix Social Security and of course provide the free universal health care we all enjoy today.
But all this came at a high cost. As I speak, the gigantic national budget surplus is down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars.
And don't get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lockbox. We're not touching it.
Of course, we could give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis... again.
But right now we're already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can't even go over to Europe anymore... without getting hugged.
There are some of you that want to spend our money on some made-up war. To you I say: what part of "lockbox" don't you understand?
What if there's a hurricane or a tornado? Unlikely I know because of the Anti-Hurricane and Tornado Machine I was instrumental in helping to develop.
But... what if? What if the scientists are right and one of those giant glaciers hits Boston? That's why we have the lockbox!
As for immigration, solving that came at a heavy cost, and I personally regret the loss of California. However, the new Mexifornian economy is strong and el Presidente Schwarznegger is doing a great job.
There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and devisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney.
Baseball, our national passtime, still lies under the shadow of steroid accusations. But I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, "We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!"
In 2001 when I came into office, our national security was the most important issue. The threat of terrorism was real.
Who knew that six years later, Afghanistan would be the most popular Spring Break destination? Or that Six Flags Tehran is the fastest growing amusement park in the Middle East?
And the scariest thing we Americans have to fear is ... Live From New York, its Saturday Night!
**********************************************************
Last night I dreamed that Dubya was Baseball Commissioner and Condi was Football Commissioner and the Bush Twins were servants in Brittany Spears' household. The only good thing to come out of all this was that the Spears-Federline children were placed properly into their car seats.
Not that this is the speech you'd be making, but the fact that you could deliver this so well blows me away.
Last night I dreamed of...well, I'll wait til you've read the script to tell you about it.
**********************************************************
Announcer:
And now, a message from the President of the United States.
President Al Gore:
Good evening, my fellow Americans.
In 2000 when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd president, I knew the road ahead would be difficult. We have accomplished so much yet challenges lie ahead.
In the last 6 years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack.
As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.
Right now, in the 2nd week of May 2006, we are facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history.
We have way too much gasoline. Gas is down to $0.19 a gallon and the oil companies are hurting.
I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.
I am therefore proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because - hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us.
On a positive note, we worked hard to save Welfare, fix Social Security and of course provide the free universal health care we all enjoy today.
But all this came at a high cost. As I speak, the gigantic national budget surplus is down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars.
And don't get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lockbox. We're not touching it.
Of course, we could give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis... again.
But right now we're already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can't even go over to Europe anymore... without getting hugged.
There are some of you that want to spend our money on some made-up war. To you I say: what part of "lockbox" don't you understand?
What if there's a hurricane or a tornado? Unlikely I know because of the Anti-Hurricane and Tornado Machine I was instrumental in helping to develop.
But... what if? What if the scientists are right and one of those giant glaciers hits Boston? That's why we have the lockbox!
As for immigration, solving that came at a heavy cost, and I personally regret the loss of California. However, the new Mexifornian economy is strong and el Presidente Schwarznegger is doing a great job.
There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and devisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney.
Baseball, our national passtime, still lies under the shadow of steroid accusations. But I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, "We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!"
In 2001 when I came into office, our national security was the most important issue. The threat of terrorism was real.
Who knew that six years later, Afghanistan would be the most popular Spring Break destination? Or that Six Flags Tehran is the fastest growing amusement park in the Middle East?
And the scariest thing we Americans have to fear is ... Live From New York, its Saturday Night!
**********************************************************
Last night I dreamed that Dubya was Baseball Commissioner and Condi was Football Commissioner and the Bush Twins were servants in Brittany Spears' household. The only good thing to come out of all this was that the Spears-Federline children were placed properly into their car seats.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
I have news for Condi Rice and everyone else in the Shrub administration
Remember when La Rice testified before the 9/11 commission and said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane," and "using planes as a missile?"
Well, not only did the August Presidentail Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" hint at this possibility, but even before that, in 1996, Kurt Russell and Halle Berry thought of it. Well, technically a couple of movie writers thought of it and it was acted by a cast of gajillions in the movie "Executive Decision." (BTW, the cast is awesome. Russell, Berry, Steven Seagal, John Leguizamo, Oliver Platt, a whole bunch more people and I'm only naming the good guys in this one.)
Here's the bare bones of the plot: Arab terrorists board an
American airliner (they do it outside the US, but you can't expect them
to think of everything five years ahead of the incident.) The terrorists have a large quantity of nerve gas, a US Senator and a bomb on board the plane. (The latter does not necessarily refer to the flick itself.) Although they give the appearance of negotiating for the return of the plane and its passengers, that's not their real plan. They plan to detonate the bomb over Washington DC in order to wipe out as much of the eastern seaboard as they can. There is obviously more to the plot, including a secret new airplane that has the capability of putting a crew of specially trained American commandos (and an engineer and an intelligence analyst for some reason) onto the plane. But that isn't my point.
My point is this. Do you mean to tell me that there's an action shoot-em-up anti-Arab-terrorist movie with a big cast including Steven Seagal out there that FIVE YEARS before 9/11 posited a
scenario almost identical to the one that took place and not a single
soul in a war-hawk administration had seen it and thought it sounded
possible? Or, at least don't you think that someone in the select group of war-hawks who were privy to that memo might have read it and thought, "Gee, this reminds me of a movie I saw a few years ago...I wonder if maybe they're really planning something like that?"
Now, I am neither a Kurt Russell fan nor am I a Russell detractor. I've seen several movies in which he's been beyond wonderful. But he's done a bit more than his share of bombs. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being "Stargate" and 1 being "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes") this movie is a 5 to a 6 depending on how you feel about air disaster movies. But I still insist that someone surely saw this movie before the August PDB and for not making the connection that person should be...well, in the Bush administration, I guess awarded a medal since they so boutifully reward stupidity and blind, sheep-like loyalty..
Dumb f*ucks!
Well, not only did the August Presidentail Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" hint at this possibility, but even before that, in 1996, Kurt Russell and Halle Berry thought of it. Well, technically a couple of movie writers thought of it and it was acted by a cast of gajillions in the movie "Executive Decision." (BTW, the cast is awesome. Russell, Berry, Steven Seagal, John Leguizamo, Oliver Platt, a whole bunch more people and I'm only naming the good guys in this one.)
Here's the bare bones of the plot: Arab terrorists board an
American airliner (they do it outside the US, but you can't expect them
to think of everything five years ahead of the incident.) The terrorists have a large quantity of nerve gas, a US Senator and a bomb on board the plane. (The latter does not necessarily refer to the flick itself.) Although they give the appearance of negotiating for the return of the plane and its passengers, that's not their real plan. They plan to detonate the bomb over Washington DC in order to wipe out as much of the eastern seaboard as they can. There is obviously more to the plot, including a secret new airplane that has the capability of putting a crew of specially trained American commandos (and an engineer and an intelligence analyst for some reason) onto the plane. But that isn't my point.
My point is this. Do you mean to tell me that there's an action shoot-em-up anti-Arab-terrorist movie with a big cast including Steven Seagal out there that FIVE YEARS before 9/11 posited a
scenario almost identical to the one that took place and not a single
soul in a war-hawk administration had seen it and thought it sounded
possible? Or, at least don't you think that someone in the select group of war-hawks who were privy to that memo might have read it and thought, "Gee, this reminds me of a movie I saw a few years ago...I wonder if maybe they're really planning something like that?"
Now, I am neither a Kurt Russell fan nor am I a Russell detractor. I've seen several movies in which he's been beyond wonderful. But he's done a bit more than his share of bombs. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being "Stargate" and 1 being "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes") this movie is a 5 to a 6 depending on how you feel about air disaster movies. But I still insist that someone surely saw this movie before the August PDB and for not making the connection that person should be...well, in the Bush administration, I guess awarded a medal since they so boutifully reward stupidity and blind, sheep-like loyalty..
Dumb f*ucks!
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Ai Yi Yi!
WTF is WRONG with Tom Hartman? If
it weren't for Heidi Tauber bringing him back on track every time he
goes wandering off into his seeming senile meanderings he'd be lost.
And yet he has a cult-like following of people who call him and
pronounce him "the greatest thing on the radio" and in one case "the
saviour of liberal talk radio." (And Al Franken hasn't taken him to task on that, and Ed Schultz continues to LIKE the dude! And Randi Rhodes---the GODDESS of radio according to Sam Seder---promotes him as one of her favorite talk show hosts.
I can't decide if he's got some kind of charisma I'm immune to, if I
still resent him for taking the slot that used to belong to (the now
cancelled for no good reason)
"Morning Sedition" on KPOJ in Portland, or if there really is something
seriously wrong with him and people are so starved for liberal talk
radio that they'll love anyone who can be made to sound left-wing and
angry at the same time.
He claims to be a scholar yet he can't get the pronunciation of words
related to his field(s) of expertise right. He mis-quotes Jefferson, or
attributes any quote he likes from the Revolutionary War era to
Jefferson. He mis-quotes FDR. He gets sidetracked by some of the
stupidest damn stuff, like if the address 12250 is pronounced Twelve
thousand two hundred and fifty,, twelve-two-fifty, or what. Or while
discussin the ozone layer he goes off into how lovely the view from the
deck of his houseboat is. After two years, he still has no clue what
goes on in Portland, except in terms of politics as fed to him by his
(inefficient, I suspect) researchers.
I'm over the loss of "Morning Sedition." I can listen to Maron at night
now. And Rachel Maddow is pretty darned interesting first thing in the
morning, anyway. But why can't people see that Hartman is a jackass
and needs to be replaced by someone who has a clue?
As mentioned, if it weren't for Heidi Tauber (who is a very
intelligent, articulate, and interesting lady) the show would be a
nightmare. I'm back to listening to books on tape to avoid having to
listen to his drivel in the morning. (I get sleepy listening to
"Morning Edition" on NPR and KBOO is so bad in the morning I can't even
fathom it.) Could someone please get Tauber a GOOD co-host? I'd listen
to her in a flash.
Okay, I'm done ranting and I'm off to work now.
cross-posted to my Live Journal site.
it weren't for Heidi Tauber bringing him back on track every time he
goes wandering off into his seeming senile meanderings he'd be lost.
And yet he has a cult-like following of people who call him and
pronounce him "the greatest thing on the radio" and in one case "the
saviour of liberal talk radio." (And Al Franken hasn't taken him to task on that, and Ed Schultz continues to LIKE the dude! And Randi Rhodes---the GODDESS of radio according to Sam Seder---promotes him as one of her favorite talk show hosts.
I can't decide if he's got some kind of charisma I'm immune to, if I
still resent him for taking the slot that used to belong to (the now
cancelled for no good reason)
"Morning Sedition" on KPOJ in Portland, or if there really is something
seriously wrong with him and people are so starved for liberal talk
radio that they'll love anyone who can be made to sound left-wing and
angry at the same time.
He claims to be a scholar yet he can't get the pronunciation of words
related to his field(s) of expertise right. He mis-quotes Jefferson, or
attributes any quote he likes from the Revolutionary War era to
Jefferson. He mis-quotes FDR. He gets sidetracked by some of the
stupidest damn stuff, like if the address 12250 is pronounced Twelve
thousand two hundred and fifty,, twelve-two-fifty, or what. Or while
discussin the ozone layer he goes off into how lovely the view from the
deck of his houseboat is. After two years, he still has no clue what
goes on in Portland, except in terms of politics as fed to him by his
(inefficient, I suspect) researchers.
I'm over the loss of "Morning Sedition." I can listen to Maron at night
now. And Rachel Maddow is pretty darned interesting first thing in the
morning, anyway. But why can't people see that Hartman is a jackass
and needs to be replaced by someone who has a clue?
As mentioned, if it weren't for Heidi Tauber (who is a very
intelligent, articulate, and interesting lady) the show would be a
nightmare. I'm back to listening to books on tape to avoid having to
listen to his drivel in the morning. (I get sleepy listening to
"Morning Edition" on NPR and KBOO is so bad in the morning I can't even
fathom it.) Could someone please get Tauber a GOOD co-host? I'd listen
to her in a flash.
Okay, I'm done ranting and I'm off to work now.
cross-posted to my Live Journal site.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Thank you, Stephen Colbert!
Will everyone within the sight of my html code PLEASE go to this website and thank Mr. Colbert for his entertaining, funny, and skewering act at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday last. For those who missed it (and you missed one HELLUVA show!) there are links at that site for you to see it for yourself.
Even Botox couldn't make the First Lady smile. This from the woman who told stories about the President's inability to tell a male horse from a cow.
Colbert doesn't seem disturbed by his reception. Here is what both he and Jon Stewart had to say about it.
Even Botox couldn't make the First Lady smile. This from the woman who told stories about the President's inability to tell a male horse from a cow.
Colbert doesn't seem disturbed by his reception. Here is what both he and Jon Stewart had to say about it.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Why I deleted comments from my previous entry
I don't really want my blog to turn into a discussion of the good and bad sides of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't want anything in my blog to turn into a discussion of the pros and cons of any religion. Because if it did, I'd have to come down hard on the followers of Jesus the Nazarene and that could just get ugly.
I have friends of many faiths. I even have friends who are atheist. I don't criticize their faiths and they don't criticize mine. My entry was related to issues of separation of church and state, not a criticism of my co-worker's faith. Feel free to criticize one another elsewhere. Not here.
I have friends of many faiths. I even have friends who are atheist. I don't criticize their faiths and they don't criticize mine. My entry was related to issues of separation of church and state, not a criticism of my co-worker's faith. Feel free to criticize one another elsewhere. Not here.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Some days I just can't take it
(I'm having a helluva time formatting this morning.)
One of my co-workers expressed disgust upon learning that the courts no longer require witnesses to swear their oaths on bibles. To my reply, that not everyone recognizes the same--or ANY--bible, she said in a dismissive tone, "But 86 percent of the population wants us to use the bible and the other 14 percent are the minority."
I tried to stay calm. I explained that the law is to protect that 14 percent. After all, I said, if the jury is composed entirely of members of that 86 percent and the only witness is a member of the 14 percent, and that witness refuses (as has ALWAYS been our right, although in some states that's been glossed over) to swear on the bible...do you think there's a chance an innocent defendant will be wrongly convicted?
"Why would anyone refuse to swear on the bible?" she asked. (Note that I am failing to capitalize the word bible because I consider it descriptive, not a title...) "Well, take me," I suggested. "I'm not Christian. Do you think I am somehow rendered honest because I swore an oath with my hand on the Christian bible?" "It's not going to hurt you to do it," she argued.
When one of my co-workers (a Jehovah's Witness, who is interestingly enough most often my ally in religious arguments) shook her head at me, I said, "I think we're just going to have to disagree on this," and I walked away (with the Jehovah's Witness who dislikes this other co-worker in the first place...)
And this particular co-worker is extremely liberal. Hates Bush. Hates Republicans. Hates the fact that we've sent American kids overseas to fight in defense of Big Business. Hell, she hates Wal-Mart. She had never heard of "The Rapture" before; she's THAT much not a fundamentalist. How can the rational among us hope to score any points with the conservatives in the Radical Right when the liberals in the moderate left retain this degree of blindness?
There, I've bitched and now I can feed the dog and leave for the office feeling refreshed. Not consoled. Just a little refreshed.
One of my co-workers expressed disgust upon learning that the courts no longer require witnesses to swear their oaths on bibles. To my reply, that not everyone recognizes the same--or ANY--bible, she said in a dismissive tone, "But 86 percent of the population wants us to use the bible and the other 14 percent are the minority."
I tried to stay calm. I explained that the law is to protect that 14 percent. After all, I said, if the jury is composed entirely of members of that 86 percent and the only witness is a member of the 14 percent, and that witness refuses (as has ALWAYS been our right, although in some states that's been glossed over) to swear on the bible...do you think there's a chance an innocent defendant will be wrongly convicted?
"Why would anyone refuse to swear on the bible?" she asked. (Note that I am failing to capitalize the word bible because I consider it descriptive, not a title...) "Well, take me," I suggested. "I'm not Christian. Do you think I am somehow rendered honest because I swore an oath with my hand on the Christian bible?" "It's not going to hurt you to do it," she argued.
When one of my co-workers (a Jehovah's Witness, who is interestingly enough most often my ally in religious arguments) shook her head at me, I said, "I think we're just going to have to disagree on this," and I walked away (with the Jehovah's Witness who dislikes this other co-worker in the first place...)
And this particular co-worker is extremely liberal. Hates Bush. Hates Republicans. Hates the fact that we've sent American kids overseas to fight in defense of Big Business. Hell, she hates Wal-Mart. She had never heard of "The Rapture" before; she's THAT much not a fundamentalist. How can the rational among us hope to score any points with the conservatives in the Radical Right when the liberals in the moderate left retain this degree of blindness?
There, I've bitched and now I can feed the dog and leave for the office feeling refreshed. Not consoled. Just a little refreshed.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Article on outsourcing in InfoWorld magazine this month.
Fascinating article. The magazine is not particularly political in orientation. It's just a comment on outsourcing.
I don't have permission to copy the article so please click on the link and read at the magazine's website.
Is extreme outsourcing and consolidation worth it?
I don't have permission to copy the article so please click on the link and read at the magazine's website.
Is extreme outsourcing and consolidation worth it?
By Ephraim Schwartz
Friday, April 14, 2006
Who’s not supporting the troops now?
More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation
By DAVID S. CLOUD and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, April 13 — The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster. Also Thursday, another retired Army general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray.
"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," General Swannack said in a telephone interview. "But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq."
Another former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Mr. Rumsfeld on Wednesday. Mr. Rumsfeld long ago became a magnet for political attacks. But the current uproar is significant because Mr. Rumsfeld's critics include generals who were involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the defense secretary's leadership.
There were indications on Thursday that the concern about Mr. Rumsfeld, rooted in years of pent-up anger about his handling of the war, was sweeping aside the reticence of retired generals who took part in the Iraq war to criticize an enterprise in which they participated. Current and former officers said they were unaware of any organized campaign to seek Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, but they described a blizzard of telephone calls and e-mail messages as retired generals critical of Mr. Rumsfeld weighed the pros and cons of joining in the condemnation.
Even as some of their retired colleagues spoke out publicly about Mr. Rumsfeld, other senior officers, retired and active alike, had to be promised anonymity before they would discuss their own views of why the criticism of him was mounting. Some were concerned about what would happen to them if they spoke openly, others about damage to the military that might result from amplifying the debate, and some about talking outside of channels, which in military circles is often viewed as inappropriate.
The White House has dismissed the criticism, saying it merely reflects tensions over the war in Iraq. There was no indication that Mr. Rumsfeld was considering resigning.
"The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters on Thursday.
Among the retired generals who have called for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, some have emphasized that they still believe it was right for the United States to invade Iraq. But a common thread in their complaints has been an assertion that Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides too often inserted themselves unnecessarily into military decisionmaking, often disregarding advice from military commanders.
The outcry also appears based in part on a coalescing of concern about the toll that the war is taking on American armed forces, with little sign, three years after the invasion, that United States troops will be able to withdraw in large numbers anytime soon.
Pentagon officials, while acknowledging that Mr. Rumsfeld's forceful style has sometimes ruffled his military subordinates, played down the idea that he was overriding the advice of his military commanders or ignoring their views.
His interaction with military commanders has "been frequent," said Lawrence Di Rita, a top aide to Mr. Rumsfeld.
"It's been intense," Mr. Di Rita said, "but always there's been ample opportunity for military judgment to be applied against the policies of the United States."
Some retired officers, however, said they believed the momentum was turning against Mr. Rumsfeld.
"Are the floodgates opening?" asked one retired Army general, who drew a connection between the complaints and the fact that President Bush's second term ends in less than three years. "The tide is changing, and folks are seeing the end of this administration."
No active duty officers have joined the call for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. In interviews, some currently serving general officers expressed discomfort with the campaign against Mr. Rumsfeld, which has been spearheaded by, among others, Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who headed the United States Central Command in the late 1990's before retiring from the Marine Corps. Some of the currently serving officers said they feared the debate risked politicizing the military and undercutting its professional ethos.
Some say privately they disagree with aspects of the Bush administration's handling of the war. But many currently serving officers, regardless of their views, say respect for civilian control of the military requires that they air differences of opinion in private and stay silent in public.
"I support my secretary of defense," Lt. General John Vines, who commands the Army's 18th Airborne Corps, said when questioned after a speech in Washington on Thursday about the calls for Mr. Rumsfeld to step down. "If I publicly disagree with my civilian leadership, I think I've got to resign. My advice should be private."
Some of the tensions between Mr. Rumsfeld and the uniformed military services date back to his arrival at the Pentagon in early 2001. Mr. Rumsfeld's assertion of greater civilian control over the military and his calls for a slimmer, faster force were viewed with mistrust by many senior officers, while his aggressive, sometimes abrasive style also earned him enmity.
Mr. Rumsfeld's critics often point to his treatment of Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, who told Congress a month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that occupying the country could require "several hundred thousand troops," rather than the smaller force that was later provided. General Shinseki's estimate was publicly dismissed by Pentagon officials.
"Rumsfeld has been contemptuous of the views of senior military officers since the day he walked in as secretary of defense. It's about time they got sick and tired," Thomas E. White, the former Army secretary, said in a telephone interview on Thursday. Mr. White was forced out of his job by Mr. Rumsfeld in April of 2003.
Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold of the Marine Corps, who retired in late 2002, has said he regarded the American invasion of Iraq unnecessary. He issued his call for replacing Mr. Rumsfeld in an essay in the current edition of Time magazine. General Newbold said he regretted not opposing the invasion of Iraq more vigorously, and called the invasion peripheral to the job of defeating Al Qaeda.
General Swannack, by contrast, continues to support the invasion but said that Mr. Rumsfeld had micromanaged the war in Iraq, rather than leaving it to senior commanders there, including Gen. George W. Casey Jr. of the Army, the top American officer in Iraq, and Gen. John P. Abizaid of the Army, the top officer in the Middle East. "My belief is Rumsfeld does not really understand the dynamic of counterinsurgency warfare," General Swannack said.
The string of retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's removal has touched off a vigorous debate within the ranks of both active-duty and retired generals and admirals.
Some officers who have worked closely with Mr. Rumsfeld reject the idea that he is primarily to blame for the inability of American forces to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. One active-duty, four-star Army officer said he had not heard among his peers widespread criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld, and said he thought the criticism from his retired colleagues was off base. "They are entitled to their views, but I believe them to be wrong. And it is unfortunate they have allowed themselves to become in some respects, politicized."
Gen. Jack Keane, who was Army vice chief of staff in 2003 before retiring, said in the planning of the Iraq invasion, senior officers as much as the Pentagon's civilian leadership underestimated the threat of a long-term insurgency.
"There's shared responsibility here. I don't think you can blame the civilian leadership alone," he said.
Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army general, called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation in March.
The criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld may spring from multiple motives. General Zinni, for example, is in the middle of a tour promoting a new book critical of the Bush administration.
General Riggs, who called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation in an interview on Thursday with National Public Radio, left the Pentagon in 2004 after clashing with civilian leaders and then being investigated for potential misuse of contractor personnel.
But there were also signs that the spate of retired generals calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's departure was not finished. Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, who is retired from the Marine Corps, said in an interview Thursday he had received a telephone call from another retired general who was weighing whether to publicly join the calls for Mr. Rumsfeld's dismissal.
"He was conflicted, and when I hung up I didn't know which way he was going to go," General Van Riper said.
Thom Shanker contributed reporting for this article.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
The Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld
Exerpted from Slate Magazine.
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
Glass Box
You know, it's the old glass box at the—
At the gas station,
Where you're using those little things
Trying to pick up the prize,
And you can't find it.
It's—
And it's all these arms are going down in there,
And so you keep dropping it
And picking it up again and moving it,
But—
Some of you are probably too young to remember those—
Those glass boxes,
But—
But they used to have them
At all the gas stations
When I was a kid.
—Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing
A Confession
Once in a while,
I'm standing here, doing something.
And I think,
"What in the world am I doing here?"
It's a big surprise.
—May 16, 2001, interview with the New York Times
Happenings
You're going to be told lots of things.
You get told things every day that don't happen.
It doesn't seem to bother people, they don't—
It's printed in the press.
The world thinks all these things happen.
They never happened.
Everyone's so eager to get the story
Before in fact the story's there
That the world is constantly being fed
Things that haven't happened.
All I can tell you is,
It hasn't happened.
It's going to happen.
—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing
The Digital Revolution
Oh my goodness gracious,
What you can buy off the Internet
In terms of overhead photography!
A trained ape can know an awful lot
Of what is going on in this world,
Just by punching on his mouse
For a relatively modest cost!
—June 9, 2001, following European trip
The Situation
Things will not be necessarily continuous.
The fact that they are something other than perfectly continuous
Ought not to be characterized as a pause.
There will be some things that people will see.
There will be some things that people won't see.
And life goes on.
—Oct. 12, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing
Clarity
I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.
And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.
—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing
Hart Seely writes for the Syracuse Post-Standard newspaper. He is co-author of 2007-Eleven and Other American Comedies.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
What lovely people we have guarding our security
Thursday, March 30, 2006
How can they say there's no racism?
Well, this certainly doesn't help how our "War on Terror" is perceived worldwide. How can we be convincing when claiming that racism doesn't enter into the equation when we get crap like this in the news?
Terrorism prosecutor is charged with lying
BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
March 30, 2006
Richard Convertino, whose 14-year career as a star federal prosecutor earned him commendations for winning high-profile cases, now faces federal prosecution himself, accused Wednesday of lying to a jury to win terrorism convictions in the first trial to result from the federal 9/11 probe.
A federal grand jury indicted Convertino, 45, and State Department security officer Harry Raymond Smith III, 49, who had been assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan, charging them with misleading a jury in the 2003 terrorism trial in Detroit.
Convertino, who resigned last May to enter private practice, flatly denied the accusations, reiterating his claims that he is being targeted for criticizing the Justice Department about its commitment to the war on terrorism. He is suing his former superiors.
"This indictment is purely vindictive. ... If they believe they can scare me off, they've picked the wrong guy to be their scapegoat," he said.
Smith's lawyer, Matthew Leitman of Troy, also denied the charges and noted his client's service to his country.
Both men are accused of lying about the existence of photographs that could have damaged the prosecution's case in the terror trial, which resulted in two convictions that were later set aside at the request of Convertino's bosses.
Had the photos been presented at trial, they could have undercut claims that a sketch found in the terror defendants' apartment was intended to be used for an attack on a Jordanian military hospital.
The indictment also says Convertino lied to a judge about a drug defendant's cooperation in this and other terrorism investigations so that Convertino could get a substantial reduction in the man's sentence.
Convertino and Smith are charged with conspiring to obstruct justice and make false declarations, obstruction of justice and making a materially false declaration before a court.
If convicted, Convertino -- who prosecuted Detroit mob cases and NBA star Chris Webber for lying to a grand jury about money he received as a college player -- could face 30 years in prison and a $1-million fine. Smith could face 20 years in prison and a $750,000 fine. No arraignments were set.
Photos in question
The case revolves around the convictions in June 2003 of two North African immigrants, Karim Koubriti, 27, and Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi, 40, for conspiring to provide support to terrorists.
A year later, the charges were dismissed at the request of the U.S. Attorney's Office, which said Convertino withheld key evidence and allowed witnesses, including Smith, to mislead the jury.
During the terrorism trial, the prosecution maintained that a sketch found in Koubriti's flat was a terrorist targeting diagram of a military hospital in Amman, Jordan. In support of that theory, Smith testified that the sketch was consistent with what he, Convertino and FBI case agent Michael Thomas found when they toured the site. Thomas was given immunity to testify before the grand jury.
When defense lawyers asked Smith whether he had taken any photos of the site, Smith said no. Wednesday's indictment, however, said Smith took photos of the site in March 2002, but they didn't turn out, so he asked a colleague to reshoot them. The indictment said the photos were turned over to Convertino, who failed to correct Smith's testimony or disclose the photos.
Although witnesses at the trial said a dead tree was depicted in the sketch, the photos showed no such landmark, records show. That could have raised doubts that the sketch was of the hospital.
Convertino also is accused of misleading U.S. District Judge Julian Cook in July 2003 about the extent of cooperation that drug suspect Marwan Farhat provided to the government. The indictment didn't name Cook and Farhat.
Farhat, who pleaded guilty to drug charges, was in line for a 9- to 11 1/4 -year sentence. Convertino persuaded a reluctant Cook to sentence Farhat to eight months, which was covered by the time he had served in jail, and seal the records.
This week, a defense lawyer charged in court papers that Convertino engineered other huge sentencing reductions on behalf of drug dealers who assisted the government, then had the proceedings sealed to hide what he had done. He has denied those accusations.
Deputy federal defender Richard Helfrick, who represents Koubriti, said his client -- who was later indicted in alleged insurance fraud -- was pleased to learn of the indictment and plans to be there when Convertino is arraigned. Koubriti is out on bond pending the fraud trial.
Meanwhile, Imad Hamad, regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the indictment is proof the system sometimes catches its mistakes.
"I don't think anything can make up for the injury that was caused to the innocent men who were caught in the middle of this prosecution," he said.
Contact DAVID ASHENFELTER at 313-223-4490.
Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
On Friday, Congressional Quarterly got funny
This was in Friday's mid-day update from Congressional Quarterly. I am used to them being blunt but not sarcastic. I confess, I put in a good bit of time snorting over this.
Let's see * maybe the motto at the Department of Homeland Security should be: "Do as I say, not as I do." CQ Homeland Security reports that the federal agency charged with guarding the nation's cyber infrastructure has again received a failing grade for monitoring its own computer systems. DHS received an "F" on the annual Federal Computer Security Report Card released yesterday by the House Government Reform Committee * the third consecutive year it has flunked. The report card is produced in conjunction with the Government Accountability Office and based on reports submitted by agencies on their compliance with various information security requirements in the Federal Information Security Management Act. DHS needn't feel too embarrassed, however. The government-wide grade was a "D+", as it was last year.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
I have no idea
why the subscribe icon turned out so weird looking. So if that doesn't work and you really want to join the fun, email me privately at peasantwitch AT hotmail DOT com.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
A more reliable source
According to a clip I heard on "The Al Franken Show," Bill O'Liely is claiming that Air America Radio is about to lose its affiliation with its New York flagship station, WLIB. I haven't been able to find the original source of the story but I did fine this, at Billboard's website. (I'm including full text because there was no other convenient way to do this.)
Air America On Defense For Second Time In Two Weeks
March 07, 2006
By Chuck Taylor
Air America found itself on the defense for the second time this week following reports in both the New York Post and New York Daily News today (March 7) implying that the liberal talk network was about to lose its New York flagship station, WLIB-AM.
The Post, in particular, seemed to offer a sensationalist slant to its reporting of the alleged loss of WLIB. Reporter John Mainelli wrote, “Air America is close to losing its New York flagship station, knocking Al Franken and his liberal colleagues off the air on the second anniversary. Losing its New York outlet would be a serious blow to the fledgling liberal radio network. Air America's options for a new home are not promising. All of the city's other strong-signal stations are spoken for, leaving only weak-signal ‘fringe’ stations that do not cover the entire city and suburbs.”
Danny Goldberg, CEO of Air America Radio, responded late Tuesday morning to “recent reports via the conservative media” in a staff memo in which he said, “Air America’s ratings in New York went up substantially in the fall 2005 book. Air America’s New York audience is large, growing and valuable. In every conceivable scenario, Air America will continue to be on in New York City.”
He went on to stress that Air America Radio is on track to be stronger still in the coming year and years: “Our audience is bigger, the total number of affiliates carrying our programming is greater, and the amount of revenue we are generating is increasing.
“It is vital, when analyzing chatter about Air America to consider the source,” Goldberg continued. “In almost all cases, the people who say bad things about our company’s business are conservative ideologues who have a particular interest in damaging Air America, for one reason and one reason only: the political opinions expressed by our on air talent. Bill O’Reilly alone has mentioned Air America on 37 separate occasions since our programming went on the air. Al Franken has offered to debate O’Reilly in any number of forums including on “The O’Reilly Factor” and O’Reilly has declined.”
Monday, March 06, 2006
This is so darned cute!
I may have to make some penguin sweaters. I can't find any pictures but it sounds adorable. I hope someone is still taking them for sale (I realize they aren't needed for the penguins anymore.) And I need an Opus doll to dress in one.
On a more serious note, this was posted in a friend's Live Journal. Read it and marvel at the time frame in which it was written ( August, 1995.) Summary/first paragraph:
"THIS MAY BE YOUR FIRST NOTICE OF THE COMING AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CIVIL WAR (ARCW). If so, you should date and preserve this warning. Then your distant descendants (maybe the "Daughters of the ARCW") can have something to be smug about--in the unlikely event that they, and this notice, survive the fires, and anybody can still read
After reading about the attempt by Missouri legislators trying to make Christianity the official state religion (Constitution be damned, apparently...) I'm getting more and more worried about where this country is going.
On a more serious note, this was posted in a friend's Live Journal. Read it and marvel at the time frame in which it was written ( August, 1995.) Summary/first paragraph:
"THIS MAY BE YOUR FIRST NOTICE OF THE COMING AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CIVIL WAR (ARCW). If so, you should date and preserve this warning. Then your distant descendants (maybe the "Daughters of the ARCW") can have something to be smug about--in the unlikely event that they, and this notice, survive the fires, and anybody can still read
After reading about the attempt by Missouri legislators trying to make Christianity the official state religion (Constitution be damned, apparently...) I'm getting more and more worried about where this country is going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)